Validating A Graph Theoretic Screening Approach To Food Item Combinations

Journal of Sensory Studies

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 331-338

  Nestrud, Michael A ^a,c   Ennis, John M ^b   Fayle, Charles M ^b   Ennis, Daniel M ^b   Lawless, Harry T ^a  

^a Department of Obstetrics Gynecology   (United States)

^b Institute for Perception   (United States)

^c US Army Natick Soldier R D and E Center   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GRAPH-THEORETIC; GRAPH-THEORETIC METHODS; MATHEMATICAL FIELDS; PRODUCT FORMULATION; SCREENING APPLICATION; SCREENING APPROACHES; SCREENING TOOL; WILCOXON TEST;

GRAPH THEORY;

EID: 80053524139     PISSN: 08878250     EISSN: 1745459X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00348.x     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. AASLYNG, M.D. and FRøST, M.B. 2008. The effect of basic taste solutions and selected vegetable accompaniments on the sensory properties of pork. J. Sensory Studies 23, 720-742.
2. AASLYNG, M.D. and FRøST, M.B. 2010. The effect of the combination of salty, bitter and sour accompaniment on the flavor and juiciness of pork patties. J. Sensory Studies 25, 536-548.
3. BOLLOBAAS, B. 1998. Modern Graph Theory, 1st Ed., Springer-Verlag, New York, NY.
4. BRIN, S. and PAGE, L. 1998. The anatomy of a large-scale hypertextual web search engine. Comput. Netw. ISDN Syst. 30, 107-117.
5. BRON, C. and KERBOSCH, J. 1973. Algorithm 457 - finding all cliques of an undirected graph. Commun. ACM 16, 575-577.
6. CAZALS, F. and KARANDE, C. 2005. An algorithm for reporting maximal c-cliques. Theor. Comput. Sci. 349, 484-490.
7. EINDHOVEN, J. and PERYAM, D.R. 1959. Measurement of preferences for food combinations. Food Technol. 13, 379-382.
8. ENNIS, D.M., PALEN, J.J. and MULLEN, K. 1988. A multidimensional stochastic theory of similarity. J. Math. Psychol. 32, 449-465.
9. ENNIS, D.M., ROUSSEAU, B. and ENNIS, J.M. 2011. Short Stories in Sensory and Consumer Science, IFPress, Richmond, VA.
10. ENNIS, J.M., FAYLE, C.M. and ENNIS, D.M. eTURF: A competitive TURF algorithm for large datasets. Food Qual. Prefer. (in press). doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.06.004.
11. GOFMAN, A. 2006. Emergent scenarios, synergies and suppressions uncovered within conjoint analysis. J. Sensory Studies 21, 373-414.
12. GOLOMB, S.W. and BAUMERT, L.D. 1965. Backtrack programming. JACM 12, 516-524.
13. GREEN, P.E. and SRINIVASAN, V. 1978. Conjoint analysis in consumer research: Issues and outlook. J. Consum. Res. 5, 103-123.
14. HEDDERLEY, D.I. and MEISELMAN, H.L. 1995. Modelling meal acceptability in a free choice environment. Food Qual. Prefer. 6, 15-26.
15. JOHNSON, J. and VICKERS, Z. 1987. Avoiding the centering bias or range effect when determining an optimum level of sweetness in lemonade. J. Sensory Studies 2, 283-292.
16. KING, M. and CLIFF, M. 2005. Evaluation of ideal wine and cheese pairs using a deviation-from-ideal scale with food and wine experts. J. Food Qual. 28, 245-256.
17. KLARMAN, L. and MOSKOWITZ, H.R. 1977. Food compatibilities and menu planning. Can. Inst. Food Sci. Technol. J. 10, 257-264.
18. KNOKE, D. and YANG, S. 2008. Social Network Analysis, 2nd Ed., Sage Publications, Los Angeles, CA.
19. KOCH, I. 2001. Enumerating all connected maximal common subgraphs in two graphs. Theor. Comput. Sci. 250, 1-30.
20. LAWLESS, H.T. 1994. Contextual and measurement aspects of acceptability. U.S. Army Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center. Technical Report.
21. LUCE, R.D. and TUKEY, J.W. 1964. Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement. J. Math. Psychol. 1, 1-27.
22. MARSHALL, D. and BELL, R. 2003. Meal construction: Exploring the relationship between eating occasion and location. Food Qual. Prefer. 14, 53-64.
23. MOSKOWITZ, H.R. and KRIEGER, B. 1995. The contribution of sensory liking to overall liking: An analysis of six food categories. Food Qual. Prefer. 6, 83-90.
24. MOSKOWITZ, H.R. and ROGOZENSKI, J.G. 1983. A system for the preference evaluation of cyclic menus. Foodserv. Res. Int. 2, 139-161.
25. MOSKOWITZ, H.R. and SILCHER, M. 2006. The applications of conjoint analysis and their possible uses in Sensometrics. Food Qual. Prefer. 17, 145-165.
26. NIEWIND, A.C., KRONDL, M. and VAN'T FOORT, T. 1986. Combinations of foods and their compatibility. Ecol. Food Nutr. 19, 131-139.
27. NISHISATO, S. 1984. Forced classification: A simple application of a quantification method. Psychometrika 49, 25-36.
28. PALLA, G., DERENYI, I., FARKAS, I. and VICSEK, T. 2005. Uncovering the overlapping community structure of complex networks in nature and society. Nature 435, 814-818.
29. PILGRIM, F.J. 1961. What foods do people accept or reject? J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 38, 439-443.
30. SCHIFFMAN, S.S., REYNOLDS, M.L. and YOUNG, F.W. 1981. Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Academic Press, New York, NY.
31. SCHUTZ, H.G. 1988. Beyond preference: Appropriateness as a measure of contextual acceptance of food. In Food Acceptability (D.M. Thomas, ed.) pp. 115-134, Elsevier Applied Science, London, U.K.
32. SIDEL, J.L. 1972. Correlation between hedonic ratings and consumption of beer. J. Food Sci. 37, 335-335.
33. TURNER, M. and COLLISON, R. 1988. Consumer acceptance of meals and meal components. Food Qual. Prefer. 1, 21-24.
34. WORSLEY, A., BAGHURST, P.A., COONAN, W. and PETERS, M. 1984. A multi-dimensional scaling exploration of ten year olds' food combination rules. Ecol. Food Nutr. 19, 37-46.