The tetrad test: Looking back, looking forward

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 259-263

  O'Mahony, Michael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DISCRIMINATION TESTS;

TESTING;

EID: 84881367375     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/joss.12045     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Bi, J., Ennis, D. and O'Mahony, M. 1997. How to estimate and use the variance of d′ from difference tests. J. Sensory Studies 12, 87-104.
2. Bi, J., Lee, H.-S. and O'Mahony, M. 2010. d′ and variance of d′ for four-alternative forced choice (4-AFC). J. Sensory Studies 25, 740-750.
3. Bi, J. and O'Mahony, M. 2013. Variance of d′ for the tetrad test and comparisons with other forced-choice methods. J. Sensory Studies 28, 91-101.
4. Byer, A.J. and Abrams, D. 1953. A comparison of the triangular and two-sample taste-test methods. Food Technol. 7, 185-187.
5. Delwiche, J. and O'Mahony, M. 1996. Flavour discrimination - an extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad test. Food Qual. Prefer. 7, 1-5.
6. Dessirier, J.-M. and O'Mahony, M. 1999. Comparison of d' values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power. Food Qual. Prefer. 10, 51-58.
7. Ennis, D. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
8. Ennis, J. 2012. Guiding the switch from triangle testing to tetrad testing. J. Sensory Studies 27, 223-231.
9. Ennis, J., Ennis, D., Yip, D. and O'Mahony, M. 1998. Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 51, 205-215.
10. Ennis, J. and Jesionka, V. 2011. The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. J. Sensory Studies 26, 371-382.
11. Frijters, J.E.R. 1984. Sensory difference testing and measurement of sensory discriminability. In Sensory Analysis of Foods (J.R. Piggott, ed.) pp. 117-140, Elsevier Applied Sciences Publ., London.
12. Garcia, K., Ennis, J.M. and Prinyawiwatkul, W. 2012. A large-scale experimental comparison of the tetrad and triangle tests in children. J. Sensory Studies 27, 217-222.
13. Gridgeman, N.T. 1956. Group size in taste sorting trials. Food Res. 21, 534-539.
14. Lau, S., O'Mahony, M. and Rousseau, B. 2004. Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discrimination. Percept. Psychophys. 66, 464-474.
15. Lockhart, E.C. 1951. Binomial systems and organoleptic analysis. Food Technol. 5, 428-431.
16. Masuoka, S., Hatjopoulos, D. and O'Mahony, M. 1995. Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. J. Sensory Studies 10, 295-306.
17. O'Mahony, M. 1995. Sensory measurement in food science: Fitting methods to goals. J. Food Sci. 49, 72-82.
18. Pokorný, P., Marcín, A. and Davídek, J. 1981. Comparison of the efficiency of triangle and tetrad tests for discrimination sensory analysis of food. Die Nahrung 25, 561-564.
19. Renner, E. and Roemer, G. 1973. Der Tetraden-Test als aussageefähige sensoriche Method 1. Methodik und Anwendung. Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 151, 326-330.
20. Rousseau, B. and O'Mahony, M. 1997. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. J. Sensory Studies 12, 127-146.
21. Santosa, M. and O'Mahony, M. 2008. Sequential sensitivity analysis for same-different tests: Some further insights. J. Sensory Studies 23, 267-283.
22. Wood, E.C. 1949. Organoleptic tests in the food industry III. Some statistical considerations in organoleptic tests. J. Soc. Chem. Ind. 68, 128-131.
23. Yip, D. 1996. Triadic and tetradic taste discrimination testing: Thurstonian and sequential effects. MS Thesis, University of California, Davis, 110pp.