Sensory discrimination by consumers of multiple stimuli from a reference: Stimulus configuration in A-Not AR and constant-ref. duo-trio superior to triangle and unspecified tetrad?

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 47, Issue , 2016, Pages 10-22

  Jeong, Yu Na ^a   Kang, Bi A ^a   Jeong, Min Ju ^a   Song, Min Jeong ^a   Hautus, Michael J ^b   Lee, Hye Seong ^a  

^a Ewha Womans University   (South Korea)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

2 AFCR; A Not AR; Cognitive load; Constant reference duo trio; Consumer discrimination test; Reminder design; Triangle; Unspecified tetrad

Indexed keywords

EID: 84940767008     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2015.06.021     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Aust L.B., Gacula M.C., Beard S.A., Washam R.W. Degree of difference test method in sensory evaluation of heterogeneous product types. Journal of Food Science 1985, 50:511-513.
2. Bi J., Ennis D.M. The power of the "A"-"NOT A" method. Journal of Sensory Studies 2001, 16(4):343-359.
3. Bi J. Similarity tests using forced-choice methods in terms of Thurstonian discriminal distance, d'. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:151-157.
4. Bi J., O'Mahony M., Lee H.S. Nonparametric estimation of d' and its variance for the A-Not A with reminder. Journal of Sensory Studies 2013, 28:381-386.
5. Boutrolle I., Arranz D., Rogeaux M., Delarue Julien Comparing central location test and home use test results: Application of a new criterion. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16:704-713.
6. Choi Y.-J., Kim J.-Y., Christensen R.H.B., van Hout D., Lee H.-S. Superior performance of constant-saltier-reference DTF and DTFM to same-different tests by consumers for discriminating samples varying sodium contents. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 37:100-108.
7. 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/.
8. Christensen R.H.B., Cleaver G., Brockhoff P.B. Statistical and Thurstonian models for the A-Not A protocol with and without sureness. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22:542-549.
9. Delwiche J., O'Mahony M. Flavor discrimination: An extension of Thurstonian 'Paradoxes' to the tetrad method. Food Quality and Preference 1996, 7:1-5.
10. 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):1-8.
11. Ennis D.M. The power of sensory discrimination methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 1993, 8(4):353-370.
12. Ennis J.M., Ennis D.M. Confidence bounds for multiplicative comparisons. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods 2011, 40(17):3049-3054.
13. Ennis J.M., Jesionka V. The power of sensory discrimination methods revisited. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:371-382.
14. Ennis J.M. Guiding the switch from triangle testing to tetrad testing. Journal of Sensory Studies 2012, 27:223-231.
15. Ennis J.M., Christensen R. Precision of measurement in Tetrad testing. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:98-106.
16. Ennis J.M., Christensen R. A Thurstonian comparison of the tetrad and degree of difference tests. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 40:263-269.
17. Ennis J.M., Rousseau B., Ennis D.M. Sensory difference tests as measurement instruments: A review of recent advances. Journal of Sensory Studies 2014, 29:89-102.
18. 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.
19. Garcia K., Ennis J.M., Prinyawiwatkul W. Reconsidering the specified Tetrad test. Journal of Sensory Studies 2013, 28:445-449.
20. Green D.M., Swets J.A. Signal detection theory and psychophysics 1966, John Wiley & Sons.
21. 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.
22. Hautus M.J., Shepherd D., Peng M. Decision strategies for the two alternative forced-choice Reminder paradigm. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 2011, 73:729-737.
23. 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(3):222-229.
24. Hahn C., Wachter T., Nöbel S., Weis J., Eibel H., Hinrichs J. Graininess in fresh cheese as affected by post-processing: Influence of tempering and mechanical treatment. International Dairy Journal 2012, 26:73-77.
25. 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.
26. Jesionka V., Rousseau B., Ennis J. Transitioning from proportion of discriminators to a more meaningful measure of sensory difference. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 32:77-82.
27. 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.
28. Kim I.-A., Kim H.-L., Cho H.-Y., Lee H.-S. Optimal difference test sequence and power for discriminating soups of varying sodium content: DTFM version of dual-reference duo-trio with unspecified tetrad tests. Food Research International 2015, 10.1016/j.foodres.2015.06.019.
29. 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.
30. Kim M.-A., Dessirier J.M., van Hout D., Lee H.-S. Consumer context-specific sensory acceptance tests: Effects of a cognitive warm-up on affective product discrimination. Food Quality and Preference 2015, 41:163-171.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. Kim I.-A., Yoon J.-Y., Lee H.-S. Measurement of consumers' sensory discrimination and preference: Efficiency of preference-difference test utilizing the 3-point preference test precedes the same-different test. Food Science and Biochemistry 2015, 10.1007/s10068-015-0174-0.
34. Kuesten C.L. Sequential use of the triangle, 2-AC, 2-AFC, and same-different methods applied to a cost-reduction effort: Consumer learning acquired throughout testing and influence on preference judgements. Food Quality and Preference 2001, 12:447-455.
35. 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 & Psychophysics 2004, 66:464-474.
36. Lee Y.-M., Chae J.-E., Lee H.-S. Effects of order of tasting in sensory difference tests using apple juice sample: Development of a new model. Journal of Food Science 2009, 74:S268-S275.
37. Lee H.S., O'Mahony M. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Science and Biotechnology 2004, 13:841-847.
38. Lee H.-S., van Hout D., Hautus M.J. 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.
39. 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(2):369-383.
40. Lee H.-S., van Hout D., O'Mahony M. Sensory difference tests for margarine: A comparison of R-indices derived from ranking and A-Not A methods considering response bias and cognitive strategies. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18:675-680.
41. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. Detection theory: A user's guide 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. 2nd ed.
42. McClure C., Lawless H.T. Comparison of the triangle and a self-defined two alternative forced choice test. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21:547-552.
43. Marascuilo L.A. Extensions of the significance test for one-parameter signal detection hypotheses. Psychometrika 1970, 35(2):237-243.
44. 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(3):295-306.
45. Michon C., McDonnell E. Validation of a degree of difference (DOD) cut-off point using cross-cultural insight for quality purposes. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19:727-733.
46. O'Mahony M. Who told you the triangle test was simple?. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6(4):227-238.
47. O'Mahony M. The Tetrad test: Looking back, looking forward. Journal of Sensory Studies 2013, 28:259-263.
48. 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(4):1055-1058.
49. 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.
50. Olivas R., Lopez-Malo A., Angulo O., O'Mahony M. The same-different methods: Positive effects of reduced memory load versus negative effects of uncontrolled τ-criterion variation, using forced-choice methods as a comparison. Journal of Sensory Studies 2014, 29:211-218.
51. R: A language and environment for statistical computing 2011, R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, [ISBN: 3-900051-07-0, ].
52. Rousseau B., O'Mahony M. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. Journal of Sensory Studies 1997, 12(2):127-146.
53. 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(3):173-184.
54. 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(1):39-45.
55. Schlich P. Risk tables for discrimination tests. Food Quality and Preference 1993, 4(3):141-151.
56. Stocks M.A., van Hout D., Hautus M.J. Cognitive decision strategies adopted in reminder tasks by trained judges when discriminating aqueous solutions differing in the concentration of citric acid. Journal of Sensory Studies 2013, 28:217-229.
57. Stocks M.A., van Hout D., Hautus M.J. Cognitive decision strategies adopted by trained judges in reminder difference tests when tasting yogurt, mayonnaise, and ice tea. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 34:14-23.
58. Stocks, M. A. (2014). Cognitive decision strategies adopted by trained judges and consumers in reminder tasks (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Auckland.
59. Thurstone L.L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review 1927, 34:273-286.
60. Thurstone L.L. Psychophysical analysis. American Journal of Psychology 1927, 38:368-389.
61. 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 tests 2-AFCR, A-NOT A and 2-AFC. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 26:311-321.
62. Xia Y., Zhang J., Zhang X., Ishii R., Zhong F., O'Mahony M. Tetrads, triads and pairs: Experiments in self-specification. Food Quality and Preference 2014, 40:97-105.