Static vs. dynamic liking in chewing gum: A new approach using a background task and a natural setting

Food Quality and Preference

Volumn 40, Issue PB, 2015, Pages 381-386

  Galmarini, M V ^a,b   Symoneaux, R ^c   Visalli, M ^d   Zamora, M C ^a,b   Schlich, P ^d  

^a PONTIFICIA UNIVERSIDAD CATÓLICA ARGENTINA   (Argentina)

^b Facultad de Ciencias Naturales e Instituto M Lillo   (Argentina)

^c LUNAM Universite   (France)

^d CENTRE DES SCIENCES DU GOÛT ET DE L ALIMENTATION   (France)

Author keywords

Consumers; Dynamic; In home test; Internet; Preference

Indexed keywords

MENTHA;

EID: 84919396293     PISSN: 09503293     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.01.002     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Aitken R.C. Measurement of feelings using visual analogue scales. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 1969, 62(10):989.
2. Delarue J., Loescher E. Dynamics of food preferences: A case study with chewing gums. Food Quality and Preference 2004, 15(7-8):771-779.
3. Dijksterhuis G.B., Piggott J.R. Dynamic methods of sensory analysis. Trends in Food Science & Technology 2000, 11(8):284-290.
4. Duizer L.M., Bloom K., Findlay C.J. Dual-attribute time-intensity sensory evaluation: A new method for temporal measurement of sensory perceptions. Food Quality and Preference 1997, 8(4):261-269.
5. Jack F.R., Piggott J.R., Paterson A. Analysis of textural changes in hard cheese during mastication by progressive profiling. Journal of Food Science 1994, 59(3):539-543.
6. Lee W., Pangborn M. Time-intensity: The temporal aspects of sensory perception. Food Technology 1986, 40:78-82.
7. Lenzi, S., Kar, S., Michaelidou, T. A., Harvey, J. E., Beam, M. A., Mccormick, D. T., Wong, S., Guan, J., Levenson, D., & Campomanes-marin, J. P. (2012). Chewing gum compositions providing flavor release profiles. In: EP patent 2,403,349.
8. McGowan B.A., Lee S.Y. Comparison of methods to analyze time-intensity curves in a corn zein chewing gum study. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17(3-4):296-306.
9. Methven L., Rahelu K., Economou N., Kinneavy L., Ladbrooke-Davis L., Kennedy O.B., et al. The effect of consumption volume on profile and liking of oral nutritional supplements of varied sweetness: Sequential profiling and boredom tests. Food Quality and Preference 2010, 21(8):948-955.
10. Neilson A.J. Time-intensity studies. Drug and Cosmetic Industry 1957, 80(4):452-453. [534].
11. Piggott J.R. Understanding flavour quality: difficult or impossible?. Food Quality and Preference 1994, 5:167-171.
12. Pineau N., Schlich P., Cordelle S., Mathonnière C., Issanchou S., Imbert A., et al. Temporal dominance of sensations: Construction of the TDS curves and comparison with time-intensity. Food Quality and Preference 2009, 20(6):450-455.
13. Princeton Review & Wrigley Study habits survey 2005, Princeton Review, New York.
14. Song, J. H., Knutsen, H. A., Broderick, K. B., & Seielstad, D. A. (2010). Flavor releasing cores and their use in chewing gum. In: EP patent 2,083,638.
15. Sudre J., Pineau N., Loret C., Martin N. Comparison of methods to monitor liking of food during consumption. Food Quality and Preference 2012, 24(1):179-189.
16. Taylor D.E., Pangborn R.M. Temporal aspects of hedonic responses. Journal of Sensory Studies 1990, 4(4):241-247.
17. Tucha O., Mecklinger L., Maier K., Hammerl M., Lange K.W. Chewing gum differentially affects aspects of attention in healthy subjects. Appetite 2004, 42(3):327-329.
18. Veldhuizen M.G., Wuister M.J.P., Kroeze J.H.A. Temporal aspects of hedonic and intensity responses. Food Quality and Preference 2006, 17(6):489-496.
19. Wilkinson L., Scholey A., Wesnes K. Chewing gum selectively improves aspects of memory in healthy volunteers. Appetite 2002, 38(3):235-236.