Comparison of the hedonic general labeled magnitude scale with the hedonic 9-point scale

Journal of Food Science

Volumn 79, Issue 2, 2014, Pages

  Kalva, Jaclyn J ^a   Sims, Charles A ^a   Puentes, Lorenzo A ^a   Snyder, Derek J ^b   Bartoshuk, Linda M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

Across group comparisons; Hedonic 9 point scale; Hedonic general Labeled Magnitude Scale; Psychophysics; Sensory evaluation

Indexed keywords

ACROSS-GROUP COMPARISONS; ADULT; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONSUMER; DECISION MAKING; FOOD PREFERENCE; HEDONIC 9-POINT SCALE; HEDONIC GENERAL LABELED MAGNITUDE SCALE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSATION; SENSORY EVALUATION; TASTE; UNITED STATES;

ACROSS-GROUP COMPARISONS; HEDONIC 9-POINT SCALE; HEDONIC GENERAL LABELED MAGNITUDE SCALE; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SENSORY EVALUATION;

ADULT; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER SATISFACTION; FLORIDA; FOOD PREFERENCES; HUMANS; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSATION; TASTE; TASTE PERCEPTION;

EID: 84894277237     PISSN: 00221147     EISSN: 17503841     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.12342     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Aitken RCB. 1969. Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proc R Soc Med 62:989-93.
2. Bartoshuk LM. 1979. Bitter taste of saccharin: related to the genetic ability to taste the bitter substance 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP). Science 205:934-5.
3. Bartoshuk LM. 1991. Sweetness: history, preference, and genetic variability. Food Technol 45:108-13.
4. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Miller IJ. 1994. PTC/PROP tasting: anatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects. Physiol Behav 56:1165-71.
5. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Fast K, Green BG, Prutkin JM, Snyder DJ. 2002. Labeled scales (e.g., category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across-group comparisons. What we have learned from genetic variation in taste. Food Qual Prefer 14:125-38.
6. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Green BG, Hoffman HJ, Ko C-W, Lucchina LA, Marks LE, Snyder DJ, Weiffenbach J. 2004. Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS vs magnitude matching. Physiol Behav 82:109-14.
7. Bartoshuk LM, Cartalanotto JA, Hoffman HJ, Logan HL, Snyder DJ. 2012. Taste damage (otitis media, tonsillectomy and head and neck cancer) can intenify oral sensations. Physiol Behav 107:516-26.
8. Biernat M, Manis M. 1994. Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgements. J Pers Soc Psychol 66:5-20.
9. Birnbaum MH. 1999. How to show that 9>221: collect judgements in a between-subjects design. Psychol Methods 4:243-9.
10. Borg G. 1982. A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In: Geissler HG, Petzold P, editors. Psychophysical judgment and the process of perception. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften. p 25-34.
11. Cardello A, Lawless HT, Schutz HG. 2008. Effects of extreme anchors and interior label spacing on labeled affective magnitude scales. Food Qual Prefer 19:473-80.
12. Cordonnier SM, Delwiche JF. 2008. An alternative method for assessing liking: positional relative rating versus the 9-point scale. J Sens Stud 23:284-92.
13. Drewnowski A, Henderson SA, Shore AB. 1997a. Genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) and hedonic responses to bitter and sweet tastes. Chem Senses 22:27-37.
14. Drewnowski A, Henderson SA, Shore AB, Barratt-Fornell A. 1997b. Nontasters, tasters, and supertasters of 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) and hedonic response to sweet. Physiol Behav 62:649-55.
15. Drewnowski A, Henderson SA, Cockroft JE. 2007. Genetic sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil has no influence on dietary patterns, body mass indexes, or plasma lipid profiles of women. J Am Diet Assoc 107:1340-1348.
16. Duffy VB, Peterson JM, Dinehart ME, Bartoshuk LM. 2003. Genetic and environmental variation in taste: associations with sweet intensitiy, preferences and intake. Top Clin Nutr 18:209-20.
17. El Dine AN, Olabi A. 2009. Effect of reference foods in repeated acceptability tests: testing familiar and novel foods using 2 acceptability scales. J Food Sci 74(2):S97-106.
18. Fox AL. 1931. Six in ten "tasteblind" to bitter chemical. Sci News Lett 9:249.
19. Fox AL. 1932. The relationship between chemical constitution and taste. Proc Natl Acad Sci 18:115-20.
20. Gracely RH, McGrath P, Dubner R. 1978. Ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors. Pain 5:5-18.
21. Green BG, Shaffer GS, Gilmore MM. 1993. A semantically-labeled magnitude scale of oral sensation with apparent ratio properties. Chem Senses 18:683-702.
22. Greene JL, Bratka KJ, Drake MA, Sanders TH. 2006. Effectiveness of category and line scales to characterize consumer perception of fruity fermented flavor in peanuts. J Sens Stud 21:146-54.
23. Hall MJ, Bartoshuk LM, Cain WS, Stevens JC. 1975. PTC taste blindness and the taste of caffeine. Nature 253:442-3.
24. Hayes JE, Bartoshuk LM, Kidd JR, Duffy VB. 2008. Supertasting and PROP bitterness depends on more than the TAS2R38 gene. Chem Senses 33(3):255-65.
25. Hayes JE, Sullivan BS, Duffy VB. 2010. Explaining variability in sodium intake through oral sensory phenotype, salt sensation and liking. Physiol Behav 100:369-80.
26. Hein KA, Jaeger SR, Carr BT, Delahunty CM. 2008. Comparison of five common acceptance and preference methods. Food Qual Prefer 19:651-61.
27. Hetherington MM, Rolls BJ. 1987. Methods of investigating human eating behavior. In: Toates FM, Rowland NE, editors. Feeding and drinking. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers (Biomedical Division). p 77-109.
28. Kamen JM, Pilgrim FJ, Gutman NJ, Kroll BJ. 1961. Interactions of suprathreshold taste stimuli. J Exp Psychol 62:348-56.
29. Kim UK, Jorgenson E, Coon H, Leppert M, Risch N, Drayna D. 2003. Positional cloning of the human quantitative trait locus underlying taste sensitivity to phenylthiocarbamide. Science 299:1221-5.
30. Lawless HT, Popper R, Kroll BJ. 2010a. A comparison of the labeled magnitude (LAM) scale, an 11-point category scale and the traditional 9-point hedoniic scale. Food Qual Prefer 21:4-12.
31. Lawless HT, Sinopoli D, Chapman KW. 2010b. A comparison of the Labeled Affective Magnitude Scale and the 9-point hedonic scale and examination of categorical behavior. J Sens Stud 25:54-66.
32. Lim J, Fujimaru T. 2010. Evaluation of the Labeled Hedonic Scale under different experimental conditions. Food Qual Prefer 21:521-
33. Lim J, Wood A, Green BG. 2009. Derivation and evaluation of a labeled hedonic scale. Chem Senses 34:739-51.
34. Marks LE, Stevens JC. 1980. Measuring sensation in the aged. In: Poon LW, editor. Aging in the 1980s: psychological issues. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. p 592-8.
35. Marks LE, Stevens JC, Bartoshuk LM, Gent JG, Rifkin B, Stone VK. 1988. Magnitude matching: the measurement of taste and smell. Chem Senses 13:63-87.
36. Moskowitz HR. 1977. Magnitude estimation: notes on what, how, when, and why to use it. J Food Qual 1:195-228.
37. Narens L, Luce RD. 1983. How we may have been misled into believing in the interpersonal comparability of utility. Theory Decis 15:247-60.
38. Peryam DR, Girardot NF. 1952. Advanced taste test method. Food Eng 24:58-61, 194.
39. Peryam DR, Haynes JG. 1957. Prediction of soldiers' food preference by laboratory methods. J Appl Psychol 41:2-7.
40. Peryam DR, Pilgrim FJ. 1957. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technol 11:9-14.
41. Prutkin JM, Duffy VB, Etter L, Fast K, Gardner E, Lucchina LA, Snyder DJ, Tie K, Weiffenbach J, Bartoshuk LM. 2000. Genetic variation and inferences about perceived taste intensity in mice and men. Physiol Behav 69:161-73.
42. Royuela MF. 2011. A comparison of three different versions of the hedonic general Labeled Magnitude Scale. Gainesville, Fla.: Univ. of Florida.
43. Schutz HG, Cardello AV. 2001. A labeled affective magnitude (LAM) scale for assessing food liking/disliking. J Sens Stud 16:117-59.
44. Snyder DJ, Prescott J, Bartoshuk LM. 2006. Modern psychophysics and the assessment of human oral sensation. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 63:221-41.
45. Snyder DJ, Puentes LA, Sims CA, Bartoshuk LM. 2008. Building a better intensity scale: which labels are essential? Chem Senses 33:S142.
46. Stevens JC. 1959. Cross-modality validation of subjective scales for loudness, vibration, and electric shock. J Exp Psychol 57:201-9.
47. Stevens JC, Marks LE. 1980. Cross-modality matching functions generated by magnitude estimation. Percept Psychophys 27:379-89.
48. Tepper BJ, Nurse RJ. 1997. Fat perception is related to PROP taster status. Physiol Behav 61:949-54.
49. Tepper BJ, Nurse RJ. 1998. PROP taster status is related to fat perception and preference. In: Murphy C, editor. International symposium on olfaction and taste XIX. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. p 802-4.
50. Tepper BJ, White EA, Koelliker Y, Lanzara C, d'Adamo P, Gasparini P. 2009. Genetic variation in taste sensitivity to 6-n-propylthirouracil and its relationship to taste perception and food selection. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1170:126-39.