Superior performance of constant-saltier-reference DTF and DTFM to same-different tests by consumers for discriminating products varying sodium contents

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 37, Issue , 2014, Pages 100-108

  Choi, Yoon Jung ^a   Kim, Jin Young ^a   Christensen, Rune Haubo Bojesen ^b   van Hout, Danielle ^c,d   Lee, Hye Seong ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^b TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

^c UNILEVER RESEARCH VLAARDINGEN   (Netherlands)

^d Erasmus University Rotterdam   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Constant reference duo trio; Consumer sensory discriminations; DTF; DTFM; Sequence effects; Sodium reduction

Indexed keywords

EID: 84901399677     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.04.018     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. ASTM E1885-04 Standard test method for sensory analysis - Triangle test 2004, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
2. Bartoshuk L.M. Water taste in man. Peception and Psychophysics 1968, 3:69-72.
3. Bartoshuk L.M. NaCl thresholds in man: Thresholds for water taste or NaCl taste?. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 1974, 87:310-325.
4. Bartoshuk L.M. The psychophysics of taste. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1978, 31:1068-1077.
5. Bartoshuk L.M., McBurney D.H., Pfaffmann C. Taste of sodium chloride solutions after adaptation to sodium chloride: Implications for the water taste. Science 1964, 143:967-968.
6. Bi J. Sensory discrimination tests and measurements: Statistical principles, procedures, and tables 2006, Blackwell Publishing, Ames, Iowa, (pp. 4, 41). 1st ed.
7. 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.
8. Cho, Kim H.-L., Lee H.-S. Effects of pre-exposure of stimuli on the cognitive decision strategy used in a modified duo-trio test. Proceedings of the 80th annual meeting of Korean society of food science and technology, Cheonan, Korea 2013, 39.
9. Christensen R.H.B., Brockhoff P.B. sensR: An R-package for thurstonian modeling of discrete sensory data. R-package version 1.2.10 2011, http://www.cran.rproject.org/package=sensR/.
10. David H., Trivedi M. Pair, triangle and duo-trio tests (Technical Report 55) 1962, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Department of Statistics, Blacksburg, VA.
11. Development Core Team R. R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2011, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, http://www.R-project.org/.
12. Ennis J.M. Guiding the switch from triangle testing to tetrad testing. Journal of Sensory Studies 2012, 27:223-231.
13. Ennis D.M., Bi J. The beta-binomial model: Accounting for intertribal variation in replicated difference and preference tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13:389-412.
14. Ennis J.M., Christensen R. Precision of measurement in tetrad testing. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:98-106.
15. Ennis J.M., Jesionka V. The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:371-382.
16. 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.
17. Garcia K., Ennis J.M., Prinyawiwatkul W. Reconsidering the specified tetrad test. Journal of Sensory Studies 2013, 28:445-449.
18. 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.
19. He F.J., MacGregor G.A. How far should salt intake be reduced?. Hypertension 2003, 42:1093-1099.
20. Ishii R., O'Mahony M., Rousseau B. Triangle and tetrad protocols: Small sensory differences, resampling and consumer relevance. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 31:49-55.
21. ISO Standard 10399: Sensory analysis - Methodology - Duo-trio test 2004, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
22. ISO Standard 10399: Sensory analysis - Methodology - Triangle test 2004, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.
23. Keast R.S.J., Breslin P.A.S. An overview of binary taste-taste interactions. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 14:111-124.
24. Kim M.-A., Chae J.-E., van Hout D., Lee H.-S. Higher performance of constant-reference duo-trio test incorporating affective reference framing in comparison with triangle test. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:113-125.
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. Lee Y.-M., Chae J.-E., Lee H.-S. Effect of order of tasting in sensory difference tests using apple juice stimuli: Development of a new model. Journal of Food Science 2009, 74:S268-275.
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 Y.-M., Lee H.-S. Investigation of test performance over repeated sessions using signal detection theory: Confirmation of differences in cognitive strategies used for identification methods (A-Not A, m-AFC) and DTFM. Proceedings of the 79th annual meeting of Korean society of food science and technology, Daejeon, Korea 2012, 20.
30. Lee H.-S., O'Mahony M. Difference test sensitivity: Cognitive contrast effects. Journal of Sensory Studies 2007, 22:17-33.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Lee H.-S., van Hout D., Hautus M., O'Mahony M. Can the same-different test use a β-criterion as well as a τ-criterion?. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:605-613.
34. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory: A user's guide 1991, Cambridge University Press, New York.
35. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory: A user's guide 2005, Cambridge University Press, UK. 2nd ed.
36. Marascuilo L.A. Extensions of significance test for one-parameter signal detection hypotheses. Psychometrika 1970, 35:237-243.
37. Masuoka S., Hatjopoulos D., O'Mahony M. Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis models for triad and tetrad tests. Journal of Sensory Studies 1995, 10:295-306.
38. McBurny D.H., Pfaffmann C. Gustatory adaptation to saliva and sodium chloride. Journal of Experimental Psychology 1963, 65:523-529.
39. Meilgaard M., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. The Spectrum TM descriptive analysis method. Sensory evaluation techniques 2006, CRC Press. 4th ed.
40. Mickleborough T.D., Fogarty A. Dietary sodium intake and asthma: An epidemiological and clinical review. International Journal of Clinical Practice 2006, 60:1616-1624.
41. O'Mahony M. Salt taste adaptation: The psychophysical effects of adapting solutions and residual stimuli from prior tastings on the taste of sodium chloride. Perception 1979, 8:441-476.
42. O'Mahony M. Sensory adaptation. Journal of Sensory Studies 1986, 1:237-258.
43. O'Mahony M., Goldstein L. Tasting successive salt and water stimuli: The roles of adaptation, variability in physical signal strength, learning, supra- and sub adapting signal detectability. Chemical Senses 1987, 12:425-436.
44. O'Mahony M., Odbert N. A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures: Sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. Journal of Food Science 1985, 50:1055-1058.
45. O'Mahony M., Rousseau B. Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 14:157-164.
46. Peryam D.R., Swartz V.W. Measurement of sensory differences. Food Technology 1950, 4:390-395.
47. Rousseau B., Ennis J.M. Importance of correct instructions in the tetrad test. Journal of Sensory Studies 2013, 28:264-269.
48. 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.
49. 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.
50. Stocks M.A., van Hout D., Hautus M.J. Decision strategies adopted by naïve judges in discrimination tests. Food Quality and Preference 2014, (submitted for publication).
51. Tedja S., Nonaka R., Ennis D.M., O'Mahony M. Triadic discrimination testing: Refinement of Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis approaches. Chemical Senses 1994, 19:279-301.
52. Thieme U., O'Mahony M. Modifications to sensory difference test protocols: The warmed up paired comparison, the single standard duo-trio and the A-Not A test modified for response bias. Journal of Sensory Studies 1990, 5:159-176.
53. Van Hout D., Hautus M.J., Lee H.-S. Investigation of test performance over repeated sessions using signal detection theory: comparison of three nonattribute-specified difference test 2-AFCR, A-NOT A and 2-AFC. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:311-321.
54. Vié A., O'Mahony M. Triangular difference testing: Refinements to sequential sensitivity analysis for predictions for individual triads. Journal of Sensory Studies 1989, 4:87-103.
55. World Health Organization (WHO) Reducing salt intake in populations. Report of a WHO forum and technical meeting 2007, WHO Document Production Services, Geneva.