Comparison of the triangle and a self-defined two alternative forced choice test

McClure, Lawless · Food Quality and Preference · 2010 · sensory-science · 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.02.005 · record McClure2010-comparison-of-the-triangle-and-a-self-define
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (pdftext); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. Claim type is 'method' because the contribution is a testing procedure (SD-2-AFC) and its head-to-head evaluation; the paper also carries a null result about previews, verbatim as 'Quotation withheld', which the single-valued claim type facet cannot express. The paper reports no explicit statement about its own findings being replicated, so replication status is left at untested. Discipline given as sensory-science rather than psychology because the work is sensory evaluation of foods (Thurstonian discrimination testing), not a cognitive-psychology question. 2026-08-14 and 2026-08-25 schema-0.3 passes: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
variance 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 6 concept tags on this paper, all 6 are grounded in a quoted sentence.

d-prime sensory difference preview samples familiarization samples triangle test inversion choosing an irrelevant attribute in the self-defined test adds irrelevant variation, which degrades the panellist's later discrimination wider discriminal dispersion in some subjects makes rank-order reversals (inversions) of the two products more likely, so their responses oppose the majority the triangle test requires three implied paired comparisons, whose combined variability lowers its power relative to a directional AFC test self-defined 2-AFC (SD-2-AFC) preview sample paradox of the discriminatory nondiscriminators total number correct attribute selected by subjects randomized order of presentation chi-squared z-test z-Test comparisons beta-binomial model The beta binomial model effect size (Thurstonian d-prime) variance Variances of the d-prime values t-test t-tests ANOVA analysis of variance Tukey post hoc test Tukey tests binomial test binomial p-values behavioural-experiment

Legend

relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
concept	`concepts`	an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it
transfer	`transfers`	a method or concept carried in from another field

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.02.005. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

claim_relations 3 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 2 · concepts 6 · content_tags 32 · controls 1 · limitations 9 · mechanisms 3 · method 1 · phenomenon 1 · senses 5 · transfers 1

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 2 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
claim_type	method Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	sensory discrimination testing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	behavioural-experiment Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: behavioural-experiment	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: choosing an irrelevant attribute in the self-defined test adds irrelevant variation, which degrades the panellist's later discrimination	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: wider discriminal dispersion in some subjects makes rank-order reversals (inversions) of the two products more likely, so their responses oppose the majority	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the triangle test requires three implied paired comparisons, whose combined variability lowers its power relative to a directional AFC test	`mechanisms[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Re-tasting during the preview was permitted but not recorded, so the procedure may have drifted toward a full warm-up protocol for some subjects. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the comparison between the two test procedures: RE-TASTING WAS ALLOWED DURING THE PREVIEW PHASE, BUT WAS NOT RECORDED, so drift toward a fuller tasting cannot be excluded	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Variation between the food systems may reflect differences between the judges who happened to participate rather than the methods. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the between-food variation: SOME OF THE VARIATION AMONG THE DIFFERENT FOODS WAS UNDOUBTEDLY CONTRIBUTED BY DIFFERENCES AMONG JUDGES	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	Participants were not excluded from later product tests, so the same people could recur across product systems. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: independence across product systems: NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO EXCLUDE EARLIER PARTICIPANTS FROM A SUBSEQUENT FOOD PRODUCT TEST, ALTHOUGH THEY WERE OF COURSE RESTRICTED TO PARTICIPATION IN ONLY ONE CONDITION PER PRODUCT	`limitations[2]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The two measures of the same thing disagree in direction: the method with the statistical advantage returns the LOWER estimate of absolute sensory difference, and the paper calls this paradoxical. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: choosing a discrimination test on statistical power: the paper reports the SD-AFC as statistically superior to the triangle while returning lower Thurstonian d-prime values for the same products	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Below-chance performance was not recorded as below chance: those groups were assigned a d-prime of zero so that the comparison could be run. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any d-prime of zero in this paper's subgroup table: it may be an assigned floor rather than a measured value, since below-chance groups were set to zero for the comparison	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	What counts as the CORRECT attribute is set by the majority of subjects, not by the manipulation, and a subject can be scored as atypical for disagreeing with the plurality. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the typical/atypical split as a measure of attending to the right attribute: the groups were defined by what a plurality of subjects said, and all other subjects were categorised as atypical	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	Who turns up decides part of the result, and the authors say so, crediting a reviewer. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: comparing discrimination results across product systems: the authors state the variation was partly due to differences among judges and to who shows up on a given day	`limitations[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	The central question the paper set out to inform is left open. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the value of an inspection or preview phase in discrimination testing: the paper states this remains an open question and may depend on the product	`limitations[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	A result relied on in this literature is reported as untested: an overall difference was claimed by taking three non-significant comparisons together, with no test of that claim reported. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: citing Rousseau et al. (1999) for a familiarization effect: this paper reports that none of the individual comparisons were significant and that no test of the combined claim was reported	`limitations[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	d-prime as the measure of sensory difference, so that food-discrimination tests are scored on a psychophysical sensitivity scale rather than by proportion correct Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[0]`	0.85	the tagger's words
controls	subjects were randomly assigned across the five discrimination procedures for simple stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: that a difference between procedures is a difference between the subjects who happened to use each · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.95	the tagger's words
concepts	d-prime Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: d-prime	`concepts[0]`		the paper's words
concepts	sensory difference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: sensory difference	`concepts[1]`		the paper's words
concepts	preview samples Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: preview samples	`concepts[2]`		the paper's words
concepts	familiarization samples Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: familiarization samples	`concepts[3]`		the paper's words
concepts	triangle test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: triangle test	`concepts[4]`		the paper's words
concepts	inversion Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: inversion	`concepts[5]`		the paper's words
senses	discrimination - as STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE: how reliably a method returns a significant result, on which the SD-AFC beats the triangle Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	discrimination - as ABSOLUTE SENSORY DISTANCE: the Thurstonian d-prime, on which the same SD-AFC comes out LOWER than the triangle for the same products Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	preview - a single presentation of both test stimuli before testing, explicitly contrasted with the more extensive warm-up Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	d-prime - stated here as the Thurstonian measure of sensory difference, and used precisely because it is claimed to allow comparison ACROSS methods Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	inversion - a subject using a relevant attribute but ranking the two products the wrong way round, which the paper distinguishes from choosing an irrelevant attribute Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Pfaffmann (1953) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → O'Mahony and Goldstein (1986); O'Mahony et al. (1988) warmed-up paired comparison Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → Angulo et al. (2007) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	sensory difference —operationalised-as→ d-prime Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: sensory difference · d-prime	`concept_edges[0]`		the tagger's words
concept_edges	preview samples —renamed-across-fields→ familiarization samples Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: preview samples · familiarization samples	`concept_edges[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	chi-squared Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: chi-squared	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	z-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: z-test	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	beta-binomial model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: beta-binomial model	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	effect size (Thurstonian d-prime) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: effect size (Thurstonian d-prime)	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	variance Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: variance	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	t-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: t-test	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Tukey post hoc test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Tukey post hoc test	`content_tags.statistics[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	binomial test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: binomial test	`content_tags.statistics[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The three AFC formats, including the new self-defined 2-AFC, detected the sensory difference more reliably than the triangle test did. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Poorer discrimination in the self-defined 2-AFC went with panellists naming the wrong critical attribute or judging the difference in the reverse direction during the inspection phase. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Letting panellists preview both samples before a triangle or 2-AFC test brought no measurable benefit. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Although statistically more powerful, the self-defined 2-AFC produced smaller Thurstonian d-prime values than the triangle test, i.e. less absolute sensory differentiation. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Panellists who chose the same attribute as the majority reached higher d-prime values than those who chose an atypical attribute, significantly so for the fruit drink. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Panellists who reversed the majority direction of the attribute (calling the sweeter sample less sweet) discriminated worse than typical non-inverted panellists in the fruit drink and tea. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The attribute a panellist stated during the preview predicted whether that panellist would answer correctly on later trials. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Self-reported confidence after a preview barely predicted subsequent discrimination performance. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	For all 2-AFC tests, presenting the weaker sample before the stronger gave more correct answers than the reverse order. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	self-defined 2-AFC (SD-2-AFC) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: self-defined 2-AFC (SD-2-AFC)	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	preview sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: preview sample	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	paradox of the discriminatory nondiscriminators Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paradox of the discriminatory nondiscriminators	`content_tags.definitions[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	total number correct Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: total number correct	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	d-prime Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: d-prime	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	attribute selected by subjects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: attribute selected by subjects	`content_tags.variables[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	randomized order of presentation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: randomized order of presentation	`content_tags.variables[10]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Over 600 — number of individual discrimination tests run across the four food systems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	30 to 40 — number of subjects used per testing condition, chosen to match industrial discrimination panels Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	z = 2.04, p < .05 — size of the deficit in d-prime for the self-defined 2-AFC relative to the triangle in the soup system Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	v2 = 13.81, p < .05 — chi-squared advantage of the self-defined 2-AFC over the triangle in correct responses for the tea Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	9% or 10% (w/v) — the sucrose levels distinguishing the two fruit-drink samples Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	3.5 g/L — monosodium glutamate added to the modified vegetable broth Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	over 600 — discrimination tests conducted across the four food and beverage systems Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`		the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.