Jakob1863
Addicted to Fun and Learning
@amirm ,
The description in the paper is a bit strange, but isn´t it actually the other way round?
In the other part (the second phase) the authors used a 3AFC protocol (sort the odd one out) as a discrimination and used the preference test results only when the discrimination part (i.e. the 3AFC ) was considered as significant.
The results table (according to the description in the Appendix) lists the 3AFC results (_not_ the results of the A/B preference test) beside the measured numbers.
The term "statistically valid" means something different; the p-values below 0.05 mean the results are "significant" as the authors set their decision criterion at this threshold.
<snip>
So it is a double blind, AB preference test.
There is a second phase but that did not generate significant results so I won't go into that.
The description in the paper is a bit strange, but isn´t it actually the other way round?
In the other part (the second phase) the authors used a 3AFC protocol (sort the odd one out) as a discrimination and used the preference test results only when the discrimination part (i.e. the 3AFC ) was considered as significant.
The results table (according to the description in the Appendix) lists the 3AFC results (_not_ the results of the A/B preference test) beside the measured numbers.
Anywhere you see a "P" value less than 0.05, the results are "statistically valid."
The term "statistically valid" means something different; the p-values below 0.05 mean the results are "significant" as the authors set their decision criterion at this threshold.
Last edited: