# Repeatability of Taste Recognition Threshold Measurements with QUEST and Quick Yes–No

^{1}

^{2}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Participants

#### 2.2. Procedure

#### 2.2.1. Experimental Sessions

#### 2.2.2. Eating Behavior, Taste Liking, and Food Consumption

#### 2.2.3. Taste Recognition Thresholds

#### Procedure

#### Taste Stimuli

^{−3}mM to 3.131 mM (21 ${log}_{10}$ steps; step width: 0.230); and sucrose, 0.073 mM to 584.283 mM (14 ${log}_{10}$ steps; step width: 0.300).

#### Psychometric Functions

#### Stimulus Selection

#### Taste Recognition Termination

#### Parameter Estimates

#### 2.3. Analysis

#### 2.3.1. Ratings

#### 2.3.2. Taste Recognition Data Cleaning

#### 2.3.3. Test–Retest Reliability

#### Threshold

#### False-Alarm Rate (FAR)

#### Slope

#### Relationship between FAR and Slope

#### 2.3.4. Software

## 3. Results

#### 3.1. Eating Behavior, Taste Liking, and Food Consumption

#### 3.2. Taste Recognition

#### 3.2.1. Threshold Repeatability

#### 3.2.2. False-Alarm Rates and Psychometric Function Slopes

## 4. Discussion

#### 4.1. Taste Recognition Thresholds

#### 4.2. Threshold Repeatability

#### 4.3. False-Alarm Rates and ${d}^{\prime}$ Slopes

#### 4.4. Measurement Duration

#### 4.5. Taste Sensitivity, Taste Liking, and Food Preference

## 5. Conclusions

## 6. Data and Software Availability

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Watson, A.B.; Pelli, D.G. Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Percept. Psychophys.
**1983**, 33, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Höchenberger, R.; Ohla, K. Rapid Estimation of Gustatory Sensitivity Thresholds with SIAM and QUEST. Front. Psychol.
**2017**, 8, 981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Hardikar, S.; Höchenberger, R.; Villringer, A.; Ohla, K. Higher sensitivity to sweet and salty taste in obese compared to lean individuals. Appetite
**2017**, 111, 158–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Green, D.M.; Swets, J.A. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Macmillan, N.A.; Creelman, C.D. Detection Theory: A User’s Guide, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erdbaum Associates, Inc.: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Klein, S.A. Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: A commentary. Percept. Psychophys.
**2001**, 63, 1421–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Höchenberger, R.; Ohla, K. Estimation of Olfactory Sensitivity Using a Bayesian Adaptive Method. Nutrients
**2019**, 11, 1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Lesmes, L.A.; Lu, Z.L.; Baek, J.; Tran, N.; Dosher, B.A.; Albright, T.D. Developing Bayesian adaptive methods for estimating sensitivity thresholds (d′) in Yes-No and forced-choice tasks. Front. Psychol.
**2015**, 6, 1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - van Strien, T.; Frijters, J.E.R.; Bergers, G.P.A.; Defares, P.B. The Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire (DEBQ) for assessment of restrained, emotional, and external eating behavior. Int. J. Eat. Disord.
**1986**, 5, 295–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - King-Smith, P.E.; Grigsby, S.S.; Vingrys, A.J.; Benes, S.C.; Supowit, A. Efficient and unbiased modifications of the QUEST threshold method: Theory, simulations, experimental evaluation and practical implementation. Vis. Res.
**1994**, 34, 885–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vaz, S.; Falkmer, T.; Passmore, A.E.; Parsons, R.; Andreou, P. The Case for Using the Repeatability Coefficient When Calculating Test–Retest Reliability. PLoS ONE
**2013**, 8, e73990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res.
**1999**, 8, 135–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bland, J.M.; Altman, D.G. Applying the right statistics: analyses of measurement studies. Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol.
**2003**, 22, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bland, J.M.; Altman, D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet
**1986**, 327, 307–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Carkeet, A. Exact Parametric Confidence Intervals for Bland-Altman Limits of Agreement. Optom. Vis. Sci.
**2015**, 92, e71–e80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Euser, A.M.; Dekker, F.W.; le Cessie, S. A practical approach to Bland-Altman plots and variation coefficients for log transformed variables. J. Clin. Epidemiol.
**2008**, 61, 978–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Peirce, J.; Gray, J.R.; Simpson, S.; MacAskill, M.; Höchenberger, R.; Sogo, H.; Kastman, E.; Lindeløv, J.K. PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behav. Res. Methods
**2019**, 51, 195–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Vallat, R. Pingouin: statistics in Python. J. Open Source Softw.
**2018**, 3, 1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nagl, M.; Hilbert, A.; de Zwaan, M.; Braehler, E.; Kersting, A. The German Version of the Dutch Eating Behavior Questionnaire: Psychometric Properties, Measurement Invariance, and Population-Based Norms. PLoS ONE
**2016**, 11, e0162510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wise, P.M.; Breslin, P.A.S. Individual Differences in Sour and Salt Sensitivity: Detection and Quality Recognition Thresholds for Citric Acid and Sodium Chloride. Chem. Sens.
**2013**, 38, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Mattes, R.D. Reliability of psychophysical measures of gustatory function. Percept. Psychophys.
**1988**, 43, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Mueller, C.; Kallert, S.; Renner, B.; Stiassny, K.; Temmel, A.F.; Hummel, T.; Kobal, G. Quantitative assessment of gustatory function in a clinical context using impregnated “taste strips”. Rhinology
**2003**, 41, 2–6. [Google Scholar] - Altman, D.G.; Bland, J.M. Measurement in Medicine: The Analysis of Method Comparison Studies. Statistician
**1983**, 32, 307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cattaneo, C.; Riso, P.; Laureati, M.; Gargari, G.; Pagliarini, E. Exploring Associations between Interindividual Differences in Taste Perception, Oral Microbiota Composition, and Reported Food Intake. Nutrients
**2019**, 11, 1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Sauer, H.; Ohla, K.; Dammann, D.; Teufel, M.; Zipfel, S.; Enck, P.; Mack, I. Changes in Gustatory Function and Taste Preference Following Weight Loss. J. Pediatr.
**2017**, 182, 120–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Rasmussen, M.; Krølner, R.; Klepp, K.I.; Lytle, L.; Brug, J.; Bere, E.; Due, P. Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: A review of the literature. Part I: Quantitative studies. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act.
**2006**, 3, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]

**Figure 1.**Distributions of the means of Test and Retest threshold estimates, split by tastant and procedure. Squares indicate the mean, and whiskers correspond to 1.5× inter-quartile range. Only participants for whom threshold data for both sessions and procedures were available are included; the number of participants is given below the respective abscissa labels for each tastant.

**Figure 2.**Psychometric functions based on the averaged parameter estimates. Mean thresholds are depicted as crosses. It becomes apparent how the definition of “threshold” differs between QUEST and qYN: while threshold in QUEST is solely based on the proportion of “yes” responses, qYN uses a threshold based on the sensitivity function ${d}^{\prime}$, which also takes false alarms into account. Only data from participants for whom threshold data of both sessions and procedures were available are included.

**Figure 3.**Correlation between Test and Retest threshold estimates for QUEST and qYN. Each point represents one participant; the dashed line is the identity line.

**Figure 4.**Bland–Altman plots showing differences between Test and Retest thresholds plotted over session means for QUEST and qYN. The mean difference is represented by the dashed line in the center, and upper and lower bounds of the limits of agreement (corresponding to the 95% CI of the differences) are shown as the upper and lower dashed line, respectively. The shaded areas correspond to the 95% CIs of these estimates.

**Figure 5.**Bland–Altman plots showing differences between qYN Test and Retest FARs plotted over session means for all available Test–Retest pairs from all participants. The mean difference is represented by the dashed line in the center, and upper and lower bounds of the limits of agreement (corresponding to the 95% CI of the differences) are shown as the upper and lower dashed line, respectively. The shaded areas correspond to the 95% CIs of these estimates. Since the variability of session differences increased with session means, all calculations were performed on the ${log}_{10}$-transformed data, and the results were back-transformed to their original scale for plotting. Due to the back-transformation, the dashed lines are not parallel to the abscissa, and we provide their respective formulas. Note that the intercepts of all lines were 0, and are therefore omitted.

**Figure 6.**Bland–Altman plots showing differences between qYN Test and Retest ${d}^{\prime}$ slopes plotted over session means. The mean difference is represented by the dashed line in the center, and upper and lower bounds of the limits of agreement (corresponding to the 95% CI of the differences) are shown as the upper and lower dashed line, respectively. The shaded areas correspond to the 95% CIs of these estimates.

Measure | Mean | SD | N |
---|---|---|---|

DEBQ emotional eating | 2.22 | 0.64 | 40 |

DEBQ restrained eating | 2.55 | 0.67 | 40 |

DEBQ external eating | 3.02 | 0.65 | 40 |

Liking of salty | 3.41 | 1.05 | 37 |

Liking of sour | 3.05 | 1.09 | 37 |

Liking of sweet | 4.11 | 0.83 | 37 |

Liking of bitter | 1.89 | 0.98 | 37 |

Consumption of salty | 3.64 | 1.33 | 37 |

Consumption of sour | 4.19 | 1.10 | 37 |

Consumption of sweet | 4.70 | 1.03 | 37 |

Consumption of bitter | 4.00 | 1.24 | 37 |

Procedure | Tastant | N | Session | Threshold in ${log}_{10}$ mM | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

mean | min | max | SD | ||||

QUEST | Citric Acid | 37 | Test | −0.141 | −1.564 | 1.350 | 0.621 |

Retest | −0.256 | −1.540 | 1.385 | 0.666 | |||

Sodium Chloride | 38 | Test | 1.140 | −0.417 | 2.495 | 0.631 | |

Retest | 1.069 | −0.432 | 2.100 | 0.544 | |||

Quinine−HCl | 38 | Test | −1.737 | −3.514 | 0.496 | 1.101 | |

Retest | −1.889 | −3.514 | 0.339 | 0.953 | |||

Sucrose | 38 | Test | 1.054 | −0.592 | 2.414 | 0.705 | |

Retest | 1.089 | −0.563 | 2.194 | 0.660 | |||

qYN | Citric Acid | 37 | Test | −0.446 | −1.807 | 0.812 | 0.563 |

Retest | −0.558 | −1.508 | 0.574 | 0.598 | |||

Sodium Chloride | 36 | Test | 0.785 | −0.457 | 2.052 | 0.607 | |

Retest | 0.831 | −0.369 | 2.222 | 0.571 | |||

Quinine−HCl | 35 | Test | −1.974 | −3.409 | 0.239 | 0.952 | |

Retest | −1.980 | −3.369 | 0.091 | 0.962 | |||

Sucrose | 36 | Test | 0.871 | −0.613 | 2.243 | 0.677 | |

Retest | 0.765 | −0.742 | 1.881 | 0.669 |

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Höchenberger, R.; Ohla, K.
Repeatability of Taste Recognition Threshold Measurements with *QUEST* and *Quick Yes–No*. *Nutrients* **2020**, *12*, 24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010024

**AMA Style**

Höchenberger R, Ohla K.
Repeatability of Taste Recognition Threshold Measurements with *QUEST* and *Quick Yes–No*. *Nutrients*. 2020; 12(1):24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010024

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Höchenberger, Richard, and Kathrin Ohla.
2020. "Repeatability of Taste Recognition Threshold Measurements with *QUEST* and *Quick Yes–No*" *Nutrients* 12, no. 1: 24.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010024