Abstract In the ‘classic’ Temporal Dominance (TD) method, panellists are instructed to select a dominant attribute, which remains dominant until another attribute is selected. This procedure does not allow recording ‘no dominance (ND)’. ND periods can occur because of indecisive selection behaviour due to hesitation or uncertainty about attribute selection and time needed to switch from one attribute to another. ND periods may create noise in TD data. ND can be recorded implicitly using a ‘Hold-down’ procedure, where panellists actively hold down the attribute button that is perceived dominant, but release it when no longer dominant. The ‘Hold-down’ procedure allows subjects to report indecisive behaviour simply by not holding down a button. This study compared the ‘classic’ and ‘Hold-down’ TD methodologies. One hundred and thirty-seven participants evaluated four dark chocolates in two sessions, one for sensory (TDS) and one for emotion (TDE) evaluations. Participants employed either classic (n = 68) or Hold-down (n = 69) TD following a between subjects design. Similar dominance rates and dynamic evolutions of attributes during consumption were observed for both methods. ND durations between attribute selections were shorter than 1 s during sensory and emotion evaluations. Such short ND durations unlikely reflect periods of true hesitation, but rather reflect the time needed to switch between dominant attributes. No evidence is found for Hold-down TD outperforming classic TD in terms of sensitivity and discrimination ability. In conclusion, irrespective of the conceptual likelihood regarding the occurrence of ‘no dominance’ periods, the present study failed to demonstrate moments of hesitation using the ‘Hold-down’ procedure.

中文翻译：

---

荷兰消费者毫不犹豫：使用感觉 (TDS) 和情绪 (TDE) 的抑制时间支配方法来捕捉隐含的“无支配”持续时间

摘要在“经典”时间优势 (TD) 方法中，小组成员被指示选择一个占主导地位的属性，该属性在选择另一个属性之前保持主导地位。此过程不允许记录“无优势 (ND)”。由于犹豫或不确定属性选择以及从一种属性切换到另一种属性所需的时间而导致的优柔寡断的选择行为，可能会出现 ND 期。ND 周期可能会在 TD 数据中产生噪声。ND 可以使用“按住”程序隐式记录，其中小组成员主动按住被认为占主导地位的属性按钮，但在不再占主导地位时释放它。“按住”程序允许受试者通过不按住按钮来报告优柔寡断的行为。本研究比较了“经典”和“压制”TD 方法。137 名参与者分两次评估了四款黑巧克力，一次用于感官 (TDS) 评估，另一次用于情绪 (TDE) 评估。参与者采用经典 (n = 68) 或抑制 (n = 69) TD 遵循受试者之间的设计。对于这两种方法，在消费过程中观察到相似的优势率和属性的动态演变。在感官和情感评估期间，属性选择之间的 ND 持续时间短于 1 秒。如此短的 ND 持续时间不太可能反映真正的犹豫期，而是反映了在主要属性之间切换所需的时间。没有证据表明抑制 TD 在灵敏度和辨别能力方面优于经典 TD。总之，无论关于“无优势”时期出现的概念可能性如何，