Higher performance of constant-reference duo-trio test incorporating affective reference framing in comparison with triangle test

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 32, Issue , 2014, Pages 113-125

  Kim, Min A ^a   Chae, Ji Eun ^a,b   van Hout, Danielle ^c,d   Lee, Hye Seong ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^b CJ Corporation   (South Korea)

^c UNILEVER RESEARCH VLAARDINGEN   (Netherlands)

^d Erasmus University Rotterdam   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Affective consumer discrimination test; Balanced reference triangle test; Constant reference duo trio test; Operational power; Reference framing; Sequence effects

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886304540     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.08.013     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. ASTM E1885-04 Standard test method for sensory analysis - Triangle test 2004, ASTM International, West Conshohocken (PA).
2. Bi J. Sensory discrimination tests and measurements: statistical principles, procedures, and tables 2006, Blackwell Pub, Ames, Iowa, (Chapter 10). 1st ed.
3. Bi J., Lee H.-S., O'Mahony M. d' and variance of d' for four-alternative forced choice (4-AFC). Journal of Sensory Studies 2010, 25:740-750.
4. Chae J.-E., Lee Y.-M., Lee H.-S. Affective same-different discrimination tests for assessing consumer discriminability between milks with subtle differences. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:427-438.
5. Choi, Y.-J., Kim, J.-Y., Christensen, R. H. B., van Hout, D., & Lee, H.-S. (2013). Consumer discrimination tests: Superior performance of constant-saltier-reference DTF and DTFM to same-different tests for discriminating products varying sodium contents.
6. Christensen, R. H. B., & Brockhoff, P. B. (2011). sensR: An R-package for sensory discrimination. R-package version 1.2-13. http://www.cran.r-project.org/package=sensR/.
7. Ennis D.M. The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 1993, 8:353-370.
8. 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.
9. Ennis J.M., Jesionka V. The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:371-382.
10. Hautus M.J., Shepherd D., Peng M. Decision strategies for the A-Not A, 2AFC and 2AFC-reminder tasks: empirical tests. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:433-442.
11. Hautus M.J., van Hout D., Lee H.-S. Variants of A-Not A and 2AFC tests: Signal detection theory models. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20:222-229.
12. ISO Standard 10399: Sensory analysis - Methodology - Duo-trio test 2004, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
13. ISO Standard 4120: Sensory analysis - Methodology - Triangle test 2004, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
14. Kaplan H.L., Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Tables of d' for variable-standard discrimination paradigms. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation 1978, 10:796-813.
15. Kim, M. -A, & Lee, H. -S. (2010). Maximum likelihood estimation of preferred segments derived from duplicated preference tests, combined with the duo-trio discrimination methods. In Proceedings of the 77th annual meeting of Korean Society of Food Science and Technology (p. 196), Incheon, Korea.
16. Kim M.-A, Chae J.-E., van Hout D., Lee H.-S. Discriminations of the A-Not A difference test improved when "A" was familiarized using a brand image. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 23:3-12.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. Lawless H.T., Heymann H. Sensory evaluation of food: Principles and practices 2010, Springer, New York (NY), (pp. 83-84; 101-123). 2nd ed.
20. Lee, H. -S. (2010). Measuring food or consumers? Latest ideas and methodological issues in difference tests. In Presentation at the 10th Sensometrics conference (Plenary 2), Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Retrieved from: http://www.sensometrics2010.nl/resultaat/002-000-Hye-Seong%20Lee.pdf.
21. Lee Y.-M., Chae J.-E., Lee H.-S. Effects of order of tasting in sensory difference tests using apple juice stimuli: Development of a new model. Journal of Food Science 2009, 74:S268-S275.
22. Lee H.-S., O'Mahony M. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:369-383.
23. Liggett R.E., Delwiche J.F. The beta-binomial model: Variability in overdispersion across methods and over time. Journal of Sensory Studies 2005, 20:48-61.
24. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory: A user's guide 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey. 2nd ed.
25. Mantel N. Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom; Extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association 1963, 58:690-700.
26. Marascuilo L.A. Extensions of the significance test for one-parameter signal detection hypotheses. Psychometrika 1970, 35:237-243.
27. 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.
28. Meilgaard M., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory evaluation techniques 2007, CRC Press, New York. 4th ed.
29. O'Mahony M., Masuoka S., Ishii R. A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. Journal of Sensory Studies 1994, 9:247-272.
30. O'Mahony M., Rousseau B. Discrimination testing: a few ideas, old and new. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 14:157-164.
31. Prescott J. Flavour as a psychological construct: Implications for perceiving and measuring the sensory qualities of foods. Food Quality and Preference 1999, 10:349-356.
32. Prescott J., Johnstone V., Francis J. Odor-taste interactions: Effects of attentional strategies during exposure. Chemical Senses 2004, 29:331-340.
33. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2011, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, ISBN: 3-900051-07-0, http://www.R-project.org/.
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. 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.
36. 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.
37. Sauvageot F., Herbreteau V., Berger M., Dacremont C. A comparison between nine laboratories performing triangle tests. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24:1-7.
38. van Hout D., Hautus M.J., Lee H.-S. Investigation of test performance over repeated sessions using signal detection theory: Comparison of three non-attribute specified difference tests 2-AFCR, A-Not A and 2-AFC. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:311-321.