Development of a model for prediction of consumer liking from visual attributes of new and established apple cultivars

Journal of the American Pomological Society

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 223-229

  King, Marjorie C ^a   Cliff, Margaret A ^a  

^a AGRICULTURE AND AGRI FOOD CANADA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

MALUS X DOMESTICA;

EID: 2942726458     PISSN: 15273741     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Carr B.T., D. Craig-Petsinger and S. Hadlich. 2001. A case study in relating sensory descriptive data to product concept fit and consumer vocabulary. Food Quality and Preference 12:407-412.
2. Cliff, M.A., M.C. King and C. Hampson. 1998. Comparison of mean scores and R-indices for consumer preferences of apple cultivars. HortScience 33(7):1239-1240.
3. Cliff, M.A., K. Sanford and E. Johnston. 1999. Evaluation of hedonic scores and R-indices for visual, flavour and texture preferences of apple cultivars by British Columbian and Nova Scotian consumers. Can. J. Plant Sci. 79:395-399.
4. Cliff, M, K. Sanford, W. Wismer and C. Hampson. 2001. Use of digital images for evaluation of factors responsible for visual preference of apples by consumers. HortScience XX: in press.
5. Daillant-Spinnler, B., H.J.H. MacFie, P.K. Beyts and D. Hedderley. 1996. Relationship between perceived sensory properties and major preference directions of 12 varieties of apples from the southern hemisphere. Food Quality and Preference 7(2):113-126.
6. Kappel, F., R. Fisher-Fleming and E.J. Hogue. 1995. Ideal pear sensory attributes and fruit characteristics. HortScience 30 (5):988-993.
7. Goldman, A. 1994. Gaining the competitive edge: Sensory science in the market place. Cereal Foods World 39 (11/12):822-826.
8. Hampson, C.R. and H.A. Quamme. 2000. Use of preference testing to identify tolerance limits for fruit visual attributes in apple breeding. HortScience 35(5):921-924.
9. Hampson, C.R, Quamme, H.A., Hall, J.W., MacDonald, R.A., King, M.C. and Cliff,M.A. 2000. Sensory evaluation as a selection tool in apple breeding. Euphytica 111: 79-90.
10. Lawless, H.T. 1994. Getting results you can trust from sensory evaluation. Cereal Foods World 39 (11/12) 809-814.
11. Munoz, A.M., E. Chambers and S. Hummer. 1996. A multifaceted category research study: How to understand a product category and its consumer responses. J Sensory Studies 11:261-294.
12. O'Mahony M. 1995. Sensory measurement in food science: fitting methods to goals. Food Technol. 49:73-82.
13. Roberts, A.K. and Z.M. Vickers. 1994. Acomparison of trained and untrained judges' evaluation of sensory attributes and liking of cheddar cheeses. J Sensory Stud. 9:1-20.
14. Shepherd, R., C.A. Farleigh, D.G. Land and J.G. Franklin. 1984 Validity of a relative-to-deal rating procedure compared with hedonic rating. In: Progress in flavour Research ed. J. Adda. Elsevier Science Publishers. Amsterdam. pp. 103-110.
15. Sidel, J. L., H. Stone, and H.A. Thomas. 1994. Hitting the target: sensory and product optimization. Cereal Foods World 39 (11/12):826-830.
16. von Alvenseleben, R. And T. Meier. 1990. The influence of origin and variety on consumer perception. Acta-Horticulturae. 239:151-161.