Although human panelists provide unparalleled data, they are prone to bias, which is a primary concern of sensory scientists. Motivational bias is of concern because it determines how much effort a panelist will exert to be consistent, find a difference, or use appropriate descriptors when taking a test. For central location tests, money has become a common motivational device to compensate panelists for their time and effort. Studies have documented that money can change results in sensory testing but have not measured the impact on motivation. Additionally, little research has been conducted on the effect of the test food itself as a motivator. This scientific investigation explored monetary reward and the test food type as motivational factors to examine how these affected untrained panelist effort. Panelist accuracy on a triangle test and assessment time to complete the triangle test were measured as the response variables. Two models were generated using the two response variables, and both were adjusted for panelist age, gender, liking, time of day, and day of the week. Statistical analysis indicated that monetary compensation was not a primary motivational factor for untrained sensory panelists, but might play a role in panelist attendance. Food type impacted models differently showing its importance but also making results inconclusive. Other factors like gender, age, time of day, and day of the week were significant to a panelist's motivation and may be related to things like food involvement and workday accumulation, but more research is needed to further support these ideas. In addition to the study at hand, three preliminary studies were completed prior to obtaining the results in the main study. First, surveys gathering data on general liking of different foods were conducted. Triangle tests were then completed on potential products to confirm that treatments created for foods were not too obvious for panelists. The last preliminary step was to confirm that all differences used for treatment differences per product type were similarly different, even though not similar in nature. Difference from control tests were conducted on each product and its treatments to find how different a product's treatments were from each other. Eventually, we were able to verify that between all treatment difference couples for all products were similarly different by keeping the individual differences between a range of 10 points or 10% of a 100-point scale.

Abstract Introduction: H.J.-Haase developed a systematic set of tests for evaluating binocular vision called the Pola Test. The Pola Test measures associated phoria and stereoacuity at distance and near using a variety of different targets for each. This testing method and interpretation is referred to as MKH-Haase (Measuring and Correcting Methodology after H.J.Haase ???the MKH) method. The MKH method is more commonly used in Germany and other European countries than English speaking countries. The MKH-Haase method has been considered a reliable method for prescribing prisms to symptomatic binocular vision patients. Purpose: To investigate the test-retest reliability of binocular vision measurements using the MKH-Haase series of tests that comprise the Pola Test. In addition, I will compare the Pola results with other associated phoria and stereoacuity tests used in North America. Methods: Thirty-four symptomatic and 40 asymptomatic subjects (based on a symptoms questionnaire) participated in this study. Associated phoria and stereoacuity with different tests, including the Pola Test at distance and near, were measured for those subjects on two different sessions. Not all of subjects were tested with all tests. Only 30 subjects in each group completed all of tests. The Pola Test protocol requires the associated phoria and stereoacuity to be measured twice within a session; once with the Polariods oriented with their axes at 45o and 135o and again with the axes switched. Results: Within and between-sessions repeatability of MKH-Haase associated phoria and stereoacuity tests results revealed that most of MKH-Haase associated phoria and stereoacuity tests showed good repeatability within and between-sessions at both distance and near. However, there were a few exceptions to this general finding. Distance horizontal associated phoria values for the Cross Test and Pointer Test at the first session, and the distance Double Pointer Test values at the second session showed some differences between the two views. Between-sessions repeatability of the associated phoria tests did not show any significant differences. For the stereoacuity tests, the differences between the two disparities were statistically significant at the first session for the symptomatic group Line Test and asymptomatic group Step Test. For the second session at distance, the differences were significant with Step Test for both groups. The differences between sessions for both disparities were not significant for most of tests. The symptomatic group???s Step Test for crossed disparity and asymptomatic group's Step Test for uncrossed disparity were exceptions. A repeated measures ANOVA test was conducted to compare different associated phoria tests. Horizontal associated phoria tests without central fusion lock were significantly different from those with central fusion lock at distance and near. Comparison of different stereoacuity tests was conducted by comparing the number of subjects who could identify specific stereothreshold values. Results showed that at both distance and near, there were no significant differences between contour and global stereoacuity tests based on number of subjects who could attain 60 sec of arc or better. Discussion and Conclusion: Most of MKH-Haase associated phoria and stereoacuity charts have reasonable within and between-sessions repeatability. However, some associated phoria tests showed some differences especially with subjects who had higher values. Although there was a significant difference between various horizontal associated phoria tests at distance and near, most of the values differed by around 0.50 ???. The exception was the difference between the Wesson Card and Disparometer. The Wesson card was more exo by 1.50 ??? than the Disparometer. Vertical associated phoria tests did not show any significant differences. Although MKH-Haase chart can measure local stereothreshold down to 10 sec of arc at distance, the AO Slide is easier to perceive. Random dot stereoacuity can be measured with MKH-Haase charts at distance down to 30 sec of arc. All of the contour stereoacuity tests are comparable at near. However, the MKH-Haase chart was easier to perceive. The Random Dot Randot test would be more useful for fast screening purposes. Random dot MKH-Haase test would be easier than TNO Test to measure random dot stereothreshold at near.