Variants of A Not-A and 2AFC tests: Signal Detection Theory models

Abstract Signal Detection Theory provides an approach to modelling difference test procedures that allows an estimate of the sensory difference between products to be obtained independently of the response bias and decision strategy used by the judge, and of the test procedure used to estimate that difference. The estimate of sensory difference obtained, d ′, is therefore much closer to a ‘true’ estimate of sensory difference than many other measures employed by sensory scientists. The methods used to generate models based on Signal Detection Theory are standard, and these methods are applied to the development of models for two test procedures (A Not-A and 2AFC) and their reminder equivalents (A Not-AR and 2AFCR). 2AFCR is procedurally identical to the duo-trio procedure with a constant reference; however, it is shown that there is more than one decision strategy available to the judge in this task.

[1]  Hye-Seong Lee,et al.  Sensory difference tests for margarine: A comparison of R-Indices derived from ranking and A-Not A methods considering response bias and cognitive strategies , 2007 .

[2]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Discrimination testing: a few ideas, old and new , 2003 .

[3]  Michael J Hautus,et al.  Estimating sensitivity and bias in a yes/no task. , 2006, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[4]  Michael J. Hautus,et al.  Can the same-different test use a β-criterion as well as a τ-criterion? , 2007 .

[5]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  UNDERSTANDING DISCRIMINATION TESTS: A USER-FRIENDLY TREATMENT OF RESPONSE BIAS, RATING AND RANKING R-INDEX TESTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SIGNAL DETECTION , 1992 .

[6]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing , 2007 .

[7]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  A THEORETICAL NOTE ON DIFFERENCE TESTS: MODELS, PARADOXES AND COGNITIVE STRATEGIES , 1994 .

[8]  R. J. Irwin,et al.  Relativity of Judgements about Sound Amplitude and the Asymmetry of the Same-Different ROC , 1994 .

[9]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Mustard discrimination by same–different and triangle tests: aspects of irritation, memory and τ criteria , 1999 .

[10]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  BEER BITTERNESS DETECTION: TESTING THURSTONIAN AND SEQUENTIAL SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS MODELS FOR TRIAD AND TETRAD METHODS , 1995 .

[11]  J. Stillman.  Response selection, sensitivity, and taste-test performance , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Corroborating the 2-AFC and 2-AC Thurstonian models using both a model system and sparkling water , 2004 .

[13]  M. Hautus,et al.  The dispersions of estimates of sensitivity obtained from four psychophysical procedures: Implications for experimental design , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  Robert D. Sorkin,et al.  Extension of the Theory of Signal Detectability to Matching Procedures in Psychoacoustics , 1962 .

[15]  R. J. Irwin,et al.  ADVANTAGES OF THE SAME‐DIFFERENT METHOD OVER THE TRIANGULAR METHOD FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF TASTE DISCRIMINATION , 1995 .

[16]  J A Swets,et al.  Better decisions through science. , 2000, Scientific American.

[17]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Changes in secreted salivary sodium are sufficient to alter salt taste sensitivity: Use of signal detection measures with continuous monitoring of the oral environment , 1996, Physiology & Behavior.

[18]  Michael J. Hautus,et al.  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 , 2007 .

[19]  Hye-Seong Lee,et al.  Sensory Difference Testing , 2004 .

[20]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Flavour discrimination: An extension of thurstonian ‘Paradoxes’ to the tetrad method , 1996 .

[21]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: effects of memory and response bias , 2002 .

[22]  Michael J. Hautus,et al.  TWO MODELS FOR ESTIMATING THE DISCRIMINABILITY OF FOODS AND BEVERAGES , 1995 .

[23]  H. S. Lee.  Sensory Difference Testing: Thurstonian Models , 2004 .

[24]  D. Ennis,et al.  Triadic discrimination testing: refinement of Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis approaches. , 1994, Chemical senses.

[25]  B. Rousseau.  The β-strategy : An alternative and powerful cognitive strategy when performing sensory discrimination tests , 2001 .

[26]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  SENSORY DIFFERENCE TESTS: THURSTONIAN AND SSA PREDICTIONS FOR VANILLA FLAVORED YOGURTS , 1997 .

[27]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dual-pair, same-different and triangle paradigms , 2000 .

[28]  S. Ura.  Pair,triangle and duo-trio test. , 1960 .

[29]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

[30]  H. Lawless,et al.  SENSITIVITY OF THE ABX DISCRIMINATION TEST , 1998 .

[31]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discrimination , 2004, Perception & Psychophysics.

[32]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices , 1998 .

[33]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Comparison of d′ values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power , 1998 .

[34]  Daniel M. Ennis,et al.  Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation , 1990 .

[35]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  Difference test sensitivity: Cognitive contrast effects , 2007 .

[36]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  INVESTIGATION OF THE DUAL‐PAIR METHOD AS A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE TRIANGLE AND SAME‐DIFFERENT TESTS , 2001 .

[37]  G. Gescheider.  Psychophysics: The Fundamentals , 1997 .

[38]  M. O'Mahony,et al.  POWER AND SENSITIVITY OF THE SAME‐DIFFERENT TEST: COMPARISON WITH TRIANGLE AND DUO‐TRIO METHODS , 1998 .

[39]  Jeff Miller.  The sampling distribution ofd′ , 1996 .

[40]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Who told you the triangle test was simple , 1995 .

[41]  Daniel M. Ennis,et al.  THE POWER OF SENSORY DISCRIMINATION METHODS , 1993 .