Abstract
In order to provide insights into why discrimination protocols with three stimuli sometimes tend to be less sensitive than protocols with two stimuli, two experiments were conducted. In these experiments, the relative effects of memory decay and memory interference were investigated. Both experiments involved purified water and/or solutions of low NaCl concentration. In Experiment 1, three protocols were compared: the traditional same-different test (Protocol 1), the same protocol with a rinse between the two samples (Protocol 2), and Protocol 2 with an added time delay between the first sample and the intermediate rinse (Protocol 3.) The decrease in measuredd’ values as time delay increased indicated that memory decay might be a factor for tests with three stimuli, such as the triangle method, rendering it less sensitive than tests with two stimuli, such as the same-different method. In Experiment 2, four protocols were compared: the traditional same-different test, the two-rinse same-different test, the triangle test, and what will be called duo same-different test. The experimental design allowed the individual consideration of memory decay and interference effects. From this last experiment, the substantial effect of memory interference was uncovered. Further experimentation will be necessary to estimate the exact relative effects of memory interference and memory decay.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Algom, D., &Marks, L. E. (1989). Memory psychophysics for taste.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,27, 257–259.
Algom, D., Marks, L. E., &Cain, W. S. (1993). Memory psychophysics for chemosensation: Perceptual and mental mixtures of odor and taste.Chemical Senses,18, 151–160.
Avancini, T. C. A., Cubero, E., &O’Mahony, M. (1999). Same-different discrimination tests with interstimulus delays up to one day.Journal of Sensory Studies,14, 1–18.
Baddeley, A. D. (1997).Human memory: Theory and practice (rev. ed.). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Bi, J., Ennis, D. M., &O’Mahony, M. (1997). How to estimate and use the variance of d from difference tests.Journal of Sensory Studies,12, 87–104.
Buchanan, B., Givon, M. M., &Goldman, A. (1987). Measurement of discrimination ability in taste tests: An empirical investigation.Journal of Marketing Research,24, 154–163.
Byer, A. J., &Abrams, D. (1953). A comparison of the triangular and two-sample taste-test methods.Food Technology,7, 185–187.
Cubero, E., Avancini, T. C. A., &O’Mahony, M. (1995). Cognitive aspects of difference testing: Memory and interstimulus delay.Journal of Sensory Studies,10, 307–324.
Delwiche, J., &O’Mahony, M. (1996). Flavour discrimination: An extension of Thurstonian paradoxes to the tetrad method.Food Quality & Preference,7, 1–5.
Dessirier, J. M., &O’Mahony, M. (1999). Comparison of d values for the 2-AFC (paired comparison) and 3-AFC discrimination methods: Thurstonian models, sequential sensitivity analysis and power.Food Quality & Preference,10, 1–8.
Dessirier, J. M., O’Mahony, M., &Carstens, E. (1997). Oral irritant effects of nicotine: Psychophysical evidence for decreased sensation following repeated application and lack of cross-desensitization to capsaicin.Chemical Senses,22, 483–492.
]Elliott, P. B. (1964). Tables ofd’. In J. A. Swets (Ed.),Signal detection and recognition by human observers: Contemporary readings (pp. 651–684). New York: Wiley.
Engen, T., Kuisma, J. E., &Eimas, P. D. (1973). Short-term memory of odors.Journal of Experimental Psychology,99, 222–225.
Ennis, D. M. (1993). The power of sensory discrimination methods.Journal of Sensory Studies,8, 353–370.
Ennis, D. M., &O’Mahony, M. (1995). Probabilistic models for sequential taste effects in triadic choice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1088–1097.
François, P., &Sauvageot, F. (1988). Comparison of the efficiency of pair, duo-trio and triangle tests.Journal of Sensory Studies,3, 81–94.
Frijters, J. E. R. (1979). The paradox of discriminatory nondiscriminators resolved.Chemical Senses & Flavor,4, 355–358.
Frijters, J. E. R. (1981). Expanded tables for conversion of a proportion of correct responses (P) to the measure of sensory difference (d’) for the triangular method and the 3-alternative forced choice procedure.Journal of Food Science,47, 139–143.
Frijters, J. E. R., Kooistra, A., &Vereijken, P. F. G. (1980). Tables of d for the triangular method and the 3-AFC signal detection procedure.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 176–178.
Geelhoed, E. N., MacRae, A. W., &Ennis, D. M. (1994). Preference gives more consistent judgments than oddity only if the task can be modeled as forced choice.Perception & Psychophysics,55, 473–477.
Gourevitch, V., &Galanter, E. (1967). A significant test for one parameter isosensitivity functions.Psychometrika,32, 25–33.
Green, D. M., &Swets, J. A. (1966).Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Gridgeman, N. T. (1955). Taste comparisons: Two samples or three?Food Technology,9, 148–150.
Gridgeman, N. T. (1970). A re-examination of the two-stage triangle test for the perception of sensory differences.Journal of Food Science,35, 87–91.
Hacker, M. J., &Ratcliff, R. (1979). A revised table of d for Malternative forced choice.Perception & Psychophysics,26, 168–170.
Hautus, M. J., &Irwin, R. J. (1995). Two models for estimating the discriminability of foods and beverages.Journal of Sensory Studies,10, 203–215.
Irwin, R. J., Hautus, M. J., &Stillman, J. A. (1992). Use of the receiver operating characteristic in the study of taste perception.Journal of Sensory Studies,7, 291–314.
Jehl, C., Royet, J.-P., &Holley, A. (1994). Very short term recognition memory for odors.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 658–668.
Kaplan, H. L., Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1978). Tables ofd’ for variable-standard discrimination paradigms.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,10, 796–813.
Kinchla, R. A., &Smyzer, F. (1967). A diffusion model of perceptual memory.Perception & Psychophysics,2, 219–229.
Köster, E. P., Degel, J., &Piper, D. (2002). Proactive and retroactive interference in implicit odor memory.Chemical Senses,27, 191–206.
Lawless, H., &Engen, T. (1977). Associations to odors: Interference, mnemonics, and verbal labeling.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,3, 52–59.
Macmillan, N. A., &Creelman, C. D. (1991).Detection theory: A user’s guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
MacRae, A. W., &Geelhoed, E. N. (1992). Preference can be more powerful than detection of oddity as a test of discriminability.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 179–181.
Mair, R., Capra, C., McEntee, W. J., &Engen, T. (1980). Odor discrimination and memory in Korsakoff ’s psychosis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,6, 445–458.
Masuoka, S., Hatjopoulos, D., &O’Mahony, M. (1995). Beer bitterness detection: Testing Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis models for triad and tetrad methods.Journal of Sensory Studies,10, 295–306.
McBurney, D. H., Kasschau, R. A., &Bogart, L. M. (1967). The effect of adaptation on taste jnds.Perception & Psychophysics,2, 175–178.
Miller, J. (1996). The sampling distribution ofd’.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 65–72.
O’Mahony, M. (1979). Salt taste adaptation: The psychophysical effects of adapting solutions and residual stimuli from prior tastings on the taste of sodium chloride.Perception,8, 441–476.
O’Mahony, M., &Goldstein, L. (1986). Effectiveness of sensory difference tests: Sequential sensitivity analysis for liquid food stimuli.Journal of Food Science,51, 1550–1553.
O’Mahony, M., Masuoka, S., &Ishii, R. (1994). A theoretical note on difference tests: Models, paradoxes and cognitive strategies.Journal of Sensory Studies,9, 247–272.
O’Mahony, M., &Odbert, N. (1985). A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures: Sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation.Journal of Food Science,50, 1055–1058.
O’Mahony, M., &Rousseau, B. (2003). Discrimination testing: A few ideas, old and new.Food Quality & Preference,14, 157–164.
Rousseau, B., &Ennis, D. M. (2001). A Thurstonian model for the dual-pair (4IAX) discrimination method.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 1083–1090.
Rousseau, B., Meyer, A., &O’Mahony, M. (1998). Power and sensitivity of the same-different test: Comparison with triangle and duo-trio methods.Journal of Sensory Studies,13, 149–173.
Rousseau, B., &O’Mahony, M. (1997). Sensory difference tests: Thurstonian and SSA predictions for vanilla flavored yogurts.Journal of Sensory Studies,12,127–1466.
Rousseau, B., &O’Mahony, M. (2000). Investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dual-pair, same-different and triangle paradigms.Food Quality & Preference,11, 457–464.
Rousseau, B., &O’Mahony, M. (2001). Investigation of the dual-pair method as a possible alternative to the triangle and same-different tests.Journal of Sensory Studies,16, 161–178.
Rousseau, B., Rogeaux, M., &O’Mahony, M. (1999). Mustard discrimination by same-different and triangle tests: Aspects of irritation, memory and τ criteria.Food Quality & Preference,10, 173–184.
Rousseau, B., Stroh, S., &O’Mahony, M. (2002). Investigating more powerful discrimination tests with consumers: Effects of memory and response bias.Food Quality & Preference,13, 39–45.
Stevenson, R. J., &Prescott, J. (1997). Judgments of chemosensory mixtures in memory.Acta Psychologica,95, 195–214.
Stillman, J. A. (1993). Response selection, sensitivity, and taste-test performance.Perception & Psychophysics,54, 190–194.
Stillman, J. A., &Irwin, R. J. (1995). Advantages of the same-different method over the triangular method for the measurement of taste discrimination.Journal of Sensory Studies,10, 261–272.
Tedja, S., Nonaka, R., Ennis, D. M., &O’Mahony, M. (1994). Triadic discrimination testing: Refinement of Thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis approaches.Chemical Senses,19, 279–301.
Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment.Psychological Review,34, 273–286.
Walk, H. A., &Johns, E. E. (1984). Interference and facilitation in shortterm memory for odors.Perception & Psychophysics,36, 508–514.
White, T. L. (1998). Olfactory memory: The long and short of it.Chemical Senses,23, 433–441.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Note—This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, headed by Neil Macmillan.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
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 66, 464–474 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194894
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194894