Triangle and tetrad protocols: Small sensory differences, resampling and consumer relevance

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 49-55

  Ishii, Rie ^a   O'Mahony, Michael ^a   Rousseau, Benoît ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b Institute for Perception   (United States)

Author keywords

Discrimination testing; Power; Resampling; Tetrad; Triangle

Indexed keywords

EID: 84882980063     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.07.007     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Bi J. Similarity testing in sensory and consumer research. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:139-149.
2. Bi J., Ennis D.M., O'Mahony M. How to estimate and use the variance of d' from difference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1997, 12:87-104.
3. Braun V., Rogeaux M., Schneid N., O'Mahony M., Rousseau B. Corroborating the 2-AFC and 2-AC Thurstonian models using both a model system and sparkling water. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15:501-507.
4. Brockhoff P.B., Schlich P. Handling replications in discrimination tests. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 9:303-312.
5. Caroselli, A. (2012). Investigation of the effect of allowed and forced within trial retasting on judge performance in the 2-AFC. M.S. Thesis, University of California, Davis.
6. Christensen R.H.B., Lee H.-S., Brockhoff P.B. Estimation of the Thurstonian model for the 2-AC protocol. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:119-128.
7. Delwiche J., O'Mahony M. Flavour discrimination - An extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad method. Food Quality and Preference 1996, 7:1-5.
8. Dessirier J.-M., O'Mahony M. Comparison of d' values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power. Food Quality and Preference 1998, 10:1-8.
9. Ennis D.M. The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 1993, 8:353-370.
10. Ennis J.M. Guiding the switch from triangle testing to tetrad testing. Journal of Sensory Studies 2012, 27:223-231.
11. Ennis D.M., Bi J. The beta-binomial model: Accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated difference and preference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13:389-412.
12. Ennis J.M., Ennis D.M. Equivalence hypothesis testing. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:253-256.
13. Ennis J.M., Ennis D.M. Confidence bounds for multiplicative comparisons. Communications in statistics - theory and methods 2011, 40:3049-3054.
14. Ennis D.M., Ennis J.M. Accounting for no difference/preference responses or ties in choice experiments. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 23(1):13-17.
15. Ennis J.M., Ennis D.M. A comparison of three commonly used methods for treating no preference votes. Journal of Sensory Studies 2012, 27(2):123-129.
16. Ennis J.M., Ennis D.M., Yip D., O'Mahony M. Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 1998, 51:205-215.
17. Ennis J.M., Jesionka V. The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:371-382.
18. Ennis D.M., Mullen K., Frijters J.E. Variants of the method of triads: Unidimensional Thurstonian models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 1988, 41:25-36.
19. Frijters J.E.R. The paradox of discriminatory non-discriminators resolved. Chemical Senses and Flavor 1979, 4:355-358.
20. Garcia K., Ennis J.M., Prinyawiwatkul W. A large-scale experimental comparison of the tetrad and triangle tests in children. Journal of Sensory Studies 2012, 27:217-222.
21. Geelhoed E.N., MacRae A.W., Ennis D.M. Preference gives more consistent judgments than oddity only if the task can be modeled as forced choice. Perception and Psychophysics 1994, 55:473-477.
22. Green D.M., Swets J.A. Signal detection theory and psychophysics 1966, John Wiley and Sons, New York.
23. Juslin P., Olsson H. Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: a sampling model of confidence in sensory discrimination. Psychological Review 1997, 104:344-366.
24. Kim H.-J., Jeon S.Y., Kim K.-O., O'Mahony M. Thurstonian models and variance I: Experimental confirmation of cognitive strategies for difference tests and effects of perceptual variance. Journal of Sensory Studies 2006, 21:465-484.
25. Kim M.A., Lee H.S. Investigation of operationally more powerful duo-trio test protocols: Effects of different reference schemes. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 25:183-191.
26. Kim M.A., Lee Y.M., Lee H.S. Comparison of d' estimates produced by three versions of a duo-trio test for discriminating tomato juices with varying salt concentrations: The effects of the number and position of the reference stimulus. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:504-511.
27. Lau S., O'Mahony M., Rousseau B. Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discrimination. Perception and Psychophysics 2004, 66:464-474.
28. Lee H.-S., Kim K.O. Difference test sensitivity: Comparison of three versions of the duo-trio method requiring different memory schemes and taste sequences. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:97-102.
29. Lee H.-S., van Hout D., Hautus M. Comparison of performance in the A-Not A, 2-AFC, and same-different tests for the flavor discrimination of margarines: the effect of cognitive decision strategies. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:920-928.
30. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory: A user's guide 2005, Lawrence Elbaum Associates, Publishers. 2nd ed.
31. MacRae A.W., Geelhoed E.N. Preference can be more powerful than detection of oddity as a test of discriminability. Perception and Psychophysics 1992, 51:179-181.
32. Masuoka S., Hatjopoulos D., O'Mahony M. Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 1995, 10:295-306.
33. Rousseau B. Simultaneous estimations of multiple product similarities using a new discrimination protocol. Journal of Sensory Studies 2007, 22:533-549.
34. Rousseau B., Meyer A., O'Mahony M. Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: Comparison with triangle and duo-trio methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13:149-173.
35. Rousseau B., O'Mahony M. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. Journal of Sensory Studies 1997, 12:127-146.
36. Rousseau B., O'Mahony M. Investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dual-pair, same-different and triangle paradigms. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11:457-464.
37. Rousseau B., Rogeaux M., O'Mahony M. Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and τ criteria. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:173-184.
38. Rousseau B., Stroh S., O'Mahony M. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13:39-45.
39. Schlich P. Risk tables for discrimination tests. Food Quality and Preference 1993, 4:141-151.
40. Stillman J.A., Irwin R.J. Advantages of the same-different method over the triangular method for the measurement of taste discrimination. Journal of Sensory Studies 1995, 10:261-272.
41. Torgerson W.S. Theory and methods of scaling 1958, Wiley, New York, NY.
42. van Hout D., Hautus M.J., Lee H. Investigation of test performance over repeated sessions using signal detection theory: Comparison of three nonattribute-specified difference tests 2-AFCR, A-NOT A and 2-AFC. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:311-321.