Literature DB >> 10667998

Contrast and range effects for category, magnitude and labeled magnitude scales in judgements of sweetness intensity.

H T Lawless1, J Horne, W Spiers.   

Abstract

The labeled magnitude scale (LMS) is a verbally anchored quasi-logarithmically spaced response scale with properties similar to magnitude estimation. Three experiments examined whether the LMS showed context effects similar to those found with magnitude estimation and category scales. Two versions of the LMS were used, one anchored at the high end to the strongest imaginable sweetness and the other to the strongest imaginable oral sensation. In a simple contrast experiment, subjects judged the sweetness of a 10% sucrose fruit beverage in the context of a less sweet (5%) beverage or a more sweet (20%) beverage. Consistent with previous literature, the sweetness was judged more intense in the low context and less intense in the high context, for all scaling methods. In a second experiment, this effect persisted (although was smaller) when the contextual item preceded the to-be-rated item, a so-called 'reversed-pair' design. Once again, the effect was highly significant for all scaling methods. In a third experiment, a range effect was examined using wide and narrow ranges of concentration. Psychophysical functions were flatter in a wide context and steeper in a narrow context, consistent with previous observations on range-mapping bias. This result was obtained for all scales. In three common contextual effects, the labeled magnitude scale behaved similarly to other scaling procedures. Its application to comparisons across individuals may be limited if those individuals have different experiential contexts within which they make their judgements.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10667998     DOI: 10.1093/chemse/25.1.85

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chem Senses        ISSN: 0379-864X            Impact factor:   3.160


  9 in total

1.  Flavor-intensity perception: effects of stimulus context.

Authors:  Lawrence E Marks; Timothy G Shepard; Kelly Burger; Emily M Chakwin
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2011-09-10

2.  Flavor Identification and Intensity: Effects of Stimulus Context.

Authors:  Emily S Hallowell; Roshan Parikh; Maria G Veldhuizen; Lawrence E Marks
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2016-01-31       Impact factor: 3.160

3.  Odor frequency and odor annoyance. Part I: assessment of frequency, intensity and hedonic tone of environmental odors in the field.

Authors:  Kirsten Sucker; Ralf Both; Michael Bischoff; Rainer Guski; Gerhard Winneke
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2007-10-12       Impact factor: 3.015

4.  Contextual Effects in Judgments of Taste Intensity: No Assimilation, Sometimes Contrast.

Authors:  Timothy G Shepard; Adam Y Shavit; Maria G Veldhuizen; Lawrence E Marks
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2016-12-26       Impact factor: 1.490

5.  Perceptual and Affective Responses to Sampled Capsaicin Differ by Reported Intake.

Authors:  Alissa A Nolden; John E Hayes
Journal:  Food Qual Prefer       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 5.565

Review 6.  Appetite control: methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods.

Authors:  J Blundell; C de Graaf; T Hulshof; S Jebb; B Livingstone; A Lluch; D Mela; S Salah; E Schuring; H van der Knaap; M Westerterp
Journal:  Obes Rev       Date:  2010-01-29       Impact factor: 9.213

7.  Why Taste Is Pharmacology.

Authors:  R Kyle Palmer
Journal:  Handb Exp Pharmacol       Date:  2022

8.  Oral sensory phenotype identifies level of sugar and fat required for maximal liking.

Authors:  John E Hayes; Valerie B Duffy
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2008-05-02

9.  A Comparison of Psychophysical Dose-Response Behaviour across 16 Sweeteners.

Authors:  May Wee; Vicki Tan; Ciarán Forde
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2018-11-02       Impact factor: 5.717

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.