Perceived eating difficulties and preferences for various textures of raw and cooked carrots in young and elderly subjects

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 18, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 437-451

  Roininen, Katariina ^a   Fillion, Laurence ^b   Kilcast, David ^b   Lähteenmäki, Liisa ^a  

^a VTT TECHNICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF FINLAND   (Finland)

^b LEATHERHEAD FOOD RESEARCH   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOTECHNOLOGY; FOOD PRODUCTS; MASTICATION; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SENSORY PERCEPTION; TEXTURES;

DENTAL DEFICIENCY; SENSORY PANELS;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

DAUCUS CAROTA;

EID: 1442360434     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459x.2003.tb00399.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. BARON, R.F. and PENFIELD, M.P. 1993. Panelists texture preference affect sensory evaluation of green been cultivates (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). J. Food Sci. 58, 138-139, 143.
2. DUFFY, V.B., CAIN, W.S. and FERRIS, A.M. 1999. Measuring of sensitivity of olfactory flavor: application in a study of ageing and dentures. Chem. Senses 24, 671-677.
3. FILLION, L. and KILCAST, D. 2001. Towards a measurement of oral tactile sensitivity and masticatory performance: development of texture tests. Leatherhead Food Research Association Research Reports. Number 781.
4. GREENHOFF, K. and MACFIE, H.J.H. 1994. Preference mapping in practice. In Measurement of Food Preferences, (K. Greenhoff and H.J.H. MacFie, eds.) pp. 137-166, Blackie Academic and Professional, Glasgow, UK.
5. GUINARD, J-X. and MAZZUCCHELLI, R. 1996. The sensory perception of texture and mouthfeel. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 7, 213-219.
6. HELGESEN, H., SOLHEIM, R. and NAES, T. 1997. Consumer preference mapping of dry fermented lab sausages. Food Qual. Pref. 8, 97-109.
7. HOUGH, G. and SÁNCHEZ, R. 1998. Descriptive analysis and external preference mapping of powdered chocolate milk. Food Qual. Pref. 9, 197-204.
8. JELLINEK, J.S. 1989. Marketing foods to the ageing and the aged. Dragoco rep. 1, 26-33.
9. JOHNSON, K.O. and PHILLIPS, J.R. 1981. Tactile spatial resolution. I. Two point discrimination, gap detection, grating resolution, and letter recognition. J. Neurophysiol. 46, 1177-1191.
10. KÄLVIÄINEN, N., SALOVAARA, H. and TUORILA, H. 2002. Sensory attributes and preference mapping of muesli oat flakes. J. Food Sci. 67, 455-460.
11. KÄLVIÄINEN, N., ROININEN, K. and TUORILA H. 2003. The relative importance of texture, taste and aroma on a yogurt-type snack food preference in the young and in the elderly. Food Qual. Pref. 14, 177-186.
12. MCEWAN, J.A. 1996. Preference mapping in product optimization. In Multivariate Analysis of Data in Sensory Science, (T. Naes and E. Risvik, eds.) pp. 71-102, Elsevier Science, Amsterdam.
13. PELEG, M. 1993. Tailoring texture for the elderly: theoretical aspects and technological options. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 33, 45-55.
14. ROININEN, K., FILLION, L., KILCAST, D. and LÄHTEENMÄKI, L. 2003. Exploring difficult textural properties of fruit and vegetables for elderly in Finland and the UK. Food Qual. Pref. In press.
15. SHEPHERD, R., GRIFFITHS, N.M. and SMITH, K. 1988. The relationship between consumer preference and trained panel responses. J. Sensory Studies 3, 19-35.
16. SHIP, J.A. 1999. The influence of aging on oral health and consequences for taste and smell. Physiol. Behav. 66, 209-215.
17. SMITHERS, G. et al. 1998. The national diet and nutrition survey: people aged 65 years and over. Nutr. Food Sci. 3, 133-137.
18. SZCZESNIAK, A.S. 1971. Consumer awareness of texture and of other food attributes. II. J. Texture Studies 3, 196-206.
19. WYNNE, A. 1999. Nutrition in older people. Nutr. Food Sci. 5, 219-223.