Reconsidering the Specified Tetrad Test

Additional noise from additional stimuli has been shown to result in a loss of operational power in sensory difference tests. Because the Specified Tetrad test requires the evaluation of four stimuli and has only a slight theoretical power advantage over the two‐alternative forced choice (2‐AFC), En...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of sensory studies Vol. 28; no. 6; pp. 445 - 449
Main Authors Garcia, Karen, Ennis, John M., Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Cincinnati Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.12.2013
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Abstract Additional noise from additional stimuli has been shown to result in a loss of operational power in sensory difference tests. Because the Specified Tetrad test requires the evaluation of four stimuli and has only a slight theoretical power advantage over the two‐alternative forced choice (2‐AFC), Ennis and Jesionka have argued that the Specified Tetrad test should not be used. But this theoretical assertion had not been confirmed experimentally. In this article, we refute this argument using results from a large‐scale comparison of the 2‐AFC with the Specified Tetrad test. Using Thurstonian analysis, we quantified the sensory effect size as measured by both tests and found that the Specified Tetrad test is significantly more sensitive than the 2‐AFC in this setting. In fact, if the sample values from our experiment could be taken as population values, the results of this experiment predict that the Specified Tetrad test is operationally more powerful than a double‐replicated 2‐AFC. While further investigation of the Specified Tetrad test is needed before such a strong statement can be confirmed, these results indicate that the Specified Tetrad test is worthy of such investigation. Practical Applications Among the many tools in the sensory scientist's tool box are the specified difference testing methods. These methods can be used when the attribute that defines the difference between the samples is known. Historically, the 2‐AFC has been considered the operationally most powerful method of specified testing, but the 2‐AFC has never been compared with the Specified Tetrad test. In this article, we provide such a comparison, and show that the Specified Tetrad test deserves attention as a specified testing method.
AbstractList Additional noise from additional stimuli has been shown to result in a loss of operational power in sensory difference tests. Because the Specified Tetrad test requires the evaluation of four stimuli and has only a slight theoretical power advantage over the two‐alternative forced choice (2‐AFC), Ennis and Jesionka have argued that the Specified Tetrad test should not be used. But this theoretical assertion had not been confirmed experimentally. In this article, we refute this argument using results from a large‐scale comparison of the 2‐AFC with the Specified Tetrad test. Using Thurstonian analysis, we quantified the sensory effect size as measured by both tests and found that the Specified Tetrad test is significantly more sensitive than the 2‐AFC in this setting. In fact, if the sample values from our experiment could be taken as population values, the results of this experiment predict that the Specified Tetrad test is operationally more powerful than a double‐replicated 2‐AFC. While further investigation of the Specified Tetrad test is needed before such a strong statement can be confirmed, these results indicate that the Specified Tetrad test is worthy of such investigation. Practical Applications Among the many tools in the sensory scientist's tool box are the specified difference testing methods. These methods can be used when the attribute that defines the difference between the samples is known. Historically, the 2‐AFC has been considered the operationally most powerful method of specified testing, but the 2‐AFC has never been compared with the Specified Tetrad test. In this article, we provide such a comparison, and show that the Specified Tetrad test deserves attention as a specified testing method.
Additional noise from additional stimuli has been shown to result in a loss of operational power in sensory difference tests. Because the Specified Tetrad test requires the evaluation of four stimuli and has only a slight theoretical power advantage over the two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC), Ennis and Jesionka have argued that the Specified Tetrad test should not be used. But this theoretical assertion had not been confirmed experimentally. In this article, we refute this argument using results from a large-scale comparison of the 2-AFC with the Specified Tetrad test. Using Thurstonian analysis, we quantified the sensory effect size as measured by both tests and found that the Specified Tetrad test is significantly more sensitive than the 2-AFC in this setting. In fact, if the sample values from our experiment could be taken as population values, the results of this experiment predict that the Specified Tetrad test is operationally more powerful than a double-replicated 2-AFC. While further investigation of the Specified Tetrad test is needed before such a strong statement can be confirmed, these results indicate that the Specified Tetrad test is worthy of such investigation. Practical Applications Among the many tools in the sensory scientist's tool box are the specified difference testing methods. These methods can be used when the attribute that defines the difference between the samples is known. Historically, the 2-AFC has been considered the operationally most powerful method of specified testing, but the 2-AFC has never been compared with the Specified Tetrad test. In this article, we provide such a comparison, and show that the Specified Tetrad test deserves attention as a specified testing method. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
Author Garcia, Karen
Ennis, John M.
Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Karen
  surname: Garcia
  fullname: Garcia, Karen
  email: garcia.karenmelissa@gmail.com
  organization: Department of Food Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, LA, 70803, Baton Rouge
– sequence: 2
  givenname: John M.
  surname: Ennis
  fullname: Ennis, John M.
  organization: The Institute for Perception, VA, Richmond
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Witoon
  surname: Prinyawiwatkul
  fullname: Prinyawiwatkul, Witoon
  organization: Department of Food Science, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, LA, 70803, Baton Rouge
BookMark eNo9kEFPAjEQhRuDiYBe_AUkHjwtzrTd7u5RUUEkkghGb03ptlrEXWiXKP_eXTDO5c0k781Lvg5pFWVhCDlH6GM9V8syhD5SEHBE2pjwOOJx9tYibUjTJEppDCekE8ISANIs4W1y-Wx0WQSXG--K9171YXqztdHOOpP35qbyqpFQnZJjq1bBnP1pl7zc380Ho2gyHT4MrieRo4JBxK1QwDIrdIwWc7rQIGILsVH5AlGkAtHQjBtIBc94lrD6tlZrbXWuOOWsSy4Of9e-3GzrYrkst76oKyVyQZlgDBsXHlzfbmV2cu3dl_I7iSAbCrKhIPcU5Hg6m-23OhMdMi5U5uc_o_ynFAlLYvn6NJS37OYR-HwsR-wXAxxhbA
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc
Copyright_xml – notice: 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
– notice: Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc
DBID BSCLL
7QR
7TK
8FD
FR3
P64
DOI 10.1111/joss.12060
DatabaseName Istex
Chemoreception Abstracts
Neurosciences Abstracts
Technology Research Database
Engineering Research Database
Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts
DatabaseTitle Chemoreception Abstracts
Engineering Research Database
Technology Research Database
Neurosciences Abstracts
Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts
DatabaseTitleList
Chemoreception Abstracts
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Economics
Diet & Clinical Nutrition
EISSN 1745-459X
EndPage 449
ExternalDocumentID 3140577161
JOSS12060
ark_67375_WNG_D3BK04TJ_H
Genre article
GroupedDBID .3N
.GA
.Y3
05W
0R~
10A
1OB
1OC
29L
31~
33P
3SF
4.4
50Y
50Z
51W
51X
52M
52N
52O
52P
52S
52T
52U
52W
52X
5GY
5HH
5LA
5VS
66C
702
7PT
8-0
8-1
8-3
8-4
8-5
8UM
930
A03
A8Z
AAESR
AAEVG
AAHBH
AAHHS
AAIKC
AAMNW
AANLZ
AAONW
AASGY
AAXRX
AAZKR
ABCQN
ABCUV
ABDBF
ABEML
ABIVO
ABPVW
ACAHQ
ACBWZ
ACCFJ
ACCZN
ACGFS
ACIWK
ACPOU
ACPRK
ACSCC
ACXBN
ACXQS
ADBBV
ADEOM
ADIZJ
ADKYN
ADMGS
ADOZA
ADXAS
ADZMN
AEEZP
AEIGN
AEIMD
AENEX
AEQDE
AEUQT
AEUYR
AFBPY
AFEBI
AFFPM
AFGKR
AFPWT
AFZJQ
AHBTC
AHEFC
AITYG
AIURR
AIWBW
AJBDE
AJXKR
ALAGY
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
ALUQN
AMBMR
AMYDB
ASPBG
ATUGU
AUFTA
AVWKF
AZBYB
AZFZN
AZVAB
BAFTC
BDRZF
BFHJK
BHBCM
BMNLL
BMXJE
BNHUX
BROTX
BRXPI
BSCLL
BY8
CAG
COF
CS3
D-E
D-F
DC6
DCZOG
DPXWK
DR2
DRFUL
DROCM
DRSTM
DU5
EBS
EJD
ESTFP
ESX
F00
F01
F04
F5P
FEDTE
FZ0
G-S
G.N
GODZA
H.T
H.X
HF~
HGLYW
HVGLF
HZI
HZ~
I-F
IX1
J0M
LATKE
LC2
LC3
LEEKS
LH4
LITHE
LOXES
LP6
LP7
LUTES
LW6
LYRES
MEWTI
MK4
MRFUL
MRSTM
MSFUL
MSSTM
MXFUL
MXSTM
N04
N05
N9A
NF~
O66
O9-
OIG
P2P
P2W
P2X
P4D
PALCI
Q.N
Q11
QB0
R.K
RIWAO
RJQFR
ROL
RX1
SAMSI
SUPJJ
TUS
UB1
UCJ
W8V
W99
WBFHL
WBKPD
WIH
WIK
WOHZO
WQJ
WRC
WXSBR
WYISQ
XG1
Y6R
ZZTAW
~IA
~KM
~WT
7QR
7TK
8FD
FR3
P64
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-i2630-4f6a039f6c51f1d2bc065f05eadb1168611e294e08649497311effcccfcda4243
IEDL.DBID DR2
ISSN 0887-8250
IngestDate Thu Oct 10 22:13:38 EDT 2024
Sat Aug 24 00:51:16 EDT 2024
Wed Oct 30 09:56:05 EDT 2024
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 6
Language English
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-i2630-4f6a039f6c51f1d2bc065f05eadb1168611e294e08649497311effcccfcda4243
Notes ark:/67375/WNG-D3BK04TJ-H
istex:43CD358752DF0408F4B74422137F5747FF7975DE
ArticleID:JOSS12060
PQID 1462363314
PQPubID 1016366
PageCount 5
ParticipantIDs proquest_journals_1462363314
wiley_primary_10_1111_joss_12060_JOSS12060
istex_primary_ark_67375_WNG_D3BK04TJ_H
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate December 2013
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2013-12-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 12
  year: 2013
  text: December 2013
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace Cincinnati
PublicationPlace_xml – name: Cincinnati
PublicationTitle Journal of sensory studies
PublicationTitleAlternate J Sens Stud
PublicationYear 2013
Publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
Publisher_xml – name: Blackwell Publishing Ltd
– name: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc
References Dessirier, J. and O'Mahony, M. 1998. Comparison of d′ values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power. Food Qual. Prefer. 10, 1-8.
Rousseau, B., Stroh, S. and O'Mahony, M. 2002. Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias. Food Qual. Prefer. 13, 39-45.
Kim, M. and Lee, H. 2012. Investigation of operationally more powerful duo-trio test protocols: Effects of different reference schemes. Food Qual. Prefer. 25, 183-191.
Stillman, J. and Irwin, R. 1995. Advantages of the same-different method over the triangular method for the measurement of taste discrimination. J. Sensory Studies 10, 261-272.
Byer, A. and Abrams, D. 1953. A comparison of the triangular and two-sample taste test methods. Food Technol. Chicago 7, 185-187.
Ennis, D. 1993. The power of sensory discrimination methods. J. Sensory Studies 8, 353-370.
O'Mahony, M. 2013. The Tetrad test: Looking forward, looking back. J. Sensory Studies 28(4), 259-263.
Frijters, J. 1979a. The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved. Chem. Senses 4, 355-358.
Kim, H., Jeon, S., Kim, K. and O'Mahony, M. 2006. Thurstonian models and variance I: Experimental confirmation of cognitive strategies for difference tests and effects of perceptual variance. J. Sensory Studies 21, 465-484.
Lau, S., O'Mahony, M. and Rousseau, B. 2004. Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discrimination. Percept. Psychophys. 66, 464-474.
Thurstone, L. 1927. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34, 273-286.
Ennis, J., Ennis, D., Yip, D. and O'Mahony, M. 1998. Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 51, 205-215.
Huang, Y. and Lawless, H. 1998. Sensitivity of the ABX discrimination test. J. Sensory Studies 13, 229-239.
Delwiche, J. and O'Mahony, M. 1996. Flavour discrimination - An extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad method. Food Qual. Prefer. 7, 1-5.
Ennis, J. and Jesionka, V. 2011. The power of sensory discrimination testing methods revisited. J. Sensory Studies 26, 371-382.
Ennis, D. and Bi, J. 1998. The beta-binomial model: Accounting for inter-trial variation in replicated difference and preference tests. J. Sensory Studies 13, 389-412.
Tedja, S., Nonaka, R., Ennis, D. and O'Mahony, M. 1994. Triadic discrimination testing: Refinement of Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis approaches. Chem. Senses 19, 279-301.
Hautus, M. and Irwin, R. 1995. Two models for estimating the discriminability of foods and beverages. J. Sensory Studies 10, 203-215.
Frijters, J. 1979b. Variations of the triangular method and the relationship of its unidimensional probabilistic models to three-alternative-forced-choice signal detection theory models. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 32, 229-241.
Rousseau, B. and O'Mahony, M. 1997. Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts. J. Sensory Studies 12, 127-146.
Masuoka, S., Hatjopoulos, D. and O'Mahony, M. 1995. Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis models for triad and tetradmethods. J. Sensory Studies 10, 295-306.
Bi, J., Ennis, D. and O'Mahony, M. 1997. How to estimate and use the variance of d′ from difference tests. J. Sensory Studies 12, 87-104.
Kuesten, C. 2001. 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 Qual. Prefer. 12, 447-455.
Bi, J. and O'Mahony, M. 2013. Variance of d′ for the Tetrad test and comparisons with other forced-choice methods. J. Sensory Studies 28(2), 91-101.
Ennis, J. 2012. Guiding the switch from triangle testing to Tetrad testing. J. Sensory Studies 27, 223-231.
Bi, J., Lee, H. and O'Mahony, M. 2010. d′ and variance of d′ for four-alternative forced choice (4-AFC). J. Sensory Studies 25, 740-750.
Ennis, J. M. and Christensen, R. 2013. Precision of measurement in Tetrad testing. Food Qual. Prefer. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.05.003.
Garcia, K., Ennis, J. and Prinyawiwatkul, W. 2012. A large-scale experimental comparison of the Tetrad and triangle tests in children. J. Sensory Studies 27, 217-222.
Gridgeman, N. 1970. A re-examination of the two-stage triangle test for the perception of sensory differences. J. Food Sci. 35, 87-91.
Rousseau, B., Rogeaux, M. and O'Mahony, M. 1999. Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and t criteria. Food Qual. Prefer. 10, 173-184.
Ennis, D. 1990. Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation. Food Technol. Chicago 44, 114-117.
O'Mahony, M., Masuoka, S. and Ishii, R. 1994. A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies. J. Sensory Studies 9, 247-272.
Lee, H. and O'Mahony, M. 2007. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Qual. Prefer. 18, 369-383.
Van Hout, D., Hautus, M.J. and Lee, H.-S. 2011. 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. J. Sensory Studies 26, 311-321.
Lawless, H. and Heymann, H. 2010. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices, Springer, New York, NY.
Jesionka, V., Rousseau, B. and Ennis, J. 2013. Transitioning from proportion of distinguishers to a more meaningful measure of sensory difference. Food Qual. Prefer. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.04.007.
Rousseau, B. and O'Mahony, M. 2000. Investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dual-pair, same-different and triangle paradigms. Food Qual. Prefer. 11, 457-464.
1993; 8
2004; 66
2007; 18
1927; 34
2013; 28
2012
2010
1979b; 32
2002; 13
1995; 10
1953; 7
1979a; 4
1970; 35
1994; 9
1990; 44
2010; 25
1994; 19
2006; 21
2000; 11
1997; 12
1999; 10
2012; 27
2011; 26
2013
2012; 25
1998; 51
2001; 12
1998; 10
1996; 7
1998; 13
References_xml – volume: 26
  start-page: 371
  year: 2011
  end-page: 382
  article-title: The power of sensory discrimination testing methods revisited
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 13
  start-page: 229
  year: 1998
  end-page: 239
  article-title: Sensitivity of the ABX discrimination test
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 10
  start-page: 295
  year: 1995
  end-page: 306
  article-title: Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and Sequential Sensitivity Analysis models for triad and tetradmethods
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 4
  start-page: 355
  year: 1979a
  end-page: 358
  article-title: The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved
  publication-title: Chem. Senses
– volume: 34
  start-page: 273
  year: 1927
  end-page: 286
  article-title: A law of comparative judgment
  publication-title: Psychol. Rev.
– year: 2013
  article-title: Transitioning from proportion of distinguishers to a more meaningful measure of sensory difference
  publication-title: Food Qual. Prefer.
– volume: 28
  start-page: 91
  issue: 2
  year: 2013
  end-page: 101
  article-title: Variance of for the Tetrad test and comparisons with other forced‐choice methods
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 26
  start-page: 311
  year: 2011
  end-page: 321
  article-title: 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
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 12
  start-page: 127
  year: 1997
  end-page: 146
  article-title: Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 19
  start-page: 279
  year: 1994
  end-page: 301
  article-title: Triadic discrimination testing: Refinement of Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis approaches
  publication-title: Chem. Senses
– volume: 25
  start-page: 740
  year: 2010
  end-page: 750
  article-title: and variance of for four‐alternative forced choice (4‐AFC)
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 35
  start-page: 87
  year: 1970
  end-page: 91
  article-title: A re‐examination of the two‐stage triangle test for the perception of sensory differences
  publication-title: J. Food Sci.
– volume: 11
  start-page: 457
  year: 2000
  end-page: 464
  article-title: Investigation of the effect of within‐trial retasting and comparison of the dual‐pair, same‐different and triangle paradigms
  publication-title: Food Qual. Prefer.
– volume: 13
  start-page: 389
  year: 1998
  end-page: 412
  article-title: The beta‐binomial model: Accounting for inter‐trial variation in replicated difference and preference tests
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– year: 2010
– year: 2013
  article-title: Precision of measurement in Tetrad testing
  publication-title: Food Qual. Prefer.
– year: 2012
– volume: 8
  start-page: 353
  year: 1993
  end-page: 370
  article-title: The power of sensory discrimination methods
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 10
  start-page: 173
  year: 1999
  end-page: 184
  article-title: Mustard discrimination by same‐different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and criteria
  publication-title: Food Qual. Prefer.
– volume: 18
  start-page: 369
  year: 2007
  end-page: 383
  article-title: The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing
  publication-title: Food Qual. Prefer.
– volume: 27
  start-page: 223
  year: 2012
  end-page: 231
  article-title: Guiding the switch from triangle testing to Tetrad testing
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 12
  start-page: 87
  year: 1997
  end-page: 104
  article-title: How to estimate and use the variance of from difference tests
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 32
  start-page: 229
  year: 1979b
  end-page: 241
  article-title: Variations of the triangular method and the relationship of its unidimensional probabilistic models to three‐alternative‐forced‐choice signal detection theory models
  publication-title: Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol.
– volume: 51
  start-page: 205
  year: 1998
  end-page: 215
  article-title: Thurstonian models for variants of the method of tetrads
  publication-title: Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol.
– volume: 7
  start-page: 1
  year: 1996
  end-page: 5
  article-title: Flavour discrimination – An extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad method
  publication-title: Food Qual. Prefer.
– volume: 27
  start-page: 217
  year: 2012
  end-page: 222
  article-title: A large‐scale experimental comparison of the Tetrad and triangle tests in children
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 10
  start-page: 203
  year: 1995
  end-page: 215
  article-title: Two models for estimating the discriminability of foods and beverages
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 10
  start-page: 1
  year: 1998
  end-page: 8
  article-title: Comparison of values for the 2‐AFC (paired comparison) and 3‐AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power
  publication-title: Food Qual. Prefer.
– volume: 44
  start-page: 114
  year: 1990
  end-page: 117
  article-title: Relative power of difference testing methods in sensory evaluation
  publication-title: Food Technol. Chicago
– volume: 21
  start-page: 465
  year: 2006
  end-page: 484
  article-title: Thurstonian models and variance I: Experimental confirmation of cognitive strategies for difference tests and effects of perceptual variance
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 13
  start-page: 39
  year: 2002
  end-page: 45
  article-title: Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias
  publication-title: Food Qual. Prefer.
– volume: 12
  start-page: 447
  year: 2001
  end-page: 455
  article-title: 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
  publication-title: Food Qual. Prefer.
– volume: 25
  start-page: 183
  year: 2012
  end-page: 191
  article-title: Investigation of operationally more powerful duo‐trio test protocols: Effects of different reference schemes
  publication-title: Food Qual. Prefer.
– volume: 66
  start-page: 464
  year: 2004
  end-page: 474
  article-title: Are three‐sample tasks less sensitive than two‐sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discrimination
  publication-title: Percept. Psychophys.
– volume: 9
  start-page: 247
  year: 1994
  end-page: 272
  article-title: A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 28
  start-page: 259
  issue: 4
  year: 2013
  end-page: 263
  article-title: The Tetrad test: Looking forward, looking back
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
– volume: 7
  start-page: 185
  year: 1953
  end-page: 187
  article-title: A comparison of the triangular and two‐sample taste test methods
  publication-title: Food Technol. Chicago
– volume: 10
  start-page: 261
  year: 1995
  end-page: 272
  article-title: Advantages of the same‐different method over the triangular method for the measurement of taste discrimination
  publication-title: J. Sensory Studies
SSID ssj0008974
Score 2.0586085
Snippet Additional noise from additional stimuli has been shown to result in a loss of operational power in sensory difference tests. Because the Specified Tetrad test...
SourceID proquest
wiley
istex
SourceType Aggregation Database
Publisher
StartPage 445
Title Reconsidering the Specified Tetrad Test
URI https://api.istex.fr/ark:/67375/WNG-D3BK04TJ-H/fulltext.pdf
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111%2Fjoss.12060
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1462363314
Volume 28
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1LS8NAEB7Ei158VMVqlRykghDZd7PgRa1aKlawFb1I2E2yIEqVNgXx17u7eVi96SkJJCGZndn9vmTmG4ADhjRHJMWhUkaEjCcsdD-37GQoEySI5JK4euebgejds_4jf1yAk6oWptCHqD-4ucjw87ULcKWn80HuivAwQcIRdkw7Lp-re_etHRXJQoLZRZGlQajUJvVpPPWlFpI6a378wJfzKNUvM5er8FQ9YJFd8nI8y_Vx8vlLu_G_b7AGKyX-DE4Lh1mHhWzcgGb3OcuDdlCKhL4Gg0qjvwFLVenydAMOHVktGnzaFS-w2DHw_euNxbHBKMsnym2m-SbcX16Mznth2WkhfCaCopAZoRCVRiQcG5wSbceJG8Stm2mMRSQwzohkmeU_Ts2mQ-2xMUmSmCRVjDC6BYvjt3G2DYHSFGupleHcadGnMjKdlBkSGZVKnuomtL3F4_dCTSNWkxeXXNbh8cPgKu7Ss2vERv2414RWNSRxGVdTR1QIFZRi1oQjb9v6PjWbsVaNvVXj_u1w6Pd2_nLyLiwT1_PC56y0YDGfzLI9izxyve897AvL3tIx
link.rule.ids 315,783,787,1378,27938,27939,46308,46732
linkProvider Wiley-Blackwell
linkToHtml http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1NS8NAEF1ED_Xit1itmoNUECL73e5RrVqrraAVvS27SRZEqdKmIP56dzZprd70lASSQGZndt_bzLxB6IBjKzBNSWyMkzEXCY_h55afDFWCJVVCUah37vZk-4F3nsRTmZsDtTCFPsR0ww0iI8zXEOCwIT0b5VCFRyiWnrEv-Hhn0MCgdfetHtVUhQgzxJEnQrhUJw2JPNNnPSgFe378QJizODUsNBfLRTfVUdAnhPySl-Nxbo-Tz1_qjf_-hhW0VELQ6KTwmVU0lw3WULX1nOVRPSp1Ql-j3kSmfw1VJtXLo3V0CHy16PHpF73Iw8cotLB3HspG_SwfGjiM8g30cHHeP2vHZbOF-JlKhmPupMFMOZkI4khKrR8q4bDwnmYJkU1JSEYVzzwFAkGbBvPXziVJ4pLUcMrZJpofvA2yLRQZy4hV1jghQI4-VU3XSLmjTWdSJVJbRfVgcv1eCGpoM3yB_LKG0I-9S91ip9eY9zu6XUW1yZjoMrRGwFUok4wRXkVHwbjT90wJjbeqDlbVndv7-3C2_Zeb91Gl3e_e6Jur3vUOWqTQAiOksNTQfD4cZ7seiOR2L7jbF_yM1ks
linkToPdf http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3fa9swED5CBm1ftrVbWbps9UNJYeCg34lgL9uyNE3bdCwJzcsQkm1B6EhL4sDYXz9JtrO0b-2TbbCN_elO-s6--w7ghCHDEUlxrLUVMeMJi_3PLTcZygQJIrkkvt75aiQGUzac8VkNPle1MIU-xOaDm_eMMF97B79P7baT-yI8TJBwAfsLJijyCV29n__Fo7qy0GD2buTiIFSKk4Y8ns21jpN6OP88IJjbNDWsM_1X8Kt6wiK95La9zk07-ftIvPG5r_AaXpYENPpSWMw-1LLFATR68yyPWlGpEvo7GlUi_QewW9Uur97AqY9Wiw6fbsmLHHmMQgN764hsNMnypfabVf4Wpv3vk2-DuGy1EM-Jgy5mVmhEpRUJxxanxLiB4hZxZ2cGY9EVGGdEsswFQF7OpkPdsbVJktgk1Ywwegj1xd0ieweRNhQbabTl3IvRp7JrOymzpGt1KnlqGtAKiKv7Qk5D6eWtzy7rcHUzOlM9-vUCsclQDRrQrIZElY618pEKoYJSzBrwKWC7uc8mnHGoqoCqGl6Px2Hv6CknH8POj15fXZ6PLt7DHvH9L0L-ShPq-XKdfXAsJDcfg7H9A52k1Po
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Reconsidering+the+Specified+Tetrad+Test&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+sensory+studies&rft.au=Garcia%2C+Karen&rft.au=Ennis%2C+John+M&rft.au=Prinyawiwatkul%2C+Witoon&rft.date=2013-12-01&rft.pub=Wiley+Subscription+Services%2C+Inc&rft.issn=0887-8250&rft.eissn=1745-459X&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=445&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111%2Fjoss.12060&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT&rft.externalDocID=3140577161
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0887-8250&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0887-8250&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0887-8250&client=summon