2007
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.09.015
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sensory difference tests: Overdispersion and warm-up

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
17
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
2
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…They are in accordance with over-dispersion values reported in the literature (Angulo, Lee & O'Mahony, 2007;Liggett & Delwiche, 2005;Schlich et al, 2000), although values are not directly comparable because they were not computed in the same way.…”
Section: Effect On Panel Heterogeneitysupporting
confidence: 87%
“…They are in accordance with over-dispersion values reported in the literature (Angulo, Lee & O'Mahony, 2007;Liggett & Delwiche, 2005;Schlich et al, 2000), although values are not directly comparable because they were not computed in the same way.…”
Section: Effect On Panel Heterogeneitysupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The standard also served us a warm up stimulus (Angulo, Lee, & O'Mahony, 2007). The reference standard wine was selected for presenting intermediate intensity in most of its sensory properties based on the trained sensory panel assessment.…”
Section: Central Location Testmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To compare the performance of the three duo-trio protocols, the d 0 estimate for each protocol was computed from the pooled data over the three stimuli sets using the same method. Pooling data from replicate tests over subjects could violate the assumptions for a binomial test and introduce over-dispersion (Angulo, Lee, & O'Mahony, 2007;Lee & O'Mahony, 2006); therefore, the pooled data were analyzed for over-dispersion using a beta-binomial model (IFPrograms, Institute for Perception, Richmond, VA). The results revealed that there was no significant effect of over-dispersion in the present experiment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%