References
- Lee H-S, O'Mahony M. Sensory difference testing: Thurstonian models. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 13: 841-847 (2004)
- Lee H-S, O'Mahony M. The evolution of a model: A review of Thurstonian and conditional stimulus effects on difference testing. Food Qual. Prefer. 18: 369-383 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.04.003
- MacFie H. Preference mapping and food product development. pp. 551-592. In: Consumer-led Food Product Development. MacFie H (ed). CRC Press, New York, NY, USA (2007)
- Delwiche JF. Thurstonian probabilistic approaches to new food product development. pp. 456-470. In: Consumer-led Food Product Development. MacFie H (ed). CRC Press, New York, NY, USA (2007)
- Kim NS. Discriminant analysis of marketed liquor by a multichannel taste evaluation system. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 14: 554-557 (2005)
- Chung SJ. Flavor release from ice cream during eating. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 16: 8-17 (2007)
- Lee O-H, Lee H-S, Lee S-M, Kim Y-K, Kim K-O. Sensory characteristics and consumer acceptability of various green teas. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 17: in press (2008)
- Rosas-Nexticapa M, Angulo O, O'Mahony M. How well does the 9-point scale predict purchase frequency? J. Sens. Stud. 20: 313-331 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2005.00027.x
- Peryam DR, Girardot NF. Advanced taste-test method. Food Eng. 24: 58-61, 194 (1952)
- Peryam DR, Pilgrim FJ. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technol.-Chicago 11: 9-14 (1957)
- Peryam DR, Polemis BW, Kamen JM, Eindhoven G, Pilgrim FJ. Food preferences of men in the U.S. Armed forces. Department of the Army Quatermaster Research and Engineering Command-Quatermaster Food and Container Institute for the Armed Forces, Chicago, IL, USA (1960)
- Jones LV, Thurstone LL. The psychophysics of semantics: An experimental investigation. J. Appl. Psychol. 39: 31-36 (1955) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042184
- Jones LV, Peryam DR, Thurstone LL. Development of a scale for measuring soldiers' food preferences. Food Res. 20: 512-520 (1955) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1955.tb16862.x
- Edwards AL. The scaling of stimuli by the method of successive intervals. J. Appl. Psychol. 36: 118-122 (1952) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058208
- Jeon SY, O'Mahony M, Kim KO. A comparison of category and line scales under various experimental protocols. J. Sens. Stud. 19: 49-66 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2004.tb00135.x
- Kim KO, O'Mahony M. A new approach to category scales of intensity I: Traditional versus rank rating. J. Sens. Stud. 13: 241-249 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1998.tb00086.x
- Koo TY, Kim KO, O'Mahony M. Effects of forgetting on performance on various intensity scaling protocols: Magnitude estimation and labeled magnitude scale (Green scale). J. Sens. Stud. 17: 177-192 (2002) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2002.tb00341.x
- Lee HJ, Kim KO, O'Mahony M. Effects of forgetting on various protocols for category and line scales of intensity. J. Sens. Stud. 16: 327-342 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00305.x
- Lawless HT. Contextual effects in category ratings. J. Test. Eval. 11: 346-349 (1983) https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE10694J
- Lawless HT, Malone GJ. A comparison of rating scales: Sensitivity, replicates, and relative measurement. J. Sens. Stud. 1: 155-174 (1986) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.1986.tb00168.x
- Parducci A. Range-frequency compromise in judgement. Psychol. Monogr. 77: 1-50 (1963)
- Parducci A. Category judgement-A range-frequency model. Psychol. Rev. 72: 407-418 (1965) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022602
- Pipatsattayanuwong S, Lee HS, Lau S, O'Mahony M. Hedonic Rindex measurement of temperature preferences for drinking black coffee. J. Sens. Stud. 16: 517-536 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2001.tb00317.x
- Green DM, Swets JA. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY, USA. pp. 45-50 (1966)
- Brown J. Recognition assessed by rating and ranking. Brit. J. Psychol. 65: 13-22 (1974) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1974.tb02766.x
- Lee HS, O'Mahony M. Sensory evaluation and marketing: Measurement of a consumer concept. Food Qual. Prefer. 16: 227- 235 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.04.013
- Karahadian C. Impact of global markets on sensory testing programs. Food Technol.-Chicago 49: 77-78 (1995)
- Stone H, Sidel JL. Strategic applications for sensory evaluation in a global market. Food Technol.-Chicago 49: 80-89 (1995)
- Sobal J. Cultural comparison research designs in food, eating, and nutrition. Food Qual. Prefer. 9: 385-392 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00029-9
- Yeh LL, Kim KO, Chompreeda P, Rimkeeree H, Yau NJN, Lundahl DS. Comparison in the use of the 9-point hedonic scale between Americans, Chinese, Koreans, and Thai. Food Qual. Prefer. 9: 413-419 (1998) https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3293(98)00028-7
- Prescott J, Laing D, Bell G, Yoshida M, Gillmore R, Allen S, Yamazaki K, Ishii R. Hedonic responses to taste solutions: A crosscultural study of Japanese and Australians. Chem. Senses 17: 801-809 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/17.6.801
- Yao E, Lim J, Tamaki K, Ishii R, Kim KO, O'Mahony M. Structured and unstructured 9-point hedonic scales: A cross-cultural study with American, Japanese, and Korean consumers. J. Sens. Stud. 18: 115-139 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2003.tb00379.x
- Stone H, Sidel JL. Sensory Evaluation Practices. Academic Press, San Francisco, CA, USA. pp. 246-251 (1992)
- Lawless HT, Heymann H. Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY, USA. pp. 431- 449 (1998)
- Resurreccion AVA. Consumer Sensory Testing for Product Development. Aspen Publ., Gaithersburg, MD, USA. pp. 10-20 (1998)
- Alfaro-Rodriguez H, Angulo O, O'Mahony M. Be your own placebo: A double paired preference test approach for establishing expected frequencies. Food Qual. Prefer. 18: 353-361 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.02.009
- Angulo O, O'Mahony M. The paired preference test and the 'No Preference' option; was Odesky correct? Food Qual. Prefer. 16: 425-434 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2004.08.002
- Marchisano C, Lim J, Cho HS, Suh DS, Jeon SY, Kim KO, O'Mahony M. Consumers report preference when they should not: A cross-cultural study. J. Sens. Stud. 18: 487-516 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2003.tb00402.x
- Odesky SH. Handling the neutral vote in paired comparison product testing. J. Marketing Res. 4: 199-201 (1967) https://doi.org/10.2307/3149367
- Alfaro-Rodriguez H, O'Mahony M, Angulo O. Paired preference tests: d' Values from Mexican consumers with various response options. J. Sens. Stud. 20: 275-281 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2005.00018.x
- Falk SN, Henrickson RL, Morrison RD. Effect of boning beef carcasses prior to chilling on meat tenderness. J. Food Sci. 40: 1075-1079 (1975) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1975.tb02271.x
- Gridgeman NT. Pair comparison, with and without ties. Biometrics 15: 382-388 (1959) https://doi.org/10.2307/2527742
- Chapman KW, Lawless HT. Sources of error and the no-preference option in dairy product testing. J. Sens. Stud. 20: 454-468 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2005.00039.x
- Greenberg A, Collins S. Paired comparison taste tests: Some food for thought. J. Marketing Res. 3: 76-80 (1966) https://doi.org/10.2307/3149438
- Wilke KD, Cochrane C-YC, Chambers IV E. Multiple preference tests can provide more information on consumer preferences. J. Sens. Stud. 21: 612-625 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2006.00086.x
- Baker GA, Amerine MA, Roessler EB, Filipello F. The nonspecificity of differences in taste testing for preference. Food Res. 25: 810-816 (1960) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1960.tb00030.x
- Macmillan NA, Creelman CD. Detection Theory: A User's Guide. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, USA. pp. 7-16 (2005)
- Thurstone LL. A law of comparative judgment. Psychol. Rev. 34: 273-286 (1927) https://doi.org/10.1037/h0070288
- Thurstone LL. Psychophysical analysis. Am. J. Psychol. 38: 368-389 (1927) https://doi.org/10.2307/1415006
- Ennis DM. A common framework for interpreting similarity, liking, and preference data (abstract no. CS3.2). In: Abstracts: 7th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. August 12-16, Hyatt Regency, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Elsevier, Oxford, UK (2007)
- Chapman KW, Grace-Martin K, Lawless HT. Expectations and stability of preference choice. J. Sens. Stud. 21: 441-455 (2006) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2006.00076.x
- Foley M, Williams A, Bade J, Lancaster B, Popper R, Carr BT. Effect of preference-question format with and without sample differences (abstract no. 043). In: Abstracts: 5th Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium. July 20-24, The Boston Park Plaza Hotel, Boston, MA, USA. Elsevier, Oxford, UK (2003)
- Kim HS, Lee HS, O'Mahony M, Kim KO. 'Preference' and 'No Preference' responses when identical pair and non-identical pair was presented in different test protocols. J. Sens. Stud. 22: in press (2007)