Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 28, Issue 5, pp 390–397 | Cite as

Three-stimulus procedures in olfactory psychophysics: An experimental comparison of Thurstone-Ura and three-alternative forced-choice models of signal detection theory

  • J. E. R. Frijters
Article

Abstract

The experimental differences between the triangular method and three-alternative forcedchoice (3-AFC) signal detection theory procedure are briefly reviewed, and the conditions to be met for a valid application of the respective procedures under the Thurstone-Ura and 3-AFC models are described. The assumptions of both of these unidimensional probabilistic models are given, and the functions relating the probability of a correct response to d, a parameter of sensory stimulus distance, are specified. Since the two models both contain d, the hypothesis of invariability of this parameter with the triangular method and the 3-AFC procedure was tested using olfactory stimuli. This hypothesis was strongly confirmed, since the functions relating d to the logarithm of the ratio of the physical stimulus values were virtually identical for the two methods and their concomitant models. The results are important not only for the field of olfactory psychophysics; they also have wider methodological and psychophysical interest. The bias against the middle stimulus of a triangle in the triangular method observed when olfactory stimuli are used can be explained as the resultant of sensory adaptation. Finally, some practical implications of the present results for application of the triangular method are discussed.

Reference Notes

  1. 1.
    David, H. A., & Trivedi, M. C.Pair, triangle and duotrio tests (Tech. Rep. 55). Blacksburg: Department of Statistics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1962.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    A.S.T.M.Manual on sensory testing methods (Special Technical Publication No, 434). Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials, 1968.Google Scholar

References

  1. Amerine, M. A., Pangborn, R. M., &Roessler, E. B.Principles of sensory evaluation of food. New York: Academic Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  2. Bock, R. D., &Jones, L. V.The measurement and prediction of judgment and choice. San Francisco: Holden Day, 1968.Google Scholar
  3. Creelman, C. D., &MacMillan, N. A. Auditory phase and frequency discrimination: A comparison of nine procedures.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1979,5, 146–156.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dravnieks, A., &Prokop, W. H. Source emission odor measurement by a dynamic forced-choice triangle olfactometer.Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 1975,25, 28–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Elliot, P. B. Tables of d’. In J. A. Swets (Ed.),Signal detection and recognition by human observers. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  6. Filipello, A. A critical comparison of the two-sample and triangular binomial design.Food Research, 1956,21, 235–241.Google Scholar
  7. Frijters, J. E. R. The effect of duration of intervals between olfactory stimuli in the triangular method.Chemical Senses and Flavor, 1977,2, 301–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frijters, J. E. R. Variations of the triangular method and the relationship of its unidimensional probabilistic models to 3-alternative forced choice signal detection theory models.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1979,32, 229–242.Google Scholar
  9. Frijters, J. E. R., Kooistra, A., &Vereijken, P. F. G. Tables of d’ for the triangular method and the 3-AFC signal detection procedure.Perception & Psychophysics, 1980,27, 176–178.Google Scholar
  10. Green, D. M., &Bridsall, T. G. The effect of vocabulary size on articulation score. In J. A. Swets (Ed.),Signal detection and recognition by human observers. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  11. Green, D. M., &Swets, J. A.Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley, 1966.Google Scholar
  12. Harrison, S., &Elder, L. W. Some applications of statistics to laboratory taste testing.Food Technology, 1950,4, 434–439.Google Scholar
  13. Hopkins, J. W. Some observations on the sensitivity and repeatability of triad taste difference tests.Biometrics, 1954,10, 521–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lockhart, E. E. Binomial systems and organoleptic analysis.Food Technology, 1951,5, 428–431.Google Scholar
  15. Peryam, D. R. Sensory difference tests.Food Technology, 1958,12, 231–236.Google Scholar
  16. Swets, J. A. Indices of signal detectability obtained with various psychophysical procedures.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1959,31, 511–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Swets, J. A. (Ed.).Signal detection and recognition by human observers. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  18. Ura, S. Pair, triangle and duo-trio test.Reports of Statistical Application Research, Union of Japanese Scientists and Engineers, 1960,7, 107–119.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. E. R. Frijters
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human NutritionAgricultural UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations