Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers in Energy

ISSN 2095-1701

ISSN 2095-1698(Online)

CN 11-6017/TK

Postal Subscription Code 80-972

2018 Impact Factor: 1.701

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Energy    2019, Vol. 13 Issue (3) : 522-538    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11708-018-0562-2
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Usability perceptions and beliefs about smart thermostats by chi-square test, signal detection theory, and fuzzy detection theory in regions of Mexico
Pedro PONCE1(), Therese PEFFER2, Arturo MOLINA1
1. Tecnologico de Monterrey, calle del puente 222 Mexico, Mexico City, Non-US/Non-Canadian 64849, Mexico
2. California Institute for Energy and Environment, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
 Download: PDF(439 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

It is well known that smart thermostats (STs) have become key devices in the implementation of smart homes; thus, they are considered as primary elements for the control of electrical energy consumption in households. Moreover, energy consumption is drastically affected when the end users select unsuitable STs or when they do not use the STs correctly. Furthermore, in future, Mexico will face serious electrical energy challenges that can be considerably resolved if the end users operate the STs in a correct manner. Hence, it is important to carry out an in-depth study and analysis on thermostats, by focusing on social aspects that influence the technological use and performance of the thermostats. This paper proposes the use of a signal detection theory (SDT), fuzzy detection theory (FDT), and chi-square (CS) test in order to understand the perceptions and beliefs of end users about the use of STs in Mexico. This paper extensively shows the perceptions and beliefs about the selected thermostats in Mexico. Besides, it presents an in-depth discussion on the cognitive perceptions and beliefs of end users. Moreover, it shows why the expectations of the end users about STs are not met. It also promotes the technological and social development of STs such that they are relatively more accepted in complex electrical grids such as smart grids.
Keywords thermostats      perceptions      beliefs      signal detection theory (SDT)      fuzzy signal detection theory (FSDT)      chi-square (CS) test     
Corresponding Author(s): Pedro PONCE   
Just Accepted Date: 19 April 2018   Online First Date: 31 May 2018    Issue Date: 04 September 2019
 Cite this article:   
Pedro PONCE,Therese PEFFER,Arturo MOLINA. Usability perceptions and beliefs about smart thermostats by chi-square test, signal detection theory, and fuzzy detection theory in regions of Mexico[J]. Front. Energy, 2019, 13(3): 522-538.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/10.1007/s11708-018-0562-2
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fie/EN/Y2019/V13/I3/522
Item Value
Gender Women 9
Men 14
Education level Bachelor or equivalent 22
Lower-secondary education 1
Average temperature 35.55°C/95°F
Average age 23.8 years
Participants People started the survey 74
People completed the survey 23
Race Hispanic/Latino 100%
Tab.1  Respondent’s general information (23 respondents)
Fig.1  Five states of Mexico that participated in this study
Savvy ST end user Inefficient ST end user Marginal row total
Males 6 8 14
Females 7 2 9
Marginal column totals 13 10 23
Tab.2  CS evaluation (data collected) for males and females, savvy, inefficient and marginal end user
Savvy ST end user Inefficient ST end user Marginal row total
Rent 9 5 14
Own 4 5 9
Marginal column totals 13 10 23
Tab.3  CS evaluation (data collected) for rent and own
Excellent knowledge about the environmental impact created by CO2 Minimum knowledge about the environmental impact created by CO2 Marginal row total
Males 8 6 14
Females 2 7 9
Marginal column total 10 13 23
Tab.4  CS evaluation (data collected) for knowledge about enviromental impact
Fig.2  List of choices for each question (values ranging from 1 to 7)
Questions SDT
stimulus signal		 FSDT
stimulus signal
1. Is it easy to use? 1 0.9
2. Is it efficient when you are using it? 1 0.9
3. Is it easy to remember the basic operational functions of the ST? 1 0.8
4. Does it include few configuration, installation, operation, or design errors? 1 0.9
5. Is the service of the company pleasant? 1 0.9
6. Do you use it more than 8 h for cooling? 1 0.9
7. Do you use it more than 8 h for heating? 0 0
Tab.5  Utility survey for SDT and FSDT
End user HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR)
1 0.89 0.1876 0.81 0.2
2 0.892419 0.185053 0.82 0.2624
3 0.9 0.1 0.8 0.193
4 0.823232 0.259421 0.333333 0.3636
5 0.886 0.2 0.3 0.3
6 0.759567 0.311179 0.17 0.253054
7 0.845599 0.237679 0.171717 0.254686
8 0.772563 0.301743 0.5 0.398942
9 0.89 0.28 0.1 0.2
10 0.77 0.16 0.17 0.2
11 0.881674 0.198067 0.171717 0.254686
12 0.881674 0.198067 0.171717 0.254686
13 0.857864 0.224874 0.171717 0.254686
14 0.714286 0.714286 0.494949 0.39891
15 0.878788 0.201461 0.333333 0.3636
16 0.856421 0.226414 0.333333 0.3636
17 0.930014 0.134247 0.171717 0.254686
18 0.691919 0.351837 0.333333 0.3636
19 0.774892 0.299994 0.666667 0.3636
20 0.860029 0.222546 0.171717 0.254686
21 0.928571 0.136369 0.171717 0.254686
22 0.847763 0.235466 0.838384 0.244914
23 0.869408 0.212211 0.171717 0.254686
Tab.6  SDT results for utility of ST
Variable HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR) δ B
Average value 0.8436 0.2425 0.3642 0.2829 1.3290 0.8220
Tab.7  SDT summary results for utility of ST
Questions SDT stimulus signal FSDT stimulus signal
1. Is the ST useful in your daily work? 1 0.9
2. Does the ST help you to be more effective in your regular activities? 1 0.7
3. Does the ST help you to be more productive? 1 0.8
4. Is the ST useful in general terms? 1 0.8
5. Does the ST save you time when you set it up to use? 1 0.8
6. Does it reach your requirements? 1 0.9
7. Does it perform as expected? 1 0.8
8. Does it require a minimum number of steps for achieving your desired goals? 1 1
9. Is it flexible in terms of changing programs? 1 0.6
10. Does the ST suffer from irregularities or failures when in use? 1 0.7
11. Do regular and new users like to use it? 1 0.8
12. Can the ST recover from errors and damage quickly and easily? 1 0.9
13. Can the ST be used successfully all the time? 1 1
14. Did you learn to use it quickly? 1 0.8
15. Is it easy to remember all the configuration steps? 1 0.7
16. Do you spend a minimum amount of time to understand the correct use of the ST? 1 0.7
17. Are you satisfied with the ST? 1 0.8
18. Would you recommend it to a friend? 1 0.5
19. Is it fun to use? 0 0.3
20. Does it work in a correct manner according as per your requirements? 1 0.8
21. Do you think that you need to have it? 1 0.7
22. Is it user-friendly? 1 0.7
Tab.8  Survey on the usability of STs and the stimulus for SDT and FSDT
Variable HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR) d B
Average value 0.8676 0.1724 0.4353 0.3373 1.4379 0.5290
Tab.9  FSDT summary results for the utility of ST
Questions SDT stimulus signal FSDT stimulus signal
1. Is the ST useful in your daily work? 1 0.9
2. Does the ST help you to be more effective in your regular activities? 1 0.7
3. Does the ST help you to be more productive? 1 0.8
4. Is the ST useful in general terms? 1 0.8
5. Does the ST save you time when you set it up to use? 1 0.8
6. Does it reach your requirements? 1 0.9
7. Does it perform as expected? 1 0.8
8. Does it require a minimum number of steps for achieving your desired goals? 1 1
9. Is it flexible in terms of changing programs? 1 0.6
10. Does the ST suffer from irregularities or failures when in use? 1 0.7
11. Do regular and new users like to use it? 1 0.8
12. Can the ST recover from errors and damage quickly and easily? 1 0.9
13. Can the ST be used successfully all the time? 1 1
14. Did you learn to use it quickly? 1 0.8
15. Is it easy to remember all the configuration steps? 1 0.7
16. Do you spend a minimum amount of time to understand the correct use of the ST? 1 0.7
17. Are you satisfied with the ST? 1 0.8
18. Would you recommend it to a friend? 1 0.5
19. Is it fun to use? 0 0.3
20. Does it work in a correct manner according as per your requirements? 1 0.8
21. Do you think that you need to have it? 1 0.7
22. Is it user-friendly? 1 0.7
Tab.10  Survey on the usability of STs and the stimulus for SDT and FSDT
End user HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR)
1 0.9 0.16 0.25 0.3
2 0.908173 0.16483 0.25 0.317777
3 0.9 0.16 0.25 0.24
4 0.87787 0.202532 0.164141 0.247395
5 0.87 0.2 0.16 0.248
6 0.784206 0.292816 0.287879 0.341124
7 0.818182 0.264058 0.25 0.317777
8 0.863177 0.219121 0.123737 0.204397
9 0.86 0.21 0.12 0.2
10 0.78 0.29 0.28 0.34
11 0.969697 0.0686113 0.166667 0.249851
12 0.969697 0.0686113 0.166667 0.249851
13 0.969697 0.0686113 0.166667 0.249851
14 0.77135 0.302648 0.290404 0.342527
15 0.831038 0.252061 0.704545 0.345279
16 0.7236 0.334506 0.457071 0.39663
17 0.89348 0.183734 0.416667 0.390207
18 0.618916 0.381085 0.0833333 0.153313
19 0.817264 0.264891 0.040404 0.0868802
20 0.800735 0.279343 0.207071 0.285824
21 0.922865 0.144613 0.25 0.317777
22 0.937557 0.122896 0.204545 0.283751
23 0.77135 0.302648 0.664141 0.364679
Tab.11  Usability results of the SDT
Variable HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR) δ B
Average value 0.8504 0.2147 0.2589 0.2814 1.8347 0.8744
Tab.12  Summary of usability results obtained using the SDT
End user HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR)
1 0.9 0.2 0.4 0.4
2 0.895445 0.181277 0.429672 0.392727
3 0.86 0.2 0.48 0.4
4 0.877847 0.202559 0.333333 0.3636
5 0.94 0.1 0.4 0.4
6 0.89648 0.179974 0.196532 0.277021
7 0.86853 0.213196 0.481696 0.398522
8 0.898551 0.17735 0.391137 0.383995
9 0.86 0.21 0.28 0.33
10 0.89 0.188 0.125 0.2
11 0.947205 0.107696 0.398844 0.386048
12 0.947205 0.107696 0.398844 0.386048
13 0.947205 0.107696 0.398844 0.386048
14 0.869565 0.212034 0.285164 0.339594
15 0.942029 0.115951 0.527938 0.397964
16 0.836439 0.246827 0.310212 0.352899
17 0.910973 0.161083 0.49711 0.398932
18 0.664596 0.364486 0.125241 0.20613
19 0.889234 0.188974 0.28131 0.337384
20 0.89441 0.182574 0.364162 0.375586
21 0.92236 0.145331 0.410405 0.388839
22 0.986542 0.0344909 0.319846 0.357539
23 0.832298 0.25085 0.576108 0.39166
Tab.13  Results of usability obtained using the FSDT
Variable HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR) δ B
Average value 0.8903 0.1773 0.3657 0.3587 1.6078 0.5616
Tab.14  Summary of usability results obtained using the FSDT
Questions SDT FSDT
1. Do you frequently use the ST? 1 0.8
2. Is the ST complex to use? 0 0
3. Do you assume that the ST is the relatively easy-to-use thermostat available on the market? 1 0.8
4. Do you think that you need technical support for using it? 0 0.3
5. Do you find that several functions in the system are well integrated? 1 0.7
6. Do you believe that the ST is always difficult to use? 0 0.5
7. Do you believe that other people can quickly learn how to use it? 1 0.7
8. Is it rather easy to use the ST? 0 0.1
9. Are you confident of using it? 1 0.8
10. Do you need to learn several things before you start using it? 0 0.3
11. Do you take advantage of the government incentives to change your old thermostat for a new ST? 1 1
12. Do you know the relationship between kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity and carbon dioxide CO2? 1 0.9
13. Do you know the types of STs that are currently available on the market? 1 0.8
14. Do you know which one produces less CO2? 1 0.8
15. Is it important for you to save electrical energy at home? 1 1
16. Does energy saving affect your lifestyle? 1 0.8
17. Do you know the climatic impact caused by the production of a high level of CO2? 1 0.9
18. Does the ST consume a low amount of electrical energy? 1 1
Tab.15  Survey on expectation of STs
End user HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR)
1 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.39
2 0.626263 0.378791 0.414141 0.389667
3 0.62 0.48 0.32 0.36
4 0.624709 0.379288 0.328283 0.361389
5 0.62 0.4 0.32 0.36
6 0.471639 0.397934 0.414141 0.389667
7 0.70474 0.345175 0.247475 0.316063
8 0.525253 0.398143 0.333333 0.3636
9 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3
10 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.49
11 0.730381 0.330412 0.5 0.398942
12 0.769231 0.304215 0.580808 0.39073
13 0.769231 0.304215 0.414141 0.389667
14 0.575758 0.391727 0.414141 0.389667
15 0.614608 0.382365 0.333333 0.3636
16 0.664336 0.364596 0.414141 0.389667
17 0.832945 0.250226 0.580808 0.39073
18 0.625486 0.37904 0.580808 0.39073
19 0.523699 0.398238 0.5 0.398942
20 0.587413 0.389327 0.580808 0.39073
21 0.755245 0.314196 0.666667 0.3636
22 0.753691 0.315266 0.5 0.398942
23 0.728827 0.331362 0.666667 0.3636
Tab.16  SDT results of expectation
Variable HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR) δ B
Average value 0.6532 0.3580 0.4526 0.3800 0.5327 0.9459
Tab.17  Summary of results of the expectation obtained using the SDT
End user HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR)
1 0.65 0.3 0.4 0.3789
2 0.668174 0.362948 0.39314 0.384544
3 0.6679 0.37 0.4 0.398
4 0.661845 0.365645 0.361478 0.374644
5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3
6 0.545208 0.396378 0.226913 0.301351
7 0.675407 0.35973 0.551451 0.39562
8 0.576854 0.391517 0.274406 0.333317
9 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.3
10 0.7 0.3 0.7 0.3
11 0.696203 0.349663 0.709763 0.342435
12 0.75859 0.311866 0.701847 0.346719
13 0.75859 0.311866 0.614776 0.382316
14 0.618445 0.381227 0.366755 0.376478
15 0.686257 0.35463 0.255937 0.321726
16 0.764015 0.308012 0.242744 0.312799
17 0.832731 0.250433 0.701847 0.346719
18 0.616637 0.381768 0.366755 0.376478
19 0.546112 0.396274 0.44591 0.39527
20 0.650091 0.370364 0.401055 0.386608
21 0.844485 0.23881 0.622691 0.379924
22 0.804702 0.275965 0.472296 0.39798
23 0.813743 0.268053 0.44591 0.39527
Tab.18  Results of expectations obtained using the FSDT
Variable HR Y (HR) FAR Y (FAR) δ B
Average value 0.6798 0.3367 0.4459 0.3577 0.6608 0.9298
Tab.19  Summary of expectations obtained using the FSDT
1 S Darby. Smart metering: what potential for householder engagement? Building Research and Information, 2010, 38(5): 442–457
https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2010.492660
2 T Peffer, M Pritoni, A Meier, C Aragon, D Perry. How people use thermostats in homes: a review. Building and Environment, 2011, 46(12): 2529–2541
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.06.002
3 J Rosas, C Sheinbaum, D Morillon. The structure of household energy consumption and related CO2 emissions by income group in Mexico. Energy for Sustainable Development, 2010, 14(2): 127–133
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esd.2010.04.002
4 S Turber, J vom Brocke, O Gassmann, E Fleisch. Designing business models in the era of internet of things. In: Tremblay M C, VanderMeer D, Rothenberger M, Gupta A, Yoon V (eds), Advancing the Impact of Design Science: Moving from Theory to Practice. DESRIST 2014. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8463. Springer, Cham
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06701-8_2
5 M Pritoni, J Woolley, M P Modera. Do occupancy-responsive learning thermostats save energy? A field study in university residence halls. Energy and Buildings, 2016, 127: 469–478
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2016.05.024
6 A Meier, C Aragon, T Peffer, D Perry, M Pritoni. Usability of residential thermostats: preliminary investigations. Building and Environment, 2011, 46(10): 1891–1898
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.03.009
7 ENERGY.GOV. Energy saver: setting your thermostats for comfort and saving. 2016–09,
8 W Kleiminger, F Mattern, S Santini. Predicting household occupancy for smart heating control: a comparative performance analysis of state-of-the-art approaches. Energy and Building, 2014, 85: 493–505
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.09.046
9 A Keshtkar, S Arzanpour, F Keshtkar, P Ahmadi. Smart residential load reduction via fuzzy logic, wireless sensors, and smart grid incentives. Energy and Building, 2015, 104: 165–180
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.06.068
10 A Mahmood, N Javaid, S Razzaq. A review of wireless communications for smart grid. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, 41: 248–260
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.08.036
11 M Shipworth. Thermostat settings in English houses: no evidence of change between 1984 and 2007. Building and Environment, 2011, 46(3): 635–642
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2010.09.009
12 W Maarten. The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: renewable as common pool resources. Renewable & Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2012, 6(1): 822–835
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.09.006
13 G Assefa, B Frostell. Social sustainability and social acceptance in technology assessment: a case study of energy technologies. Technology in Society, 2007, 29(1): 6–78
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2006.10.007
14 R Uncles. What will lead to product acceptance and growing sales? In: Medical Equipment Industry-Potential for Growth Conference, 1998, 79–84
15 P Ponce, K Polasko, A Molina. Technology transfer motivation analysis based on fuzzy type-2 signal detection theory. AI & Society, 2016, 31(2): 245–257
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-015-0583-x
16 D McNicol. A Primer of Signal Detection Theory. Hove: Psychology Press, 2005
17 S Prasad, L M Bruce. Limitations of principal components analysis for hyperspectral target recognition. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2008, 5(4): 625–629
https://doi.org/10.1109/LGRS.2008.2001282
18 M Pritoni, A K Meier, C Aragon, D Perry, T Peffer. Energy efficiency and the misuse of programmable thermostats: the effectiveness of crowdsourcing for understanding household behavior. Energy Research & Social Science, 2015, 8: 190–197
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.002
19 R. Cericola10 smart home apps that make you want the Apple Watch. 2015, available at electronichouse.com website
20 M Hamdi, G Lachiver. A fuzzy control system based on the human sensation of thermal comfort. In: IEEE World Congress on Computational Intelligence, IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems Proceedings, Anchorage, AK, USA, 1998
https://doi.org/10.1109/FUZZY.1998.687534
21 J R Meyer, D T Uhrich. U.S. Patent No. 6101824, 2000
22 R G Boone, J Gordon, F Barnes, S Fraser-Beekman. Factors impacting innovation in a product development organization. In: IEEE International Conference on in Electro/Information Techno-logy (EIT), Indianapolis, IN, USA, 2012
https://doi.org/10.1109/EIT.2012.6220695
23 S Karjalainen. Gender differences in thermal comfort and use of thermostats in everyday thermal environments. Building and Environment, 2007, 42(4): 1594–1603
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.01.009
24 J W Moon, S H Han. Thermostat strategies impact on energy consumption in residential buildings. Energy and Building, 2011, 43(2): 338–346
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.09.024
25 J Nielsen, T K Landauer. A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT’93 and CHI’93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1993, 206–213
https://doi.org/10.1145/169059.169166
26 J Nielsen. Why you only need to test with 5 users: alertbox. 2016–10,
27 J Nielsen. Usability Engineering. London: Elsevier, 1994
28 L Faulkner. Beyond the five-user assumption: benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 2003, 35(3): 379–383
https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195514 pmid: 14587545
29 G Salvendy, J R Lewis. Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. London: Wiley, 2006
30 N Mantel. Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom; extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 1963, 58(303): 690–700
https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1963.10500879
31 M Conci, F Pianesi, M Zancanaro. Useful, social and enjoyable: Mobile phone adoption by older people. In: INTERACT’09 Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Part I, 2009, 63–76
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03655-2_7
32 National Institute of Statistic and Geography. Población (statistical information about population in Mexico). 2017–09,
33 National Institute of Statistic and Geography. “Estadísticas a propósito del… día mundial de internet (17 de mayo)”datos nacionales (statistical information about technology Mexico). 2017–09,
34 S W Campbell. Perceptions of mobile phones in college classrooms: ringing, cheating, and classroom policies. Communication Education, 2006, 55(3): 280–294
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520600748573
35 M P White, J R Eiser, P R Harris. Risk perceptions of mobile phone use while driving. Risk Analysis, 2004, 24(2): 323–334
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00434.x pmid: 15078303
36 N A Macmillan. Signal detection theory. In: Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology. London: Wiley, 2002
37 R Parasuraman, A J Masalonis, P A Hancock. Fuzzy signal detection theory: basic postulates and formulas for analyzing human and machine performance. Human Factors, 2000, 42(4): 636–659
https://doi.org/10.1518/001872000779697980 pmid: 11324856
38 H O Lancaster, E Seneta. Chi-square Distribution. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1969
39 T Özdemir, E Eyduran. Comparison of chi-square and likelihood ratio chi-square tests: power of test. Journal of Applied Sciences Research, 2005, 1(2): 242–244
https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000014585.17714.67
40 H O Lancaster, E Seneta. Chi-square Distribution. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005
41 T M Franke, T Ho, C A Christie. The chi-square test often used and more often misinterpreted. American Journal of Evaluation, 2012, 33(3): 448–458
https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214011426594
42 J A Swets. Signal Detection and Recognition by Human Observers.New York: Wiley, 1964
43 W W Peterson, T G Birdsall, W C Fox. The theory of signal detectability. Proceedings of the IRE Professional Group on Information Theory, 1954, 4: 171–212
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1954.1057460
44 J I Marcum. A statistical theory of target detection by pulsed radar. IRE Transactions on Information Theory, 1960, 6(2): 259–267
https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1960.1057560
45 C Paredes-Olay, M M Moreno-Fernández , J M Rosas, M M Ramos-Álvarez. ROC analysis in olive oil tasting: a signal detection theory approach to tasting tasks. Food Quality and Preference, 2010, 21(5): 562–568
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.03.003
46 D M Green, J A Swets. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics.New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1966
47 N A Macmillan, C C Douglas. Response bias: characteristics of detection theory, threshold theory, and “nonparametric” indexes. Psychological Bulletin, 1990, 107(3): 401–413
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.3.401
48 J G Snodgrass, J Corwin. Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: applications to dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1988, 117(1): 34–50
https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.117.1.34 pmid: 2966230
49 A, Masalonis R. Parasuraman Fuzzy signal detection theory: analysis of human and machine performance in air traffic control, and analytic considerations. Ergonomics, 2003, 46(11): 1045–1074
https://doi.org/10.1080/0014013031000121986
50 R Parasuraman, A J Masalonis, P A Hancock. Fuzzy signal detection theory: basic postulates and formulas for analyzing human and machine performance. Human Factors, 2000, 42(4): 636–659
https://doi.org/10.1518/001872000779697980 pmid: 11324856
51 P Baptiste, S Trépanier, S Pireaux, S Quessy. Difficulties connected to the integration of resource management in operations management. Journal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés, 2004, 38: 773–795 (in French)
52 J R S Brownson. Chapter 11–The Sun as Commons. In: Solar Energy Conversion Systems. Elsevier Inc., 2014, 287–305
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397021-3.00011-9
53 T Peffer, M Pritoni, A Meier, C Aragon, D Perry. How people use thermostats in homes: a review. Building and Environment, 2011, 46(12): 2529–2541
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2011.06.002
54 Fideicomiso para el Ahorro de Energía Eléctrica. Educación para el Ahorroy Uso Racional de la Energía Eléctrica Educaree. 2016–09,
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed