Additional noise from additional stimuli has been shown to result in a loss of operational power in sensory difference tests. Because the Specified Tetrad test requires the evaluation of four stimuli and has only a slight theoretical power advantage over the two-alternative forced choice (2-AFC), Ennis and Jesionka have argued that the Specified Tetrad test should not be used. But this theoretical assertion had not been confirmed experimentally. In this article, we refute this argument using results from a large-scale comparison of the 2-AFC with the Specified Tetrad test. Using Thurstonian analysis, we quantified the sensory effect size as measured by both tests and found that the Specified Tetrad test is significantly more sensitive than the 2-AFC in this setting. In fact, if the sample values from our experiment could be taken as population values, the results of this experiment predict that the Specified Tetrad test is operationally more powerful than a double-replicated 2-AFC. While further investigation of the Specified Tetrad test is needed before such a strong statement can be confirmed, these results indicate that the Specified Tetrad test is worthy of such investigation.
This article appears as:
Garcia, K., Ennis, J., and Prinyawiwatkul, W. Reconsidering the specified tetrad test. Journal of Sensory Studies, 28, 445-449.
Colleagues can request this journal article here:
Reconsidering the specified tetrad test
Not a Colleague? Click here to join for free.