Performance of hedonic scales in sensory acceptability of strawberry yogurt

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 9-21

  Silva, Alexandre Navarro da ^a   Silva, Rita de Cássia dos Santos Navarro da ^a   Ferreira, Marco Aurélio Marques ^a   Minim, Valéria Paula Rodrigues ^a   Costa, Thiago de Melo Teixeira da ^a   Perez, Ronaldo ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF VIÇOSA   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Assumptions of the analysis of variance; Discrimination of products; Homogeneity of variances; Normality of errors

Indexed keywords

EID: 84877806460     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.04.001     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Bayarri S., Martí M., Carbonell I., Costell E. Identifying drivers of liking for commercial spreadable cheeses with different fat content. Journal of Sensory Studies 2011, 27(1):1-11.
2. Bergara-Almeida S., Da Silva M.A.A.P. Hedonic scale with reference: performance in obtaining predictive models. Food Quality and Preference 2002, 13(1):57-64.
3. Colyar J.M., Eggett D.L., Steele F.M., Dunn M.L., Ogden L.V. Sensitivity comparisons of sequential monadic and side-by-side presentation protocols in affective consumer testing. Journal of Food Science 2009, 74(7):S322-S327.
4. Cowart B.J., Beauchamp G.K. The importance of sensory context in young children's acceptance of salty tastes. Child Development 1986, 57(4):1034-1039.
5. Gay C., Mead R. A statistical appraisal of the problem of sensory measurement. Journal of Sensory Studies 1992, 7(3):205-228.
6. Giovanni M.E., Pangborn R.M. Measurement of taste intensity and degree of liking of beverages by graphic scales and magnitude estimation. Journal of Food Science 1983, 48(4):1175-1182.
7. Green B.G., Shaffer G.S., Gilmore M.M. Derivation and evaluation of a semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties. Chemical Senses 1993, 18(6):683-702.
8. Greene J.L., Bratka K.J., Drake M.A., Sanders T.H. Effectiveness of category and line scales to characterize consumer perception of fruity fermented flavor in peanuts. Journal of Sensory Studies 2006, 21(2):46-154.
9. Hein K.A., Hamid N., Jaeger S.R., Delahunty C.M. Application of a written scenario to evoke a consumption context in a laboratory setting: effects on hedonic ratings. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(4):410-416.
10. Hein K.A., Jaeger S.R., Carr B.T., Delahunty C.M. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Quality and Preference 2008, 19(7):651-661.
11. Hersleth M., Ueland Ø., Allain H., Næs T. Consumer acceptance of cheese, influence of different testing conditions. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16(2):103-110.
12. Hough G., Sanchez R., Barbieri T., Martinez E. Sensory optimization of powdered chocolate milk formula. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8(3):213-221.
13. Jeon S.Y., O'Mahony M., Kim K.O. A comparison of category and line scales under various experimental protocols. Journal of Sensory Studies 2004, 19(1):49-66.
14. Kim K.O., O'Mahony M. A new approach to category scales of intensity I: traditional vs. rank-rating. Journal of Sensory Studies 1998, 13(3):241-249.
15. King S.C., Meiselman H.L., Hottenstein A.W., Work T.M., Cronk V. The effects of contextual variables on food acceptability: a confirmatory study. Food Quality and Preference 2007, 18(1):58-65.
16. Koo T.Y., Kim K.O., O'Mahony M. Effects of forgetting on performance on various intensity scaling protocols: magnitude estimation and labeled magnitude scale (Green scale). Journal of Sensory Studies 2002, 17(2):177-192.
17. Lawless H.T. Commentary on comparative performance of the nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal preference maps. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(1):165-166.
18. Lawless H.T., Malone G.J. The discriminative efficiency of common scaling methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 1986, 1(1):85-98.
19. Lawless H.T., Popper R., Kroll B.J. A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedonic scale. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(1):4-12.
20. Lee H.J., Kim K.O., O'Mahony M. Effects of forgetting on various protocols for category and line scales of intensity. Journal of Sensory Studies 2001, 16(4):327-342.
21. Lim J. Hedonic scaling: a review of methods and theory. Food Quality and Preference 2011, 22(8):733-747.
22. Lim J., Fujimaru T. Evaluation of the labeled hedonic scale under different experimental conditions. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(5):521-530.
23. Marks L.E., Arieh Y. Differential effects of stimulus context in sensory processing. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée 2006, 56(4):213-221.
24. Marks L.E., Shepard T.G., Burger K., Chakwin E.M. Flavor-intensity perception: effects of stimulus context. Physiology & Behavior 2012, 105(2):443-450.
25. McBride R.L. Hedonic rating of food: single or side-by-side sample presentation?. Journal of Food Technology 1986, 21(3):55-63.
26. McPherson R.S., Randall E. Line length measurement as a tool for food preference research. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 1985, 17(2):149-156.
27. Mead R., Gay C. Sequential design of sensory trials. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6(4):271-280.
28. Meilgaard M.C., Civille G.V., Carr B.T. Sensory Evaluation Techniques 2006, CRC Press, Boca Raton. fourth ed.
29. Montgomery D.C. Design and Analysis of Experiments 1984, John Wiley & Sons, New York. second ed.
30. Nicolas L., Marquilly C., O'Mahony M. The 9-point hedonic scale: are words and numbers compatible?. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(8):1008-1015.
31. O'Brien, R., Lohr, V., 1984. Power analysis for linear models: The time has come. In: Proceedings of the ninth annual SAS User's Group international conference, pp. 840-846.
32. Olsen N.V., Menichelli E., Sørheim O., Næs T. Likelihood of buying healthy convenience food: an at-home testing procedure for ready-to-heat meals. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24(1):171-178.
33. O'Mahony M. Some assumptions and difficulties with common statistics for sensory analysis. Food Technology 1982, 36(11):75-82.
34. Parducci A. Category judgment: a range-frequency model. Psychological Review 1965, 72(6):407-418.
35. Parducci A. Contextual effects: a range-frequency analysis. Handbook of Perception: Psychophysical Judgment and Measurement 1974, Academic Press Inc, New York. E.C. Carterette, M.P. Friedman (Eds.).
36. Pearce J.H., Korth B., Warren C.B. Evaluation of three scaling methods for hedonics. Journal of Sensory Studies 1986, 1(1):27-46.
37. Peryam D.R., Pilgrim F.J. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technology 1957, 11(9):9-14.
38. Piggott J.R. Design questions in sensory and consumer science. Food Quality and Preference 1995, 6(4):217-220.
39. Schutz H.G., Cardello A.V. A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking. Journal of Sensory Studies 2001, 16(2):117-159.
40. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory Evaluation Practices 1993, Academic, New York. second ed.
41. Stone H., Sidel J.L. Sensory Evaluation Practices 2004, Academic, New York. third ed.
42. Tepper B.J., Shaffer S.E., Shearer C.M. Sensory perception of fat in common foods using two scaling methods. Food Quality and Preference 1994, 5(4):245-251.
43. Villanueva N.D.M., Da Silva M.A.A.P. Comparative performance of the nine-point hedonic, hybrid and self-adjusting scales in the generation of internal preference maps. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(1):1-12.
44. Villanueva N.D.M., Petenate A.J., Da Silva M.A.A.P. Performance of three affective methods and diagnosis of the ANOVA model. Food Quality and Preference 2000, 11(5):363-370.
45. Villanueva N.D.M., Petenate A.J., Da Silva M.A.A.P. Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self-adjusting and ranking scales. Food Quality and Preference 2005, 16(8):691-703.
46. Yao E., Lim J., Tamaki K., Ishii R., Kim K., O'Mahony M. Structured and unstructured 9-point hedonic scales: a cross cultural study with American, Japanese and Korean consumers. Journal of Sensory Studies 2003, 18(2):115-139.