<%BANNER%>

Comparison of the Hedonic General Labeled Magnitude Scale to the Hedonic 9-point Scale

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024514/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparison of the Hedonic General Labeled Magnitude Scale to the Hedonic 9-point Scale
Physical Description: 1 online resource (101 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kalva, Jaclyn
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 9, comparison, food, foodie, general, hedonic, labeled, liking, magnitude, nonfoodie, nontaster, point, quinine, scale, sensory, supertaster, taster
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Consumer acceptability can be measured in various ways using different scales, but currently, the most common scale used by the majority of food scientists is the hedonic 9-point scale. The hedonic 9-point scale is a useful tool to measure overall liking of food, but this scale may not provide valid across-group comparisons. The hedonic general Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) ranging from -100 to 100, with -100 being 'strongest imaginable disliking of any kind', zero being 'neutral', and 100 being 'strongest imaginable liking of any kind' may provide more valid comparisons of products across different groups. The main objective of this study is to compare the hedonic gLMS scale with the hedonic 9-point scale. The first study tested both scales by asking panelists to rate the overall liking of different food products from memory and after tasting and experiences. The second study compared the two scales by using panelists who answered questions asked about the overall liking of food products from memory (including their favorite and least favorite foods), food tasted, and the intensity of different taste solutions (salty, sour, sweet, bitter). The results were analyzed using SAS to perform analysis of variance between groups and calculate correlation coefficients. Panelists were grouped into three groups; gender, foodie type, and quinine taster. Foodie type consisted of 'foodies' or 'nonfoodies' if the difference between their favorite and least favorite food ratings were above or below the mean, respectively. Panelist who rated the bitterness of the quinine solution above or below the mean were considered 'high' or 'low' quinine tasters. The results showed the hedonic gLMS provided many correlations between acceptability ratings that the hedonic 9-point scale failed to show. The hedonic gLMS also performed better in identifying the significant correlations for food acceptability ratings in reference to taste intensities. The hedonic gLMS also showed more significant differences when analysis of variance was used, such as showing a difference across the three groups as well as within groups. These results lead to the conclusion that the hedonic gLMS provides more detailed results about food acceptability across and within groups than the hedonic 9-point scale.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jaclyn Kalva.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Sims, Charles A.
Local: Co-adviser: Bartoshuk, Linda M.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024514:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024514/00001

Material Information

Title: Comparison of the Hedonic General Labeled Magnitude Scale to the Hedonic 9-point Scale
Physical Description: 1 online resource (101 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Kalva, Jaclyn
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: 9, comparison, food, foodie, general, hedonic, labeled, liking, magnitude, nonfoodie, nontaster, point, quinine, scale, sensory, supertaster, taster
Food Science and Human Nutrition -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Food Science and Human Nutrition thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Consumer acceptability can be measured in various ways using different scales, but currently, the most common scale used by the majority of food scientists is the hedonic 9-point scale. The hedonic 9-point scale is a useful tool to measure overall liking of food, but this scale may not provide valid across-group comparisons. The hedonic general Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) ranging from -100 to 100, with -100 being 'strongest imaginable disliking of any kind', zero being 'neutral', and 100 being 'strongest imaginable liking of any kind' may provide more valid comparisons of products across different groups. The main objective of this study is to compare the hedonic gLMS scale with the hedonic 9-point scale. The first study tested both scales by asking panelists to rate the overall liking of different food products from memory and after tasting and experiences. The second study compared the two scales by using panelists who answered questions asked about the overall liking of food products from memory (including their favorite and least favorite foods), food tasted, and the intensity of different taste solutions (salty, sour, sweet, bitter). The results were analyzed using SAS to perform analysis of variance between groups and calculate correlation coefficients. Panelists were grouped into three groups; gender, foodie type, and quinine taster. Foodie type consisted of 'foodies' or 'nonfoodies' if the difference between their favorite and least favorite food ratings were above or below the mean, respectively. Panelist who rated the bitterness of the quinine solution above or below the mean were considered 'high' or 'low' quinine tasters. The results showed the hedonic gLMS provided many correlations between acceptability ratings that the hedonic 9-point scale failed to show. The hedonic gLMS also performed better in identifying the significant correlations for food acceptability ratings in reference to taste intensities. The hedonic gLMS also showed more significant differences when analysis of variance was used, such as showing a difference across the three groups as well as within groups. These results lead to the conclusion that the hedonic gLMS provides more detailed results about food acceptability across and within groups than the hedonic 9-point scale.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Jaclyn Kalva.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Sims, Charles A.
Local: Co-adviser: Bartoshuk, Linda M.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024514:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 COMPARISON OF THE HEDONIC G ENERAL L AB E LED M AG NITUDE S CALE TO THE HEDONIC 9 -POINT SCALE By JACLYN JEAN KALVA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMEN TS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Jaclyn Jean Kalva

PAGE 3

3 To my parents and f amily who nurtured me in achieving this honorable milestone

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank my two advisors, Dr. Sims and Dr. Bartoshuk, for giving me this opportunity to purs u e my m asters degree and for all the guidance throughout this experience. I also want to thank my other committee members, Dr. Goodrich, Dr. Wysocki, and Dr. Emond, for all their expertise and help. I would like to thank my lab mates for all their help and suggestions, for all the long panels, crazy s ensory tests, and fun lab times And to all the little people who helped me along the way. Most of all, I thank my parents who gave me the strength to succeed and the support to accomplish my goals. They are examples of true parents, thank you. And for my brothers, who motivated me to keep on going and to my aunt and uncle for all their great advice

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF C ONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 7 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 8 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 12 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 17 2.1 Taste and Odor Perception ................................................................................................ 17 2.2 Genetic Variability ............................................................................................................ 18 2.3 Sensory Evaluation............................................................................................................ 20 2.3.1 History of Sensory Eva luation ............................................................................. 21 2.3.2 Methods ................................................................................................................. 22 2.4 Sensory Intensity ............................................................................................................... 28 2.5 Labeled Magnitude Scale ................................................................................................. 29 2.6 Hedonic Scale .................................................................................................................... 30 2.7 Hedonic gLMS Scale ........................................................................................................ 34 2.8 Other Studies ..................................................................................................................... 36 2.9 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 37 3 MATERIALS/METHODS ......................................................................................................... 39 3.1 Sensory Test Study 1......................................................................................................... 39 3.2 Sensory Test Study 2......................................................................................................... 41 3.3 Statistical Analysis ............................................................................................................ 43 3.3.1 Sensory Test Study 1 ............................................................................................ 43 3.3.2 Sensory Test Study 2 ............................................................................................ 45 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................................ 48 4.1 Results and Discussion ..................................................................................................... 48 4.2 Sensory Study 1 ................................................................................................................. 48 4.2.1 Sensory Study 1 Across -Group Comparisons ..................................................... 49 4.2.2 Sensory Study 1 Within-Subject Comparisons ................................................... 50 4.2.3 Sensory Study 1 Panelist Anchors ....................................................................... 52

PAGE 6

6 4.3 Sensory Study 2 ................................................................................................................. 53 4.3.1 Sensory Study 2 Across -Group Comparisons ..................................................... 54 4.3.2 Sensory Study 2 Within-Subject Comparisons ................................................... 56 4.3.3 Sensory Study 2 Panelist Anchors ....................................................................... 59 5 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 95 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 97 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 101

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Demographic questions .......................................................................................................... 46 3 2 Overall Likeability Questions Study One (in order of presentation to panelist) ................ 46 3 3 Overall Likeability Questions Study Two (in order o f presentation to panelist) ............... 47 4 1 Significant Means Differences between Gender for Study One ......................................... 60 4 2 Significant Means Diffe rences Between Foodie Type1 for Study One .............................. 60 4 3 Significant Means Differences Between Quinine Tasters1 for Study One ......................... 60 4 4 Significant Correlations (p<005) (r values) for Study One ................................................. 61 4 5 Strongest imaginable LIKING of any kind Anchors Totals for Study One ................... 67 4 6 Strongest imaginable DISLIKING of any kind Anchors Totals for Study One ............. 67 4 7 Strongest imaginable SENSATION of any kind Anchors Totals for Study One1 ......... 68 4 8 Significant Means Differences between Gender for Study Two ......................................... 68 4 9 Significant Means Differences Between Foodie Type1 for Study Two .............................. 69 4 10 Significant Means Differences Between Quinine Tasters1 for Study Two ........................ 70 4 11 Significant Correlations (p<005) (r val ues) for Study Two ................................................ 71 4 12 Strongest imaginable LIKING of any kind Anchors Totals for Study Two ................... 93 4 13 Strongest imagina ble DISLIKING of any kind Anchors Totals for Study Two ............ 94 4 14 Strongest imaginable SENSATION of any kind Anchors Totals for Study Two .......... 94

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURE S Figure page 3 1 Hedonic 9 -point scale ............................................................................................................. 46 3 2 General Labeled Magnitude Scale ........................................................................................ 46 4 1 Correlation and Regression between Orange Juice and Orange Juice from Memory in study one 9 point Scale and gLMS ....................................................................................... 63 4 2 Correlation and Regression betw een Grapefruit Juice and Black Coffee from memory in study one 9 point Scale and gLMS ................................................................... 64 4 3 Correlation and Regression between Black Coffee from memory and Grapefruit Juice from memory in study one using the gLMS ............................................................... 65 4 4 Correlation and Regression between Difference in Liking and Favorite Song in study one 9 point scale gLMS ....................................................................................................... 65 4 5 Correlation and Regression in study one using the gLMS between Favorite Song and Favorite Food and Least Favorite Food ............................................................................... 66 4 6 Correlation and Regression between Quinine and Grapefruit Juice in study one using the gLMS ................................................................................................................................ 66 4 7 Correlation and Regression between Grapefruit Juice and Grapefruit Juice from Memory in study two 9 -point scale and gLMS ................................................................... 75 4 8 Correlation and Regression between Grapefruit Juice and Least Favorite Food in study two 9 -point scale and gLMS ....................................................................................... 76 4 9 Corre lation and Regression between Grapefruit Juice and Black Coffee in study two 9 point scale and gLMS ......................................................................................................... 77 4 10 Correlation and Regression between Orange Juice and Milk Chocolate from Memory in study two 9 -point scale and gLMS .................................................................................. 78 4 11 Correlation and Regression between Milk Chocolate from Memory and Favorite Food in study two 9 -point scale and gLMS ......................................................................... 79 4 12 Correlation and Regression between Difference in liking and Favorite Food in study two 9 -point scale and gLMS ................................................................................................. 80 4 13 Correlation and Regression in study two using the gLMS between Favorite Food and Cheese Cake and Cheese Cake from Memory .................................................................... 81 4 14 Correlation and Regression Cheese Cake and Least Favorite Food in study two using the gLMS ................................................................................................................................ 81

PAGE 9

9 4 15 Correlation and Regression in study two usi ng the gLMS between Cheese Cake and Orange Juice and Orange Juice from Memory .................................................................... 82 4 16 Correlation and Regression in study two using the gLMS between Difference in Liking and Grapefruit Juice and Orange Juice and Chocolate from Memory ................. 83 4 17 Correlation a nd Regression between Bitter and Salty in study two 9 -point scale and gLMS ...................................................................................................................................... 84 4 18 Correlation and Regression between Bitter and Sour in study two 9 point scale and gLMS ...................................................................................................................................... 85 4 19 Correlation and Regression between Sweet and Salty in study two 9 point scale and gLMS ...................................................................................................................................... 86 4 20 Correlation and Regression between Sou r and Salty in study two 9 -point scale and gLMS ...................................................................................................................................... 87 4 21 Correlation and Regression between Salty and Least Favorite Food in study two 9 point scale and gLMS ............................................................................................................ 88 4 22 Correlation and Regression Salty and Favorite Food in study two using the gLMS ......... 89 4 23 Correlation and Regression in study two using the gLMS betwe en Bitter and Black Coffee, Grapefruit Juice, Favorite Food, and Least Favorite Food ................................... 90 4 24 Correlation and Regression between Sour and Grapefruit Juice in study two using the gLMS ...................................................................................................................................... 91 4 25 Correlation and Regression in study two using the gLMS between Sweet and Fa vorite Food, Cheese Cake, and Milk Chocolate from Memory ..................................... 92 4 26 Correlation and Regression between Difference in Liking and Bitter in study two using the gLMS ...................................................................................................................... 93

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Part ial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EVALUATION AND COMPA RISON OF HEDONIC GLM S TO THE HEDONIC 9 -POINT SCALE By Jaclyn Jean Kalva May 2009 Chair: Charles A. Sims Co -chair: Linda Bartoshuk Major: Food Science & Human Nu trition Consumer acceptability can be measured in various ways using different scales, but currently, the most common scale used by the majority of food scientists is the hedonic 9 -point scale. The hedonic 9 -point scale is a useful tool to measure overall liking of food, but this scale may not provide valid across -group comparisons. The hedonic general Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) ranging from 100 to 100, with 100 being strongest imaginable disliking of any kind, zero being neutral, and 100 being strongest imaginable liking of any kind may provide more valid comparisons of products across different groups. The main objective of this study is to compare the hedonic gLMS scale with the hedonic 9 point s cale. The first study tested both scales by a sking panelists to rate the overall liking of different food products from memory and after tasting and experiences The second study compare d the two scales by using panelists who answered questions asked about the overall liking of food products from me mory (including their favorite and least favorite foods), food tasted, and the intensity of different taste solutions (salty, sour sweet bitter ). T he results were analyzed using SAS to perform analysis of variance between groups and calculate correlation coefficients. Panelists were grouped into three group s ; gender, foodie type,

PAGE 11

11 and quinine taster. Foodie type consisted of foodies or nonfoodies if the difference between their favorite and least favorite food ratings were above or below the mean, res pectively. Panelist who rated the bitterness of the quinine solution above or below the mean were considered high or low quinine tasters. The results showed the hedonic gLMS provided many correlations between acceptability ratings that the hedonic 9 -point scale failed to show. The hedonic gLMS also performed better in identifying the significant correlations for food acceptability ratings in reference to taste intensities. The hedonic gLMS also showed more significant differences when analysis of va riance was used, such as showing a difference across the three groups as well as within groups These results lead to the conclusion that the hedonic gLMS provides more detailed results about food acceptability across and within groups than the hedonic 9 -point scale.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Sensory evaluation measures panelists responses to food products, and is therefore a integral part of food product development. Measuring human responses to products allows food companies to gain a better knowledge ab out the perception of consumers before placing the product on the market to be sold worldwide (Sidel and others 1981) In the food industry, there are about 87,700 new products being developed for market every year c ompeting against the 40,000 products that are on the market shelves today ( Mintel 2009) Once a new product is created, developers want to know if their creation will become successful in the market. Consumer senso ry tests, whereby consumers actually taste and rate product selections, are a useful tool to determine consumer preferences and acceptability. There are many possibilities where a company can use sensory evaluation to their advantage. They can use it to check product quality, packaging functionality, product characteristics, etc Companies are feeling the increase d need and importance of sensory evaluation (Stone and Sidel 2004) The pressure of the consumer awareness of food safety, the importance of flavor and the use of product characteristics in advertising their products all rely on sensory evaluation ( Amerine and others 1965) Researchers also conduct a myriad of sensory tes ts to compare different ingredients, range of flavors, textures, and tastes. Consumer accepta bility can be measured in various ways using different scales, but currently, the most common scale used by most food scientists is the 9 -point h edonic s cale ( Villanueva and others 2005) During the 1950s, at the Quartermaster Food and Container Institute of the Armed Forces, Chicago, Illinois, a team of scientists developed the h edonic 9 point s cale. They used soldier s as their subjects to test different word descriptors and scale types to determine the best scale to use

PAGE 13

13 for food acceptance ( Meiselman and Schutz 2003) The h edonic 9 point s cale is a scale that measures pleasur e or displeasure (Bartoshuk and others 2005) Consisting of adjectives correlating to a number, the number range covers numbers one through nine with one being dislike extremely, five being neither like nor dis like, and nine being like extremely. Panelists are instructed to rate the sample according to how they feel about the sample. The data is then collected and analyzed. Statistical results from the analysis of the variance test show whether there are d ifferences in likeability among different samples The h edonic 9 point scale is a useful tool to have for any examiner of food preference or overall liking of food. The scale is easy for the panelist to understand and use. The scale is self explanatory w ith little instructions from the moderator of the test (Lawless and Heymann 1998) This scale is also very versatile allowing a company to use this scale to answer question about new product s product matching, product improvement, process change, cost reduction and/or selection of a new source of supply, storage stability, and consumer acceptance and/or opinions (Lawless and Heymann 1998) However, there are some weaknesses t o this scale. This scale makes false assumptions, registering variable results, and does not take into account gender or cultural background (Cox and others 2001) For example, if an American taster rated an eight (mean ing like very much) and a European taster rated a six (meaning like slightly), this rating seems to suggest a difference. How does one actually know? There are a lot of factors that play a role in tasting that this scale cannot account for, resulting in inconclusive data ( Villanueva and others 2005) E ven though the hedonic 9 -point scale provides very useful information about a product, there are flaws when it comes t o any lasting results about across -group comparisons. Panelists may use the same descriptors or rating in different meanings; for example, not everyone has the

PAGE 14

14 same opinion as to what moderate likeability really represents. This fault is very important in the new findings from Dr. Bartoshuk, a psychophysics psychologist and researcher, who found that people have genetically developed into classes of tasters, whereby their taste receptors are different (Bartoshuk a nd others 1995) She has found that there are three groups of tasters : supertasters who experience the most intense taste sensations, medium tasters who perceive intermediate taste intensities and non tasters, who perceive the weakest taste intensities (Bartoshuk and others 2004b) Supertasting was first discovered using the bitter compound 6 n prop y lthiouracil (PROP). The ability to taste PROP is controlled by a single gen e (TAS2R38) located on chromosome 7. An individual with either one or both dominant alleles for the PROP gene is a PROP taster; an individual with both recessive alleles is a PROP nontaster. It is know n that supertasters tend to have the largest number o f fungiform papillae (structures that house taste buds). Thus supertasters of PROP have two characteristics: they are genetic tasters of PROP and also have the highest density of fungiform papillae (Bartoshuk and others 1995) Historically, PROP tasters and nontasters represented the first discovery of genetic diversity in human taste; out of respect for that discovery, we maintain the terminology tasters, but modify it appropriately (e.g., supertasters to ref er to individuals who taste all tastes as more intense, PROP supertasters to refer to those who taste PROP to be the most bitter, etc.). In sum, supertasters taste bitterness, saltiness, sweetness and sourness in stronger intensities than others (Bartoshuk and others 1998) Since people cannot directly share sensory or hedonic experiences, supertasters do not realize that they experience the most intense taste sensations. Using scales like the hedonic 9 point sen sory scale leads to errors since each group (supertasters, medium tasters, nontasters) use extremely strong to refer to taste intensities. Yet the experiences each of these three groups perceives as extremely strong are very different:

PAGE 15

15 extremely stro ng denotes taste intensities 2 3 times as strong for supertasters as for nontasters. These different sensory experiences result in different hedonic experiences. As a result, a scale is need ed that give s accurate results amongst across -g roup comparisons, captures the ir true rating of supertasters, and correctly represents gender and cultural differences. Magnitude Matching is the gold standard for provid ing accurate comparison across -groups ( Bartoshuk and others 2004b, Marks and Bartoshuk 1979) Magnit ude M atching is the process by which subjects compare sensory or hedonic intensities of different types on a common scale. A s cale which permits magnitude matching is t he general Labeled Magnitude Scale (g LMS) This scale varies from zero to 100 with zer o being no sensation and 100 being strongest sensation of any kind imaginable ( Bartoshuk and others 2003) This scale worked for measuring i ntensities but needed to be altered to collect data for hedonics. T he hedonic general Label ed Magnitude Scale ( hedonic gLMS) ranges from 100 to 100 with 100 being most intense disliking of any kind, zero being neutral, and 100 being most intense liking of any kind was derived from the gLMS. The key property of the hedonic gLMS is that it assesses liking for food in the context of all hedonic experiences (i.e., pleasure). If successful, it could have widespread beneficial applications. For example, t his scale sh ould allow supertasters to rate the liking of a food product without the ceiling e ffects which occurs with the hedonic 9 point scale This ceiling e ffect causes the supertasters and nontasters ratings to be so clustered together significant differences can not be seen. The scale may be a better predictor of s uccess of new products and may provide a better absolute likeability of products across different groups.

PAGE 16

16 The main objective of this study is to compare and evaluate the h edonic gLMS scale with the h edonic 9 point s cale. In theory, most scale s can prov ide valid within -subject comparisons because each subject experiences each of the stimuli to be compared. Thus correlations obtained with either the hedonic 9 -point or the hedonic gLMS should be valid correlations. However, because the hedonic gLMS lacks the ceiling effects common in the hedonic 9 point scale, we may see more significant within -subject correlations with the hedonic gLMS. However, we predict a different outcome when comparing the hedonic 9 -point scale with the hedonic gLMS in terms of comp arisons across groups (gender, age, cultural background, etc) The hedonic gLMS should provide valid comparisons across groups while the hedonic 9 point scale may not. T he adjective labels of the hedonic 9 point scale may denote different hedonic meanin g to different groups and the real differences may fail to be revealed. The strategy of this study was to select different groupings in order to see if the hedonic 9 point scale will fail to detect differences for some of them. The groupings under study are: sex, foodie type and quinine tasters (in this experiment quinine tasters will represent supertasting ) One expect s the greatest difference between the scales for the supertasting grouping. Previous work has already revealed large differences (sens ory and hedonic) between supertasters, medium tasters and nontasters ( Bartoshuk and others 1998) It has been theorized that the h edonic gLMS scale will provide better data in comparing consumer likeability towards products. Our hypothesis is that this scale will provide more across -group comparisons The objective will be to compare the two scales using panelists to rate overall liking on different food products from memory and after tasting to see which scale pr ovides more results

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Taste and Odor Perception Physical senses, i.e. smell, touch, sight, sound, and taste, not only allow humans to protect themselves from danger, but also allow for pleasures in life. Particularly, sm ell and taste allow humans to protect themselves from smoke, ingesting toxins, and enjoy the flavors and aromas of food consumption (Nelson 1998) The human gustatory system and olfactory system while not crucial for s ustaining human life serve as a n important detection device. The olfactory system is comprised of olfactory neuroepitheli al cells in each nasal chamber which have pseudostratified neuroepithelium cells connected to olfactory receptors. When air contain ing a volatile compound passes through these ciliated skin cells, the neurons in the cells stimulate the olfactory receptors located in the glomerular structure of the olfactory bulb (Lawless and Heymann 1998) The brain then translates the information identifying the smell. There are two ways volatile compounds stimulate the olfactory recepto rs, retronasal or orthonasal Retronasal is when a volatile is in the mouth and travels up into the nasopharynx to the olfactory receptors whereas o rthonasal is when the volatile is sniffed through the nostrils and contacts the olfactory receptors via the nasal passages (Lawless and Heymann 1998) The gustatory system is comprise d of taste buds, which are clusters of receptor cells. Taste buds are buried in the tissue of three types of papillae: fungiform, foliate and circumvallate. Taste receptor sites are located on extensions (called cilia) of the tops of some of the receptor cells; taste nerve fibers synapse with the bases of some of the receptor cells. Taste information is transmitted to the brain by way of the taste nerve fibers. F ungiform papillae are located on the anterior two thirds of the tongue ; c irumvallate papillae are located on the posterior two thirds of the tongue ; f oliate papilla are on the side

PAGE 18

18 boarders of the tongue ; and a fourth type, f il l iform papilla do not contain any taste buds (Leopol d and others 2006) The chorda ty mpani nerve which innervates the fungiform papillae passes through the middle ear behind the eardrum ( Lawless and Heymann 1998) The glossopharyngeal nerve attach to the rear of the tongue while the vagus nerve goes to the posterior root of the tongue. The fourth nerve, the greater superficial petrosal, connects to the palatal taste area (Lawless and Heymann 1998) 2. 2 Genetic Variability There is a great deal of genetic variability among individuals for taste and olfaction. Certain tastes and taste experiences are hardwired into the human brain upon birth to protect humans from dangerous material. For instance, inborn aversion to bitter taste helps to protect humans from eating poisons ( Steiner 1977) One important part of this genetic variability was discovered in mice. Some mice who tasted bitter much more intensely than others were found to have more taste buds ( Miller and Whitney 1989) This led to the examination of humans to see if the number of taste buds associated with perceived taste intensities. Bartoshuk has found that there are three groups of tasters; supertasters who experience the most intense taste sensations, medium tasters who perceive intermediate taste intensities, and non tasters, who perceive the weakest taste intensities (Bartoshuk a nd others 2004b) In the United States, it has been reported that about 25, 50, and 25 percent of the population is a nontaster, medium taster, or supertaster, respectively (Bartoshuk and others 2004b) Supertasti ng was first discovered using the bitter compound 6 n propy lthiouracil (PROP). The ability to taste PROP is controlled by a single gene (TAS2R38) located on chromosome 7. An individual with either one or both dominant alleles for the PROP gene is a PROP taster; an individual with both

PAGE 19

19 recessive alleles is a PROP nontaster. It is now know n that supertasters tend to have the largest number of fungiform papillae (structures that house taste buds). Thus supertasters of PROP have two characteristics: they ar e genetic tasters of PROP and also have the highest density of fungiform papillae ( Bartoshuk and others 1995) Therefore, supertasters taste bitterness, saltiness, sweetness and sourness in stronger intensities th an do others ( Bartoshuk and others 1998) Duffy found that tasters that have more papillae on their tongues have more of a dislike to alcohol (Duffy and others 2004) This is due to the fact that supertasters taste bitterness at a higher intensity than nontasters and alcohol tends to be bitter. Between the sexes, there are proportionally more women than men supertasters. Additionally, supertasters also taste caffeine as more bitter (Hall and others 1975) and taste salt as more saltier than nontasters ( Bartoshuk and others 1998) On the other hand, nontasters do not taste the bitterness of saccharin and taste a lower level of sweetness from saccharin ( Bartoshuk 1979) Since fungiform papillae are innervated by touch as well as taste fibers, s upertasters report the viscosity of fats as thicker than nontasters (Duffy and others 1996) Other taste differences that can occur in humans include ageusia, hypogeusia, and/or dysgeusia (taste loss, decrease in taste, abnormal taste) (Nelson 1998). Taste loss can occur from sickness or through normal body changes. Changes in hormones during pregnancy and menopause, or the growth of bacteria in poor dentition, and poor hygiene are common promoters of taste loss or taste change. Patients with ce rtain diseases like Sjogren syndrome, zinc deficiency, and cancer may also experience taste changes due to the interactions of the medications prescribed to these patients. People who have experienced head trauma may also experience taste and olfactory lo sses (Nelson 1998) These people that experience taste change

PAGE 20

20 will also be affected by the way they perceive flavors and textures of foods. If varying degrees of saltiness, bitterness, sweetness, or sourness of a food product are perceived this perception of taste may increase or decrease the acceptance level of a food product. Humans perceive different flavors (garlic, chocolate, toasted, etc) via nerve pathways from their olfaction system. If a persons sense of s mell is lessened (hyposmia) or lost (anosmia) then their ability to distinguish flavors also is diminished or lost ( Leopol d and others 2006) All these genetic vari abilit ies olfaction conditions, and taste conditi ons play a role in testing a product Sensory testing encompasses these conditions compiles data and adjusts accordingly to record the most accurate perception of product acceptance 2. 3 Sensory Evaluation Sensory evaluation measures panelists response s to food products, and is therefore a viable part of the food industry It encompasses perceived product characteristics, acceptability, quality, and product differences ( Sidel and others 1981) P sychophysics, psychometrics, perception, learning, and cognition, sensory evaluation are valuable tool s for food companies (Sidel and others 1981) Measuring human responses to products allows food companies to gain a better knowledge a bout the perception of consumers before placing the product on the market to be sold worldwide (Sidel and others 1981) Sensory evaluation can be used in many ways by the food industry. For example, i t allows compani es to see how people perceive their products by knowing what attributes panelists like or dislike, as well as showing if panelist can tell a difference in a formula change (Lawless and Heymann 1998) There are many possibilities in which a company can use sensory evaluation to their advantage. They can use it to check product quality, packaging functionality, product characteristics, etc, and c ompanies are increasingly using sensory evaluation (Stone and Sidel 2004) The pressure of the consumer awareness for food safety, the importance of flavor and the

PAGE 21

21 use of product characteristics in advertising their products, all rely on sensory evaluation (Amerine and others 1965) 2. 3 .1 History of Sensory Evaluation Historically, the first category scale was a six point scale to rate the brightness of the stars which was created by the astronomer Hipparchus (190120 BC). Primitive forms of sensory ev aluation of food started when people began trading for different items ( Meilgaard and others 1999) One would trade a food product to another and that person would inspect the product and purchase the product if t he product met their quality criteria. In the 1900s, professional grades were used by industries to inspect products ( Meilgaard and others 1999) Canning companies used canning bees, employees who randomly open ed cans daily to inspect the quality of the product and compare their own product with competitors products ( Hinreiner 1956) Many other food areas conducted the same sensory evaluations to evaluate their product s. Methods of grading and scoring products evolved and started to become more scientific. Scorecards and number values were developed for different products to rate the level of the products acceptance according to the values (Hinreiner 1956) Since then many scales have been created or improved for sensory evaluation. By 1945, WW II had ended and American soldiers returned home fueling an era of modern technologies, along with the start of the baby boomer generation. Due to this turn of historical events, mass food production increased, as well as the development of different food products. Because the demand for food companies products increased, they wanted to give their customers the best product they could make. This led to the creation of the scientific method of sensory evaluation. Sensory evaluation is used to evoke, measure, analyze, and interpret responses to products using all five human senses (Stone and Si del 1993) To evoke, guidelines are used for the application of the test in terms of preparation and serving of samples in controlled

PAGE 22

22 conditions ( Lawless and Heymann 1998) These guidelines limit mishandling err ors and keep the sample information confidential to the panelist. Samples are referred by code and panelists are seated in booths to limit distractions and to prevent others influences or body language to sway their opinion of the samples. To measure, techniques are used to collect data on sample to find panelists perception about the samples ( Lawless and Heymann 1998) These techniques need to be followed and used in their intended manner in order to receive acc urate data. Sensory panels can be separated into consumer panels or trained panels. Consumer panels test samples using people unfamiliar with the samples and who have no prior knowledge about the samples. Trained panels use panelists that have been inst ructed about the sample and are trained to evaluate certain attributes within the samples ( Meiselman and Schutz 2003) To a nalyze, data is complied and statistical anal yses are performed to distinguish how the p anelists perceived the samples ( Lawless and Heymann 1998) Variability is a big con cern due to human behavior. To i nterpret means conclusions will be made based on the quantitative data (Lawless and Heymann 1998) These conclusions will provide valuable information about the samples. Sensory evaluation is very important to researchers, food companies, and consumers. It needs to be performed in a controlled, professional, a nd analytically measured environment. Sensory evaluation tests need to minimize variance error to provide the most accurate data in order to record the true response of the testing population. 2. 3 .2 Methods S ensory evaluation has many different tests to accomplish various objectives, and using the correct test is very important. There is no one sensory test that will give all the answers (Stone and Sidel 2004) Relying on one method could cause greater damage and provide incorrect results in which the company may not realize at the time (Pangborn 1979)

PAGE 23

23 When choosing a method to use for a test some criteria need to be follow ed in order for the panelist to understand the task they will perform. The written and verbal instructions must be written in concise and clear terms that the panelists are familiar with and able to understand. The test needs to be easy for the panelists to use and sections of the test should flow so the panelist is not overwhelmed and loss of interest occurs ( Stone and Sidel 2004) Tests should include unbiased scales not to sway the panelists conclusion. Scales used in the test should be used for their intended purp ose, as well as, to be able to pick out differences in order to acquire accurate data (Stone and Sidel 2004) The classification of sensory evaluation is divided into three types of tests; discrimination, descriptive, a nd affective. Discrimination testing is used to tell if one product is different from another in any way as compared to the reference sample or other sample (Lawless and Heymann 1998) This test is used to determin e if there is a perceived difference amongst samples f ro m the panelist s and if a difference is detected, another type of test could be done to determ ine the exact differences. Discrimination tests are used to minimize the failure rate of the introduction of a new product formulation The test guides the panelist to make a concrete choice choosing one sample over the other. The analysis is then computed using the proportions of right and wrong answers. The test that is mainly used in this type of testing is called the triangle test ( Sidel and others 1981) Developed by Bengtsson and co -workers to evaluate beer (Helm and Trolle 1946) the test was meant to improve directional paired testing methods. The panelist is given two samples that are the same and one sample that is different. The panelist is instructed to distinguish the different sample. When panelist s taste the third sample, they need to remember the characteristics of th e previous two samples in order to determine the different sample (Stone and Sidel 1985) Panelists only have a 0.33 chance of guessing the correct sample which

PAGE 24

24 provides this test with a higher sensitivity than other tests (Stone and Sidel 2004) Fewer correct scores than other discrimination tests are needed from panelist s to be significantly different which also strengthens the sensitivity of the test. Another discrimination test that is commonly used is called the duo trio test, developed in 1950 by Perya m and Swartz. This test is used for samples with strong odor or taste (Stone and Sidel 2004) The panelist is given two samples with a refer ence sample. The panelist is instructed to pick out the sample that tastes the same as the reference sample (Lawless and Heymann 1998) The main goal of this test is to try to strengthen the reference sample and in crease detection of the different sample in order to pick out the smallest changes. This tests drawback is that a panelist could guess the right answer because there is a 50:50 chance; however this test is an easy way to check if there is a sensory diffe rence between two samples (Meilgaard and others 1999) A third discrimination test used is called the paired -comparison test. The panelists are given two samples to compare to each other. They are directed to de termine the one with a specific characteristic (sweetness, saltiness, tenderness, etc) in which the researcher is trying to find out ( Stone and Sidel 1985) This test tests the panelist s ability to tell the differen ce amongst the sample and confirm the difference amongst sample s. Because there is a 50:50 chance of picking out the different sample, researchers can not be too confident in the results because the panelist could have gues sed incorrectly or could have un derstood the determine characteristic incorrectly. Due to the variability of panelist tasting abilities, this test is not use d very often. These tests are used by companies to see if a panelist can detect the difference in a new variation of their produc t. The company may have changed ingredient sources or used a new

PAGE 25

25 ingredient that was cheaper in the new product. If the panelist can tell the difference, the company might have to change the formulation of their new product ( Stone and Sidel 2004) Due to the nature of discrimination testing, the test provides many options in which to proceed to the next step in determining if consumers would like the new product. These test s do not tell the research ers if the panelists like the new formulation or not. Many times discrimination tests are combined with preference questions which will disrupt the results ( Stone and Sidel 1978) When a difference is determined, the statistical signif icances maybe misinterpreted. Discrimination tests also need the correct number of panelist s too many or too few will change the stati sti cal results. Descriptive tests measure the intensities of sensory properties in a sample. This type of testing prov ides a great deal of information about a sample and is widely used for intentional or unintentional product changes (Lawless and Heymann 1998) These tests provide information about differences, similarities, and he lp in determining attributes that are important (Stone and Sidel 2004) These results help in determining product characteristics that are very important when using acceptance testing primarily because t hey break down a product into specific process variables and sensory characteristics of flavor, texture, aroma, color, etc and describ e the level at which these characteristics are found in the product (Stone and Sidel 1985) T hi s type of test use s a trained panel that describes the different characteristics on the sample and notes the intensities of those characteristics ( Sidel and others 1981) This method provides a larger amount of data o n the different characteristics of the product instead of relying on the results of one person. Trained panel member s are used in Flavor Profile, Texture Profile, and Quantitative Descriptive Analysis.

PAGE 26

26 Flavor Profile is a qualitative description whic h evaluates products flavor interactions. This test was developed in the late 1940s by Arthur D. Little Incorporated ( Meilgaard and others 1999) The process uses four to six screened and trained panelists to des cribe the flavor profile of the sample. This panel is done in an open session with a moderator leading the discussion attributes of the sample. After conclusions have been made, the moderator creates the file profile report. Panelist s go through strict i ntensive training in which they are selected based on their availability, interest, and sensory accuracy to basic taste and odors to standards. Since there is a moderator leading the panel, this leader could possibly sway the panel to describe flavors he or she identifies. The results from these panels are quickly produced. Similar to the Flavor Profile test, the Texture Profile evaluates the texture of components of food samples. The evaluation was developed at the General Foods Research Center (Brandt, Skinner and Coleman 1963) classifying textural characteristics by fat, moisture, geometrical, and mechanical attributes. The textural analysis begins at first bite and continues until complete mastication with out any effects from other senses ( Stone and Sidel 1985) These criteria are used so that data from these panels can be comparable to instrumental measurements by using a standardized rating scale for each texture att ribute (Szczesniak 1963) A series of terms are used in each category with a specific rating scale to be used for that category. For example, hardness of the sample is described using the terms soft, firm, a nd hard. The levels of these terms are rated on a scale using the hardness scale ( Stone and Sidel 1985) As a result of having a specific scale for each texture category, the panel may forget or confuse the anchors of the scales. With so many attributes to consider defining the texture, panelist s may feel sensory fatigue and ignore certain characteristics.

PAGE 27

27 Another descriptive analysis approach is the Quantitative Descriptive Analysis (QDA) (Stone and Sidel 1993) developed by the Tragon Company in the 1970s which analy zes the sample of all sensory characteristics It is a method of quantifying the characteristics that shows a more precise description of the similarities and diff erences in a set of products ( Stone and Sidel 1985) Six to ten p anelists are trained according to references and evaluate samples (Meilgaard, Civille and Carr 1999) They de scribe and rate the level of specific characteristics including the appearance, aroma, flavor, and texture. This process is not limited to one product and provides rapid results. Results are presen ted from individual panelists, as well as the panel of pa nelists requiring a replication of responses This test uses a line scale which allows panelists to make accurate judgments and data is analyzed using the Analysis of Vari ance (A OV ) method. (Lawless and Heymann 1998). The results are displayed in a graphical form to see the levels of each characteristic. This analysis was developed as a result of the growing importance of product development to provide competitive products throughout the market. Market researcher s favor the results that are directly generated from the customer base because the charact er istic descriptions produced provides them with advertis ing words Comparing different formulations and processes can also be seen when during quality control check s (Stone and Sidel 1985) The data gathered from descriptive tests are very help ful in determin ing changes in sensory characteristics when a change in the original formulation occurs (Stone and Sidel 1985) Product developers use this information to im prove on future products. This information also helps with quality control in which researchers are able to detect the physical limitations of the product. Affective h edonic testing shows if a panelist likes the sample or not (Lawless and Heymann 1998) Tests can compare two or more products t o see which sample is preferred or to

PAGE 28

28 indicate the degree of acceptability. Results from statistical analyses from the A OV will also show which sample scored higher than another by the most people ( Stone and Sidel 2004) However, affective testing does not provide information about price, advertising, market segmentati on, or packaging (Cardello and others 2008) If a sample rates high in likeability on an affective test, this does not translate to a guarantee success in the market. One type of affective hedonic testing involves p reference tests. There are two types, the paired preference test and the preference ranking test. The paired preference test is used when two samples are compared to each other to see which sample panelists prefer Panelists cho ose the sample they like t he best (Lawless and Heymann 1998) This test is usually used when a company wants to compare their product to a competitors product. The preference ranking test is also a forced choice test which makes the paneli st rank their preference on several products in ascending or descending order (Lawless and Heymann 1998) A disadvantage to preference ranking test is that data on samples from two tests cannot be compared to each other. Neither test provides the researcher with information on the level of differences between the samples. The h edonic 9 point scale is the most common scale used for affective testing This test is easy for the panelist to understand and is does not require a lot of time to complete. Panelists rate a sample using numbers 1 thru 9 with 1 being dislike extremely and 9 being like extremely. T his scale measure s the degree to how much a person likes or dislikes a product and the scale has a high lev el of variability amongst panelists ( Sidel and others 1981) Data is collected analyzed using A OV and means separation to distinguish the samples that are significantly different. 2. 4 Sensory Intensity Sensory e valua tion is not solely about food products. In a physiological and psychological perspective, humans have five senses; vision, audition, taste, smell, and touch. All five senses

PAGE 29

29 can work together or individually. These senses allow the human body to experience the effect of temperatures, pressures, pain and other environmental forces (Geldard 1972) When performing sensory evaluation tests and using different methods, the fact that humans use more than one sense to ev aluate something needs to be taken into account. A food product is comprised of many different flavor s texture s aroma s color s etc To distinguish these characteristics, all five senses are needed ( Stone and Sidel 20 04) Capturing the measure of preference for a product or perception is very difficult It is difficult to find out if a panelist prefers a sample and how much they prefer that same sample compared to another panelist. Methods are continually being dev eloped in order to rate these attributes into one scaling system. 2. 5 Labeled Magnitude Scale One method being used in sensory testing is a type of categoryratio scale, specifically the Labeled Magnitude Scale (LMS). This scale is a line scale with v erbal anchors that are quasi logarithmic spaced developed by Green, Shaffer, and Gilmore in 1993 and based on the work by Borg in 1982. The line scale consists of a rating of zero (nothing detected) to 100 (strongest imaginable) (Green and others 1993) Barely detectable, weak, moderate, strong, very strong, and strongest imaginable labels were placed along the scale to guide panelists whereby they would place a mark on the line to indicate their answer. T he spacing of the verbal anchors w as distinguished by using subjects to provide magnitude estimates of different verbal descriptors after giving magnitude estimates of familiar oral sensations (e.g., the bitterness of celery, the burn of cinnamon gum) (Green and others 1993) creating semantic scaling a scale containing intensity descriptors The scale ranges from barely detectable to strongest imaginable ( Borg 1 982) Instructions are given to panelists to find the top anchor of strongest imaginable for each individual panelist. They are to compare the sample to their individual

PAGE 30

3 0 strongest imaginable experience (Lawless an d others 2000) This scale has proven to be useful to evaluate the intensity of taste as well as rating the preference of a sample (Green and others 1993) In 1996, Green found a problem with the LMS when trying to rate oral sensations like pain on the scale. This was due to the high end anchor, which in turn, created a smaller range of rating for taste stimuli. The s cales ranges should not restrict a panelists perception of a sample (Cardello and others 2008) Bartoshuk (Bartoshuk and others 2004a) corrected this problem by stretching out the scale by using a top anchor of strongest im aginable sensation of any kind creating th e general Label Magnitude Scale (gLMS). She tested the gLMS to magnitude matching with a tone standard to see if the gLMS would provide across -group comparisons. Results showed the methods were equivalent. 2. 6 Hedonic Scale Hedonic is defined as the stu dy of pleasant and unpleasant sensations. When respect to foods, hedonic scaling is the affective rating of liking and disliking. The most well known and utilized scale to test product acceptance/preference is known as the hedonic 9 point scale (Stone and Sidel 2004) The h edonic 9 point scale was created in 1949 at the Quartermaster Food and Container Institute of the Armed Forces, Chicago, Illinois, by a team of scientists to try to predict soldiers food choices (Peryam and Girardot 1952) This scale is based on the principle that consumers likes and dislike can be categorized to show their preference toward s food product s The scale was later improved by choosing 51 hedonic descriptors and w as tested on 900 soldiers using an unstructured 9 -point bipolar category scale, ranging from -4 (greatest dislike) through 0 (neither like nor dislike) to +4 (greatest like) to distinguish which hedonic descriptors were the best ones to us e in the final scale ( Peryam and Girardot 1952) Using Thurstonian methods, z -scores were transposed from the raw scores which allowed for the means and

PAGE 31

31 standard deviations to be computed. This resulted in a statistical value for each word or categories along the scale. After choosing the appropriate phases for the scale, numbers were later added for statistical purposes (Jones and Peryam 1954) Jones also found that nine or el even categorical descriptors were best for the scale. However, due to technical difficulties with paper size, only nine categories were able to be typed horizontally on the paper. This scale originally was invented for the sole purpose of creating menus for soldiers. Companies now use it to detect differences in preference of different food samples and overall liking of food samples ( Peryam and Girardot 1952) T his scale is appropriate for within -subject comparison s. The h edonic 9 point scale is a category scale ( Peryam and Girardot 1952) that is used to test the overall liking of food products. I n its present form, it is comprised of adjectives correlating to a number for pa nelists to rate the liking of a food product. The scale ranges from one through nine with one being dislike extremely, five being neither like nor dislike, and nine being like extremely. Panelists are instructed to rate the sample according to how they feel about the sample. The data is then collected and analyzed by A OV Statistical results from the analysis of the variance test show whether there are differences in liking of the samples (Lawless and Heymann 1998) The h edonic 9 point scale is a useful tool to have for any examiner of food preference or overall liking of food. The scale is easy for the panelist to understand and use. The scale is self explanatory with little instructions from the moderato r of the test (Lawless and Heymann 1998) The panelist tastes a sample and decides whether or not they like it and then decides how much they like the sample. Next, the panelist just picks the category/number that corresponds to their liking/disliking. The results are easy to analyze using statistical software packages or manually,

PAGE 32

32 using an analysis of variance tests. The results from the test provide the examiner with concret e data to help in improving their prod uct (Lawless and Heymann 1998) This data can be compiled and added to a companies database to keep track of product changes (Stone and Sidel 2004) The scale is also a bipolar magnitude scale, meaning that it has a negative (dislike) side and a positive (like) side creating ratios or proportions in the data ( Vickers 1983) This has an advantage over a unipolar magnitude estimation which only has a positive side and does not account for the negative side of dislikes that a panelist may have towards a product. Different questions about the samples can be asked and answers can be recorded using the h edonic 9 point scale. For example, flavor texture, smell, appearance, etc can all be rated using the hedonic 9 -point scale. The scale has a great range of applications; new product development, product matching, product improvement, process change, cost reduction and/or selection of a new sour ce of supply, storage stability, and consumer acceptance and/or opinions (Lawless and Heymann 1998) Therefore, this scale is very versatile and helps scientists with many product problems. Another advantage for us ing the h edonic 9 -point scale is that the data can be transformed into ranking or paired preference data for other possible analyses which provides more meaningful analysis (Lawless 1977) One of the analyses that c an come from the paired preference data is preference mapping (Greenhoff and MacFie 1994) Preference mapping shows graphically how a panelist prefers different attributes of a sample. Originally, the main purpose of this scale was to find out what types of foods army soldiers liked or disliked in order to adapt the menus to the soldiers likings. As Peryam and Gairardot in 1952 stated, The hedonic scale method is not considered a polished system, because pertinent

PAGE 33

33 questions as to its interpretations, its reliability and the extent of its usefulness are yet unanswered. Unquestionably it can be improved. The main problem with this scale is that when used for across -group comparison, the data h ave much subject to subject variability. The data can not be compared between different groups like gender, age, or cultural background. The scale does not have ratio properties, only ordinal properties (Meiselman and Schutz 2003) The adjectives used in the scales can be interpreted in different ways by panelists Two different panelists could give th e same adjective a totally different definition creating variability in the data collected. S.S. Stevens in 1958 stated Mice may be called large or small, and so may elephants, and it is quite understandable when someone says it was a large mouse that ran up the trunk of the small elephant. The h edonic 9 -point scale only accounts for an average of results from panelists Some varia bility is lost to interpretation of anchor adjectives. The variability unaccounted for may be significant in the eyes of researchers who are trying to get an accurate result about their product from panelists. This in turn may result in major problems for the researcher who launches a product thinking it will be a big success, but instead may fail. V ariation is due to the fact that panelists use the scale in different ways. Some panelists may not use the extreme values while others will only use the midd le values. Having a scale that has categories that are not evenly spaced and a neutral category of neither like nor dislike, lessens the difference amongst samples and adds variability to the data (Moskowitz 1977) Sometimes panelists may just use the top or bottom portion of the scale (Gay 1988) or the panelist will avoid the midpoint of the scale ( Stone and Sidel 2004) Clearly, this scale does not allow for the different mindsets of panelists, and places limits to only rate the sample from one to nine. If the scale contained more or less categories, panelists would still truncate the scale by not

PAGE 34

34 using the extreme values. Greater differ ences amongst food samples will be observed if longer scales were used (Cardello and others 2008) Al though the h edonic scale provides very useful information about a product, there are serious flaws when it comes to results about across -group comparisons. Panelists may use the same descriptors or rating in different meanings, i.e., not everyone has the same opinion as to what moderate likeability is. This is especially true with supertasters, whose like moderatel y may be quite different than the same rating for a non -taster of the same product. This scales data makes false assumptions, registering variable results, and does not take into account for gender nor cultural background (Cox and others 2001) For example, if an American taster rated an eight (meaning like very much) and a European taster rated a six (meaning like slightly), this rating seems to suggest a difference. There are a lot of factors that play a role i n tasting that this scale cannot account for, resulting in inconclusive data ( Villanueva and others 2005) After calculating the results generated from the test, statistical calculations are done on that data to determine significant differences amongst the samples, using the Analysis of Variance (A OV ) model. The main assumptions associated with an A OV model are normality and homoscedasticity and research done on the h edonic 9 -point scale shows that data from this test does not always follow these assumptions ( Villanueva and others 2005) 2. 7 Hedonic gLMS Scale Improvements in the LMS scale lead to the development of the hedonic general Labeled Magnitude scale (gLMS) ( Bartoshuk and others 2006) The scale ranges from strongest imaginable disliking of any kind to neutral as the center to strongest imaginable liking of any kind. This scale does not limit a panelist to ju st nine categories and allows the panelist to personalize the scale to their own experience. Enabling a panelist to rate on a scale with more categories increases the amount of information transmitted ( Bendig and Hugh es 1953) and

PAGE 35

35 produces a greater sensitivity to differences amongst food samples (Jones and Peryam 1954) It is hypothesized that the gLMS scale will provide stronger comparisons amongst panelists than the h edonic 9 p oint scale which will be tested in this study. Category ratio scales were created to make across subject comparisons the h edonic 9 -point scale was unable to achieve (Borg 1961; Moskowiz and Chandler 1977; and Green 1993) However, there w ere flaw s with th ese scales also. Th ey assumed that the top anchor was the same for all people. This was found not to be true (Bartoshuk and others 2003) For instance, a supertaster who has more fungiform papillae has a more intense maximum taste than others. If a supertaster rates a product on the LMS scale, this scale would confine the true level of the experience. Therefore, Bartoshuk (Bartoshuk 2000) used strongest imaginable sensation of any kind as the top anchor of the scale, creat ing what is known as the General Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) ( Bartoshuk and others 2001) This scale led to the h edonic General Labeled Magnitude Scale ( h edonic gLMS) to be used to test hedonic responses to foods. The hedonic gLMS scale was created for the hedonic evaluations of foods. The scale takes two gLMS scales and puts them together. The scale consists of a horizontal line scale anchored by 100 t o 100 with 100 being strongest imaginable disliking of any kind, and 100 being strongest imaginable liking of any kind. The scales descriptors include barely detectable, weak, moderate, strong, and very strong. These descriptors are place d on a 100 point scale at 1.4, 6, 17, 35, and 53, respectively (Green and others 1996) on an 11cm long horizontal line scale. Panelists are given verbal instructions on the scale and are asked to anchor the top of the ir scale with the strongest imaginable disliking or liking of any kind, unrestrict ed to food. The data is then collected and analyzed by A OV Statistical results from the analysis of the variance test show whether there are differences in liking of the sa mples.

PAGE 36

36 Because this scale is not related to taste, it does not create a ceiling effect which the LMS scale did by limiting the top anchor of the scale to strongest imaginable oral sensation. This scale can be used for comparing within -subject and acros s groups. This will allow researchers to study differences between ages, race, sex, etc A study was done whereby panelists rated the bitterness of PROP using magnitude matching and the gLMS Scale ( Bartoshuk and o thers 2004a) The results were very similar in both cases strengthening the evidence that this scale can provide across -group comparisons. This scale is using the assumption that strongest imaginable sensation of any kind is similar across groups. If this is not true, the hedonic gLMS scale may be limited However, because taste is not usually described as the top sensation, this scale provides valid differences fro taste (Bartoshuk and others 2004a) The sca le is different than most scales used in sensory evaluation and requires more verbal instructions to panelists taking the test. Panelists need to understand the purpose of the scale and how to use it, as well as, anchoring the top of their scale with some thing unrelated to the interested sensation (taste) 2. 8 Other Studies There have been few comparison studies between the hedonic 9 point scale and other types of sensory tests to see which tests perform ed the best. A study conducted by Nilda Villanueva in 2005, compared the performance of the hedonic 9 point scale to the hybrid hedonic scale whereby panelist s rated the product on a line scale with middle and end verbal anchors, ranking scale, and to the self adjusting scale. In this particular study, r esults showed stronger statistical data using the hybrid hedonic scale over the other two scales reflecting that panelists are able to rate their likeability with stronger accuracy.

PAGE 37

37 Another study compared a rating method called positional relative rating to the hedonic 9 point scale. This study hypothesized which scale was better at differentiating samples. The results showed that both scale s showed similar differences amongst samples and were equal ly useful (Cor donnier and Delwiche 2008) Within the various studies, each scale has their advantages and disadvantages There may not be one best scale to see panelists likeability of a product. The goal is to find a scale that will get the closest measurement of t he panelist s likeability 2. 9 Objectives The main objective of this study was to compare and evaluate the h edonic gLMS scale with the h edonic 9 -point s cale. In theory, most scales can provide valid within -subject comparisons because each subject experi ences each of the stimuli to be compared. Thus correlations obtained with either the hedonic 9 -point or the hedonic gLMS should be valid correlations. However, because the hedonic gLMS lacks the ceiling effects common in the hedonic 9 point scale, we may see more significant within -subject correlations with the hedonic gLMS. However, we predict a different outcome when comparing the hedonic 9 -point scale with the hedonic gLMS in terms of comparisons across -groups and within -groups The hedonic gLMS shoul d provide valid comparisons across groups while the hedonic 9 -point scale may not. The adjective labels of the hedonic 9 point scale denote different hedonic meaning to different groups and the real differences may fail to be revealed. The strategy of t his study was to select different groupings in order to see if the hedonic 9 point scale will fail to detect differences for some of them. The groupings under study are: sex, foodie type, and quinine tasters (in this experiment quinine tasters will repres ent supertasting).

PAGE 38

38 It has been theorized that the h edonic gLMS scale will provide better data in comparing consumer likeability towards products. Our hypothesis is that this scale will provide better across -group comparisons The objective will be to c ompare the two scales using panelists to rate overall liking on different food products from memory and after tasting to see which scale performs the best Our first objective was to compare the two scales using panelists to rate overall liking on differ ent food products from memory and after tasting. The second objective was to expand the first objective using a larger population and more food products while adding intensity ratings using both scales.

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS/ METHODS 3. 1 Sensory Test Study 1 To compare the two scales, two days of testing were conducted by a panel comprised of students and staff from t he University of Florida campus. Emails, signs, and classroom announcements were used to obtain the panelist s needed for the study. The Univer sity of Florida Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures and panelists voluntarily gave written consent to perform the test. Compensation was provided to them for their time. The study was conducted at the University of Floridas sensory la b from 1 to 3 pm The sensory lab consist s of individual booths equipped with a computer data center system (Compusense Five 3.6 Sensory Analysis Software for Windows, Compusense, Guelph, Canada). For this study, the two scales were created in the Compus ense program along with appropriate questions. For all studies panelists were asked ten demographic questions descri b ed in the T able 3 1. Contact information in terms of an e -mail address was voluntarily requested from panelists for further studies. Th roughout the test, a researcher also gave verbal instructions to the panelist s as well as, answering any questions. For study one 100 panelists were to answer questions about the overall liking of foods and experiences using the traditional hedonic 9 -po int scale. The scale ranges from one through nine with one being dislike extremely, five being neither like nor dislike, and nine being like extremely. Panelists were instructed to rate the sample according to how they feel about the sample in ques tion using the 9 point scale in F igure 3 1 On day two of study one 100 different panelists repeated this same process using the hedonic gLMS Scale. The center of the scale at zero i s neutral, meaning one neither liked nor

PAGE 40

40 disliked the sample. The mos t extreme value to the right of the scale was 100, labeled as strongest imaginable liking of any kind and the most extreme value to the left of the scale was 100 labeled as strongest imaginable disliking of any kind. Panelists were instructed to thi nk of the strongest imaginable liking of any kind and strongest imaginable disliking of any kind and write these items down. They were instructed to use these items as the top and bottom anchors of their scale a reference used throughout the test. They w ere then asked to rate the overall hedonic response of the samples and questions in comparison to those chosen experiences. Panelists were instructed to place a mark on a line scale using the computer (F igure 3 2) Panel ists were asked to write how muc h th ey like the following foods and experiences from memory : Coca -Cola, milk chocolate, grapefruit juice, dark black coffee, orange juice favorite song, favorite food, feeling hungry, and least favorite food. Then samples of orange juice and grapefruit juic e were given to the panelists (T able 3 2) They were asked to cleanse their pallet with a bite of unsalted soda cracker and a sip of water before and after tasting the sample. The panelist would taste the samples and rate them on the overall liking using the scale on the computer. On the day of testing, Minute Maid orange juice and Minute Maid grapefruit juice premium -original, frozen concentrated was used. 354.9 mL of concentrate was mixed with 1064.6 mL of water for each juice and refrigerated until tasting began. Samples of 2 oz of each juice were presented in 4 oz plastic cups. On both days after tasting the samples, panelists were asked to rate the sensory intensity of quinine papers Quinine papers were prepare d by soaking f ilter papers in a 0.00 1 M quinine solution and allow ing them to dry. Panelists on d ay one rated the intensity of the bitterness of the paper using the 9 point intensity scale with one as no sensation and nine as extreme sensation (removing all other descriptors). Panelist s on d ay two rated the intensity of the

PAGE 41

41 bitterness of the paper using the gLMS scale (Bartoshuk and others 2003) Panelists were instructed to think of the strongest sensation of any kind they had experienced; i.e. the brightest light ever seen (sun), the loudest sound ever heard (jet plane), or a particular pain. Whatever the sensation was became the top anchor of the scale at 100 in which panelists were instructed to write down as their reference point. Then the panelists were instructed to rate the overall bitterness of the paper. 3.2 Sensory Test Study 2 To expand upon study one in comparing the two scales, four days of testing were conducted using a panel comprised of students and staff from the University of Florida campus Emails, signs, and class room announcements were used to obtain the panelists needed for the study. The University of Florida Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures and panelists voluntarily gave written consent to perf orming the test. Compensation was provided to them for their time. The study was conducted at the University of Floridas sensory lab from 1 to 3 pm as described previously. For this study, the two scales were created in the Compusense program along wit h appropriate questions. In total, 200 panelist answered questions using the hedonic 9 -point scale and 200 panelist answered questions using the hedonic gLMS. They were asked the same ten demographic questions on general information as in study one. On d ay one and day three 100 panelists each day were asked questions about the overall liking of foods from memory and taste using the h edonic 9 -point s cale. These foods included regular Coca -Cola milk chocolate steamed broccoli grapefru it juice, dark b lack coffee, orange juice cheese cake, pepperoni, favorite food, and least favorite food. Then samples of cheese cake, pepperoni, dark black coffee, orange juice and grapefruit juice were given to the panelists and they were asked to taste the samples and rate them using the scale.

PAGE 42

42 On the day s of testing, Minute Maid orange juice and Minute Maid grapefruit juice premium -original, frozen concentrated was used. 354.9 mL of concentrate was mixed with 1064.6 mL of water and refrigerated until tasting began. 2 oz of each juice samples were presented in 4 oz plastic cups. Folgers French Roast coffee was brewed every 20 minu tes to provide fresh warm coffee. Eight cups of water and 8 mounded tablespoons were used to make the coffee allowing the coffee to be constant of each batch The coffee was served in 4 oz Styrofoam cups. Sara Lee original frozen cheesecake bites were kept in the freezer until 2 minutes before being presented in 4 oz sample cups to the panelist. Hormel original Pepperoni slices were pl aced in 4 oz sample cups. On day two and four, 100 new panelists repeated this same process using the hedonic gLMS as described in study one The panelists followed the same directions as in study one. Panelists were instructed to think about the stronges t imaginable liking of any kind and strongest imaginable disliking of any kind and write these items down. They were instructed to use these items as the top and bottom anchors of their scale a reference used throughout the test. They were then asked to rate the overall liking of the samples in comparison to those chosen experiences. Panelists were instructed to place a mark on a line scale using the computer. These foods were used because of their familiarity. Coca Cola, milk chocolate, orange juice, a nd cheese cake are considered sweet products. Steamed broccoli, grapefruit juice, and dark black coffee are all bitter products (T able 3 3) These two categories of products will hopefully allow for a separation in the data to distinguish possible supert asters from nontasters (Duffy and others 2007) The pepperoni is a meat product which will show how this type of product re sponds using both scales.

PAGE 43

43 On all four days after tasting the samples, panelists were asked to rate the sensory intensity of four different taste solutions; NaCl, sucrose, citric acid, quinine. These solutions were presented in this order to ensure no possible transfer or interference of previous solutions occurred. The concentrations of the so lutions include; 1 molar NaCl solution, 1 molar sucrose solution, 0.032 molar citric acid solution, and 0.001 molar quinine solution. 5mL of each solution was served in cups at room temperature to panelists. Unsalted soda crackers and water were availabl e for panelists to use between solution samples. Panelists on d ay one and three rated the intensity of the four solutions using the 9 point intensity scale with one as no sensation and nine as extreme sensations (removing all other descriptors). Pane lists on d ay two and four rated the intensity of the four solutions using the gLMS scale as described in study one. 3. 3 Statistical Analysis 3. 3 .1 Sensory Test Study 1 Data w ere retrieved from Compusense and transferred to EXCEL and then into SAS. Analys is of variance (A OV), least significant difference, correlation coefficients, and regression analyses were done using SAS or EXCEL BMI calculations were made using the panelists height and weight ((weight (lbs)/height2 (inches)) x703). Panelists hedon ic gLMS anchors were compiled Data were sorted into three classification variables for AOV comparison ; gend er, foodie type and quinine taster Gender compared male to female. To determine the level of how much a panelist perceive the overall liking of food, foodie type grouping was created. Foodie t ype compared foodie vs. nonfoodie. A foodie was defined by subtracting the panelists rating for their least favorite food from their favorite food creating the variable difference in liking. The ave rage for the difference in liking variable was generated and panelists above the mean

PAGE 44

44 were considered a foodie and everyone below the mean were considered a nonfoodie. In this study, the mean of the difference in liking for the hedonic 9 point scale w as 6.75 and the mean for the hedonic gLMS was 124.05. To determine the level and perception in which panelist taste bitter a quinine taster classification variable was created. Since there is not a clearly defined definition to establish a supertaster, in this experiment quinine taster s represents a panelist experiences a high or low intensity to the taste of bitterness. This classification was broken into t w o groups, comparing high vs. low. These sub classifications were defined by taking the me an for the rating of the quinine paper. Those panelists who rated the intensity of the quinine paper higher than the mean were considered high and those who were lower then the mean were considered low. In study one, the mean of the bitterness rating for the hedonic 9 -point scale was 6.75 and the mean for the hedonic gLMS was 45.9. Other classification variables (race, ethnic background, tonsillectomy, taste in the mouth, head injury, middle ear) were not studied due to insufficient population total s or no significant differences. A nalysis of v ariance was performed on gender, foodie type and quinine taster s for all measured attributes, for both the hedonic 9 -point scale data and the gLMS data. D ifferences were considered significant at an alpha lev el of less than or equal to 0.05. Correlation and regression analyses were done on the data for both scales separately to identify relationships between measurable values. A correlation matrix was generated comparing each of the 12 questions to each othe r. Correlation coefficients that had a p -value less than 0.05 were considered significant. Regression graphs were plotted on the most significant correlations with the highest r value or the most interesting finding using EXCEL.

PAGE 45

45 3. 3 .2 Sensory Test Study 2 Data for this second study was analyzed in the same manor as the first study. Data was retrieved from Compusense and transferred to EXCEL and then into SAS. Analysis of v ariance (A OV), correlation coefficients, and regression analyses were done using S AS or EXCEL As in study one, BMI calculations were made using the panelists height and weight and p anelists hedonic gLMS anchors were compiled Three classification variables were again studied; gender, foodie type and quinine tasters Gender compared male to female, while foodie t ype compared foodie vs. nonfoodie calculated as in study one. T he means of the difference in liking were 7.15 for the hedonic 9 point scale and the hedonic gLMS scale had a mean of 120.35. Quinine taster s compared hi gh vs. low. These sub classifications were defined by taking the mean for the rating of the quinine solution. The mean of the bitterness rating for the hedonic 9 -point scale was 8.10 and the mean for the hedonic gLMS was 64.24. As in study one, other classification variables were not studied due to insufficient population totals or no significant differences. A nalysis of variance was also p erformed on gender, foodie type and quinine taster s For all attributes measured differences were considered s ignificant at an alpha level of less than or equal to 0.05. Correlation and regression analyses were done on the data for both scales separately to identify relationships between measurable values. A correlation matrix was generated comparing each of the 19 food, taste, and intensity questions to each other. Correlation coefficients that had a p -value less than 0.05 were considered significant. Regression graphs were plotted on the most significant correlations with the highest r value or the most inter esting finding

PAGE 46

46 Table 3 1 Demographic questions Gender Age Height Weight Race Ethnic Background Have you ever had a tonsillectomy? Do you have persistent salty, sweet, or bitter tastes in your mouth? Have you ever suffered from a head injury? Have you ever suffered from middle ear infections? dislike dislike dislike dislike neither like like like like extremely very moderately slightly l ike nor slightly moderately very extremely much dislike much 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Figure 3 1. Hedonic 9 po int scale Strongest Imaginable Neutral Strongest Imaginable Dislike Strong Weak Weak Strong Like 100 Very Strong Moderate 0 Moderate Very Strong 100 Figure 3 2. General Label ed Magnitude Scale Table 3 2 Overall Likeability Questions Study One (in order of presentation to panelist ) Please rate the overall liking for a Coke. Please rate the experience of listening to your Favorite Song. Please rate the overall liking for Orange Juice Please rate the experience of eating your F avorite F ood Please rate the overall liking for Grapefruit Juice Please rate the experience of being very H ungry Please rate the overall liking for Milk Chocolate Please rate the experience of eating your L east F avorite F ood. Please rate the overall liking for Dark Black Coffee Please taste and rate the overall liking for the sample of Orang e Juice. Please taste and rate the overall liking for the sample of Grapefruit Juice.

PAGE 47

47 Table 3 3 Overall Likeability Questions Study Two (in order of presentation to panelist) Please rate the overall liking for a Regular Coca Cola Classic Coke (not di et) Please rate the overall liking for Steamed Broccoli. Please rate the overall liking for Orange Juice. Please rate the experience of eating your F avorite F ood. Please rate the overall liking for Grapefruit Juice. Please rate the overall liking fo r Pepperoni Please rate the overall liking for Milk Chocolate. Please rate the overall liking for Cheese Cake. Please rate the experience of eating your L east F avorite F ood. Please rate the overall liking for Dark Black Coffee. Please taste and rate the overall liking for the sample of Cheese Cake. Please taste and rate the overall liking for the sample of Orange Juice. Please taste and rate the overall liking for the sample of Pepperoni. Please taste and rate the overall liking for the sample of Grapefruit Juice. Please taste and rate the overall liking for the sample of Dark Black Coffee.

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Results and Discussion To see if the hedonic gLMS would provide better data for within subject and across group compar isons, the hedonic 9 point scale and the gLMS were used in rating the overall liking of food products. To do so, three groups of data were analyzed within -subjects and across -groups: gender, foodie type, and quinine tasters. Panelists were asked questions about food products from memory and then actually tasted food products during the sensory test. This was done to see if the results from the questions from memory were the same as the ratings for the samples the panelists tasted. The panelists top and bottom anchors of the hedonic gLMS were complied and answers were categorized The results were separated by group and analyzed. 4.2 Sensory Study 1 In study one, food and non-food items were rated overall liking by panelists using the hedonic 9 point s cale and the hedonic gLMS. Non -food items were used to see where these items fit into a panelists food world. These items also allowed for the use of the scales to rate across modalities. Since this type of experimental design has never been used befor e, study one was an exploratory experiment used to see how the panelists would react to this type of questioning and if the data would show any significant results. Consequently, some very interesting findings were discovered from this study. Many signif icant correlations arose from the data that may lead to future studies to rationalize these results. Acrossgroup comparisons were analyzed using AOV to show significant differences between groups for each scale. This was done to see if the hedonic 9 -poi nt scale would be able

PAGE 49

49 to show significant differences across groups. Within -group comparison was analyzed using correlation coefficients and regression graphs. This analysis was done to show that the hedonic gLMS will work for within -group comparisons, as well as, the hedonic 9 -point scale. 4.2.1 Sensory Study 1 Across -Group Comparisons AOV was used to identify significant differences between males and females for both scales. Both scales clearly showed that females rated bitterness of the quinine pape r higher than did males ( T able 4 1). These results imply that females taste the intensity of bitter components higher than males. The hedonic gLMS scale showed more significant differences between genders than the hedonic 9 -point scale overall (Table 4 1) The hedonic gLMS scale showed significant differences for orange juice from memory, with the males liking orange juice more than the females did with an average of 33.2 vs. 23.6. The hedonic 9 -point scale showed marginal, but not significant, differenc es. The hedonic gLMS scale was able to show that females rated their least favorite food lower ( 65.9) as opposed to males ( 51.1). This may show that food is more important to females. Using the hedonic gLMS scale, females ( 44.0) also rated black coff ee lower than males ( 14.4). A negative value indicates dislike showing that many people either do not like coffee in general or either sugar or milk are needed to combat the bitterness of the coffee. The hedonic 9 -point scale did not show these differe nces to be significant. The hedonic 9 -point scale did show differences in the liking of favorite song, showing that females liked their favorite song better than males. However, this difference was very small and may not be truly a difference since the h edonic gLMS did not show this difference to be significant. The hedonic gLMS scale showed a larger and more significant difference between foodies and nonfoodies for the liking of their favorite song ( T able 4 2). It showed that foodies liked their favorite song (70.7) more than nonfoodies (52.8), reflecting an importance between

PAGE 50

50 food and music. The hedonic gLMS scale also showed that foodies disliked black coffee more than nonfoodies. Furthermore, the hedonic gLMS scale found that foodies rated orange j uice higher then nonfoodies. The gLMS also concluded that the foodies rated the bitterness intensity of quinine higher than the nonfoodies. The 9 point intensity scale failed to show these significant differences. The hedonic 9 point scale showed that n onfoodies had a higher liking for orange juice from memory than foodies, as well as, the grapefruit juice they tasted. The other difference the hedonic 9 point scale showed was for the liking of grapefruit juice from memory. Foodies remembered disliking grapefruit juice more than nonfoodies. Data was also sorted into categories of panelists who rated the bitterness of quinine either higher or lower than the average. Comparing the high and low of the bitterness classification within the two scales, th e hedonic gLMS showed many more significant differences than the hedonic 9 point scale, specifically with the panelists least favorite food, black coffee, and the tasted grapefruit juice ( T able 4 3). In each case, the panelists who rated bitterness lower than average had a significantly higher value for the liking of least favorite food, black coffee, and orange juice The 9 point intensity scale did not show these differences. Both scales showed a significant difference in the rating of the bitterness of the quinine paper which was to be expected, because the data was sorted using the bitterness of the quinine paper ratings. 4.2.2 Sensory Study 1 Within Subject Comparisons A correlation regression matrix was performed on the data to identify significant correlations. The correlations (r values) with a p value of less than 0.05 were considered significant. Table 4 4 summarizes all the significant correlations in the study for both scales. Comparing the hedonic gLMS and the hedonic 9 point scale, the h edonic gLMS shows a total of 30 significant correlations, while the hedonic 9 -point show s 17 significant correlations

PAGE 51

51 (T able 4 4). Ten of these correlations were reflected in both scales, resulting in the hedonic gLMS picking up 20 different correlations in which the 9 point scale failed to identify; while the hedonic 9 point scale showed six different correlations in which the hedonic gLMS failed to identify. Some interesting correlations were reflected by both scales. Both scales showed a positive cor relation between the overall liking of orange juice from memory and orange juice tasted ( F igure 4 1). However, the hedonic gLMS showed a much stronger correlation. Both scales also showed a significant relationship between grapefruit juice to black coffee (F igure 4 2). In each case, the results are easily seen showing the more they dislike grapefruit juice the more they disliked black coffee using the hedonic gLMS figures. The hedonic gLMS showed a significant correlation between black coffee and grapefruit juice from memory ( F igure 4 3 ). The more the panelist disliked black coffee, the more they disliked grapefruit juice from memory. This normally correlates because of the similarity of the products (higher bitterness) which the hedonic 9 point scale f ailed to identify. Another interesting correlation seen from both scales was the relationship between the difference in liking variable and the panelists favorite song. This correlation represents significance between panelists modalities. Their diff erence between their favorite and least favorite foods increased as the liking of their favorite song increased. One can also see that the hedonic gLMS shows a much stronger correlation than the hedonic 9 -point scale ( F igure 4 4 ), indicating that the hedonic 9 point scale is not as good for measuring across modalities. During this first study, panelists were asked questions on how much they liked a food or non -food item. Favorite and least favorite food corresponded better than expected with many of the f ood and non -food item questions asked. The non-food item questions were asked to see

PAGE 52

52 where those preferences ranged on the scales in relationship to food items. The hedonic 9 point scale never showed a significant correlation between favorite food and fa vorite song and least favorite food vs. favorite song, while the hedonic gLMS showed a strong significance difference of 0.5523 and 0.3072, respectfully ( F igure 4 5). Favorite song correlated significantly with favorite food, least favorite food, orange juice from memory, and the bitterness of the quinine paper when using the hedonic gLMS. As the rating of the panelists favorite food increased, the rating for the panelists favorite song also increased ( F igure 4 5) showing a positive relationship betwee n food and music. The more panelists liked their favorite song, the higher they rated the bitterness of the quinine paper. This correlation showed significance between sound and taste intensity. It seemed that the hedonic gLMS was able to show correlatio ns with favorite food, least favorite food, and favorite song better than the 9 point scale. This could be a beneficial characteristic of the hedonic gLMS enabling the scale to be used in relating non -food questions to food questions. These results show a n importance in future studies using this scale. At the end of the test, panelists tasted and rated the level of the bitterness of quinine paper to see if the scales could show any significant correlations with food products and intensity of taste. The hed onic gLMS scale showed more correlations between the bitterness of the quinine paper and other questions than the 9 point scale. The hedonic gLMS scale showed a significant correlation between the bitterness of the quinine paper rating and black coffee, g rapefruit juice, the panelists favorite song, and their least favorite food. The ratings of grapefruit juice (figure 4 6) showed a negative correlation, due to the high bitterness of this product. 4.2.3 Sensory Study 1 Panelist Anchors Panelists top a nd bottom anchors of their strongest imaginable liking of any kind and strongest imaginable disliking of any kind for the hedonic gLMS were compiled. Categories

PAGE 53

53 were made from the panelists descriptions ( T able s 4 5 and 46). Playing or watching a sport and being in a specific place were the top two strongest imaginable likings panelists used. Many panelists felt good, physically and emotionally, doing these events. These results also were seen after separating the results into gender and type. With males and nonfoodies, sex was the second highest anchor used. Being sick, hurt, or having a medical issue and the fear of death or being involved in a life threatening event were the top two ratings for the panelists 100 (bottom anchor) for the hedonic g LMS. These were also the top responses for gender and type. When identifying panelists strongest imaginable sensation of any kind for rating the intensity of the quinine paper, pain was used the most as their 100 (top anchor). An emotional or sound se nsation was tied for second most used anchor ( t able 4 7). Similar results were seen with gender and type. 4.3 Sensory Study 2 Findings generated from study one lead to the experimental design of study two. Seeing that the trends of study one showed that the hedonic gLMS was better at comparing within subjects and across -groups, study two was performed to provide more evidence of these trends. To do so, study two increased the population and eliminated the non -food related questions in order to focus on t he behavior of the scales relative to rating food products. Three other taste intensities, salty, sweet, and sour were also added to study two to determine how the scale would work with the other tastes, rather than just bitter. A liquid quinine solution was used in study two instead of the quinine paper. This was done because the liquid quinine solution flows better into the channel containing the taste receptors where the taste buds are located. With the paper, the quinine has to dissolve into the saliva, where upon it then makes contact with the taste receptors. The quinine solution eliminated the middle man to provide a more accurate level when panelists tasted the solution.

PAGE 54

54 4.3.1 Sensory Study 2 Across -Group Comparisons Using AOV to compare the he donic 9 -point scale to the hedonic gLMS scale for the significant differences between genders, both scales showed significant differences between males and females for intensity of saltiness and sourness ( T able 4 8). The two scales showed that females rat ed the intensity of the saltiness and sourness of the solutions higher than did males. The hedonic gLMS scale showed a difference with females (70.2) experiencing a higher perceived intensity of bitterness than males (55.3), as in study one. However, the hedonic 9 point scale did not show a significant difference in this study. The gLMS seemed to perform better than the 9 point intensity scale for rating perceived intensities of various taste sensations providing more significant differences. Both scal es provided comparable strength in distinguishing significant differences amongst genders. The hedonic 9 point scale and the hedonic gLMS showed significant differences between males and females for broccoli from memory (5.8 vs. 6.4; 5.1 vs. 14.3) and bla ck coffee (3.6 vs. 2.8; 13.6 vs. 33.9). In both cases, the hedonic gLMS clearly showed higher differences than the hedonic 9 -point scale. The data showed that females liked broccoli more than males and disliked black coffee more than males. The hedon ic 9 point scale distinguished two other significant differences between genders compared to the hedonic gLMS. The scale showed that males liked coke more then females and had a higher liking for pepperoni (from memory) than females ( T able 4 8). Analyzing the group foodie type both scales found a difference between the favorite food, least favorite food, and difference in liking ( T able 4 9). This was predicted because these questions were used to classify foodie type. The scales also showed that foodi es disliked black coffee more than the nonfoodie panelists. Again, the hedonic gLMS showed a higher level of disliking than the 9 point scale showed ( 33.3 vs. 18.8; 2.9 vs. 3.6).

PAGE 55

55 The hedonic gLMS scale showed significant differences between foodies and nonfoodies for recalling their liking for orange juice, grapefruit juice, milk chocolate, and cheese cake (T able 4 9). It also showed significant differences after the panelists tasted the samples for cheese cake, coffee, grapefruit juice, and orange jui ce. The hedonic gLMS showed that foodies recalled liking orange juice, milk chocolate, and cheese cake more than nonfoodies and also liked the taste of cheese cake and orange juice significantly more than nonfoodies. As hypothesized, foodies largely did not like the taste of black coffee ( 33.3) or grapefruit juice ( 29.8) compared to the nonfoodies with means of 18.8 and 11.2, respectfully. The foodies also did not recall liking grapefruit juice as much as nonfoodies. This also can be supported by the fact that foodies rated the intensity of bitterness higher. The gLMS scale performed better than the 9 -point intensity scale for finding significant differences for the taste solutions. The gLMS showed a significant difference between foodies and nonfoo dies for the perceived intensity of sourness and bitterness, with foodies rating both higher than nonfoodies. These results show that foodies taste the basic tastes greater than nonfoodies supporting the importance of the taste of food for foodies. Comp aring the high and low of the quinine tasters, the hedonic gLMS showed many more significant differences than the hedonic 9 point scale ( T able 4 10). Interestingly, both scales showed significant differences for all four taste solutions showing that the h igher the panelists rated the intensity of quinine, the higher they rated the other solutions. These results confirm our assumption that high and low quinine tasters are supertasters or medium tasters and nontasters. The hedonic gLMS showed differences b etween high and low quinine tasters for broccoli, grapefruit juice, black coffee, and least favorite food from memory. We had hoped to see these results, because the data was separated depending on the panelists bitterness ratings. The

PAGE 56

56 hedonic 9 point s cale was unsuccessful in showing any significant differences for these items. Interestingly, the hedonic gLMS scale showed a significant difference between quinine tasters for orange juice and favorite food from memory. High quinine tasters rated the ove rall liking of these items higher than the low quinine tasters. Tasting ratings for cheesecake, black coffee, and grapefruit juice were also seen as significantly different using the hedonic gLMS The hedonic 9 point scale only showed a difference with t he rating of cheesecake from memory, failing to show many significant differences for quinine tasters. If industry researchers used the hedonic 9 -point scale rating a product with the majority of the panel quinine tasters, they would not find a significan t difference with the product. If the product was launched to market, this could possibly lead to failure, because the hedonic 9 point scale would not have shown a difference in liking of the product. 4.3.2 Sensory Study 2 Within Subject Comparisons Af ter analyzing correlations amongst data in study two, with the larger population of panelists tested, many more total correlations were found significant. The hedonic gLMS provided many more significant correlations in each classification compared to the 9 -point scale. These results are in agreement with the first study in that the hedonic gLMS provides more significant correlations than the hedonic 9 -point scale. Analyzing the data of all the correlations, the hedonic gLMS showed about 2.5 times as many different significant correlations compared to the 9 -point scale and half of the total number of correlations for the 9 -point scale were also shown by the hedonic gLMS ( T able 4 11). In general, both scales did very well showing correlations for pepperon i between orange juice, coke, BMI, and preference for pepperoni from memory. Similar to study one, the hedonic gLMS had the stronger correlation values. T he hedonic gLMS also showed better correlations between the tastes solutions that the hedonic 9 -point scale failed to show.

PAGE 57

57 There are many correlations in which both scales showed significant r values and in most cases, the hedonic gLMS r value is larger showing a greater relationship between the products. Grapefruit juice correlated with both scales with grapefruit from memory ( F igure 4 7), as in study one, showing that both scales can be used to rate products even if the panelists do not taste the product. Grapefruit juice correlated with least favorite food, but the 9 -point scale showed a lower r v alue of 0.1814 compared to the hedonic gLMS with a r value of 0.3045 (F igure 4 8). Black coffee was also seen significant in regards to grapefruit juice due to the higher bitterness taste these products have ( F igure 4 9). Both scales showed a significant correlation between the liking of milk chocolate from memory and orange juice ( F igure 4 10), as well as, the panelists favorite foods ( F igure 4 11). These correlations might be expected due to the sweet taste and popularity of both products. Difference s in liking vs. favorite food was significant by both scales, but highly correlated using the hedonic gLMS with a r value of 0.8865 vs. 0.4604 using the hedonic 9 point scale ( F igure 4 1 2 ). This value should be high since the difference in liking is the d ifference of the panelists favorite food rating and their least favorite food rating. Similar to study one, the hedonic gLMS showed some interesting and significant correlations in which the 9 point scale did not show. As expected, cheese cake and chees e cake from memory and favorite food ( F igure 4 1 3 ) were correlated. C heese cake correlated positively with favorite food and negatively with least favorite food ( F igure 4 1 4 ). Cheese cake also correlated nicely with orange juice and orange juice from mem ory ( F igure 4 1 5 ). It seems as though the hedonic gLMS is showing correlations that the hedonic 9 point scale should have shown, especially in regards to sweet products that one would assume to be significant. Figure 4 1 6 reflected strong correlations be tween the differences in liking variable and milk chocolate from memory, grapefruit juice, and orange juice. This shows that the greater the difference

PAGE 58

58 between a persons favorite food and least favorite food, the greater they like either milk chocolate o r orange juice and the least they like grapefruit juice. In this second study, panelists rated the intensity of different taste solutions, specifically, salty, sweet, sour, and bitter using 9 point intensity scale and the gLMS Although both scales showe d a significant correlation between bitter vs. salty (F igure 4 1 7 ) and bitter vs. sour ( F igure 4 18), the correlations were much better with the gLMS. Strong correlations were also seen with salty vs. sweet (F igure 4 19) and salty vs. sour ( F igure 4 20). The gLMS also showed a cleaner, more visible regression graph than the 9 -point intensity scale. Salty and least favorite food negatively correlated ( F igure 4 2 1 ), however salty and favorite food was only significant using the hedonic gLMS ( F igure 4 2 2 ). This shows that both favorite food and least favorite food is very important, which the hedonic 9 -point scale did not show. Using the hedonic 9 -point scale, one would only assume that a salty intensity would be nonpalatable, but using the hedonic gLMS, i t shows that it is more feasible to having the right level of saltiness for a likeable product. The hedonic gLMS scale showed numerous significant correlations between intensity ratings and hedonic ratings while the hedonic 9 -point scale showed only a fe w. Bitterness correlated with coffee, grapefruit juice, favorite food, least favorite food, and difference in liking variable (F igure 4 2 3 ). These correlations were also seen in study one. These were also seen with the intensity of saltiness and sournes s. One interesting correlation that the hedonic gLMS identified was the negative correlation between sour and grapefruit juice ( F igure 4 2 4 ). Grapefruit juice is typically very sour hence t he stronger the sourness flavor perceived, the lower the liking of grapefruit juice became. Sweet correlated very well with panelists favorite food, cheese cake, and chocolate ( F igure 4 2 5 ). The 9 point scale was not able to identify these

PAGE 59

59 differences due to the ceiling effects it creates. All the values are so hig h on the scale that it does not show the significant correlations within groups. The hedonic gLMS showed a significant correlation between the differences in liking variable and the bitterness rating of quinine ( F igure 4 2 7 ). As ratings for of bitterness intensity increase d, the larger the difference between the panelists favorite and least favorite food becomes. 4.3.3 Sensory Study 2 Panelist Anchors As in study one, panelists top and bottom anchors of their strongest imaginable liking of any kind a nd strongest imaginable disliking of any kind for the hedonic gLMS were compiled. Categories were made from the panelists descriptions ( T able 4 12 and T able 4 13). Being with friends, family, and loved ones was the top strongest imaginable likings panelists used as their 100 on the hedonic gLMS in study two. Being loved or being in love and being at an event were tied for second. In the comparison to gender and type, the top choice was being with friends, family, and loved ones. However, the second top choice for gender was an event, and for type, it was being loved. Death of a loved one or friend and being sick, hurt, or having a medical issue were the top two ratings, respectfully, for the panelists 100 (bottom anchor) These results were the s ame for gender and type. When identifying panelists strongest imaginable sensation of any kind for rating the intensity of the taste solutions, pain again was used the most as their 100 (top anchor) An emotion was once again chosen as the second most used anchor (table 414). Gender and type showed similar results.

PAGE 60

60 Table 4 1. Significant Means Differences between Gender for Study One 9 p oint s cale gLMS Male Female Male Female n= 47 n= 53 n= 45 n= 55 Favorite Song from Memory 8.4 b 1 8. 6 a 61.2 a 63.1 a Orange Juice from Memory 7.4 a 7.1 a 33.2 a 23.6 b Least Favorite Food from Memory 1.9 a 1.8 a 51.1 a 65.9 b Black Coffee from Memory 3.8 a 3.3 a 14.4 a 44.0 b Bitterness of Quinine Paper 6.2 b 7.2 a 36.5 b 53.6 a 1 Means follow ed by different letters represent significant differences. Table 4 2. Significant Means Differences Between Foodie Type1 for Study One 9 p oint s cale gLMS Foodie NonFoodie Foodie NonFoodie n= 67 n= 33 n= 53 n= 47 Favorite Song from Memory 8.6 a 2 8.4 a 70.7 a 52.8 b Orange Juice from Memory 7.0 b 7.7 a 31.6 a 23.8 a Favorite Food from Memory 8.8 a 8.1 b 79.3 a 48.4 b Grapefruit Juice from Memory 4.9 a 5.9 b 2.4 a 1.3 a Least Favorite Food from Memory 1.3 b 2.9 a 78.9 b 37.1 a Black Coffee fr om Memory 3.2 a 4.1 a 39.5 b 20.7 a Orange Juice Taste 6.4 a 6.6 a 33.3 a 24.3 b Grapefruit Juice Taste 3.2 b 4.4 a 33.9 a 29.3 a Bitterness of Quinine Paper 6.9 a 6.4 a 51.2 a 39.9 b Difference in Liking 7.5 a 5.2 b 158.2 a 85.6 b 1 Sorted by Foo die and Nonfoodie representing panelists whose difference in liking value is above or below respectfully, the means (6.75 for the 9point scale and 124.05 for the gLMS) 2Means followed by different letters represent significant differences. Table 4 3. Significant Means Differences Between Quinine Tasters 1 for Study One 9 p oint s cale gLMS Higher Lower Higher Lower n= 65 n= 15 n= 52 n= 48 Least Favorite Food Memory 1.8 a 2 1.9 a 68.9 b 48.8 a Black Coffee from Memory 3.6 a 3.3 a 40.9 b 19.6 a G rapefruit Juice Taste 3.8 a 3.5 a 40.5 b 22.3 a Bitterness of Quinine Paper 8.0 a 4.5 b 67.6 a 22.4 b 1 Sorted by Higher and Lower representing panelists whose rating of quinine is above or below respectfully, the mean (6.75 for the 9 point scale and 45.9 for the gLMS) 2Means followed by different letters represent significant differences.

PAGE 61

61 Table 4 4. Significant Correlations (p<0.05) (r values) for Study One 9 point s cale gLMS n= 100 n= 100 Favorite Food vs. BMI 0.1594 Black Coffee from Mem ory vs. Grapefruit Juice from Memory 0.2168 Black Coffee from Memory vs. Least Favorite Food 0.3020 0.4599 Black Coffee from Memory vs. Orange Juice from Memory 0.1992 Difference in Liking vs. Black Coffee from Memory 0.2154 0.3200 Difference in Liking vs. Favorite Food 0.5170 0.7997 Difference in Liking vs. Favorite Song 0.2121 0.4893 Difference in Liking vs. Grapefruit Juice 0.2615 Difference in Liking vs. Least Favorite Food 0.8734 0.8840 Difference in Liking vs. Milk Chocolate 0.226 9 Difference in Liking vs. Orange Juice 0.2488 Difference in Liking vs. Bitterness of Quinine 0.2768 Favorite Food vs. Favorite Song 0.5523 Favorite Food vs. Orange Juice from Memory 0.2241 Grapefruit Juice vs. Black Coffee from Memory 0.2156 0.4241 Grapefruit Juice vs. Orange Juice from Memory 0.2642 Grapefruit Juice vs. Grapefruit Juice from Memory 0.5822 0.6377 Grapefruit Juice vs. Least Favorite Food 0.2093 0.2891 Grapefruit Juice from Memory vs. Orange Juice from Memory 0.2211 0.2544 Hungry vs. Orange Juice from Memory 0.1967 Least Favorite Food vs. Favorite Food 0.4263 Least Favorite Food vs. Favorite Song 0.3072 Least Favorite Food vs. Orange Juice from Memory 0.2218 Milk Chocolate vs. Favorite Food 0.3333 Milk Cho colate vs. Favorite Song 0.3184 Milk Chocolate vs. Orange Juice from Memory 0.2195 Orange Juice vs. Black Coffee from Memory 0.2516 Orange Juice vs. Favorite Food 0.2510 Orange Juice vs. Favorite Song 0.2753

PAGE 62

62 Table 4 4. Continued Orang e Juice vs. Milk Chocolate 0.2653 Orange Juice vs. Orange Juice from Memory 0.3750 0.5436 Orange Juice from Memory vs. Favorite Song 0.4045 Bitterness of Quinine vs. Black Coffee from Memory 0.2394 Bitterness of Quinine vs. Favorite Song 0.256 7 Bitterness of Quinine vs. Grapefruit Juice 0.2590 Bitterness of Quinine vs. Least Favorite Food 0.3583 Bitterness of Quinine vs. Grapefruit Juice from Memory 0.2205

PAGE 63

63 A B Figure 4 1. Correlation and Regression between Orange Juice and Ora nge Juice from Memory in study one A) 9 -point Scale B) gLMS

PAGE 64

64 A B Figure 4 2 Correlation and Regression between Grapefruit Juice and Black Coffee from memory in study one. A) 9 -point Scale B) gLMS

PAGE 65

65 Figure 4 3 Correlation and Regression between Bl ack Coffee from memory and Grapefruit Juice from memory in study one using the gLMS A B Figure 4 4 Correlation and Regression between Difference in Liking and Favorite Song in study one. A) 9 -point scale B) gLMS

PAGE 66

66 A B Figure 4 5 Correlation and Re gression in study one using the gLMS between Favorite Song and A) Favorite Food and B) Least Favorite Food Figure 4 6 Correlation and Regression between Quinine and Grapefruit Juice in study one using the gLMS

PAGE 67

67 Table 4 5. Strongest imaginable LIKING of any kind Anchors Totals for Study One Key of Categories Overall Male Female Foodies 1 NonFoodies 2 An Event 13 4 9 8 5 Being at a Place 12 5 7 6 6 Being Happy/Laughing 6 1 5 4 2 Being Loved/Being in Love 6 1 5 2 4 Being Successful 4 1 3 2 2 Bein g with Friends/Family/Loved Ones 9 5 4 5 4 Food/Beverage 10 2 8 7 3 Hugging/Kissing 4 3 1 1 3 Playing/Watching a Sport 17 8 9 9 8 Riding a Rollercoaster 3 1 2 1 2 Security 1 1 0 1 0 Sex 7 6 1 0 7 Sleeping 3 3 0 2 1 Things 5 4 1 5 0 Total 100 45 55 53 47 1 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was above 124.05. 2 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was below 124.05. Table 4 6. Strongest imaginable DISLIKING of any kind Anchors Totals for Study One Key of Ca tegories Overall Male Female Foodies 1 NonFoodies 2 Activity 7 2 5 4 3 Being Sick/Hurt/Medical 58 25 33 30 28 Bugs/Spiders/Animals 7 5 2 5 2 Cleaning 2 2 0 1 1 Death of Loved One/Friend 6 3 3 2 4 Eating Something 3 1 2 3 0 Hatred 2 0 2 0 2 Life Thre atening Event/Fear of Death 15 7 8 8 7 Total 100 45 55 53 47 1 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was above 124.05. 2 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was below 124.05.

PAGE 68

68 Table 4 7. Strongest imaginable SEN SATION of any kind Anchors Totals for Study One 1 Key of Categories Overall Male Female Foodies 1 NonFoodies 2 Brightest Light 12 5 7 6 6 Emotion 13 2 11 5 8 Food/Beverage 2 1 1 1 1 Pain 59 30 29 34 25 Sound 13 7 6 6 7 Temperature 1 0 1 1 0 Total 100 45 55 53 47 1 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was above 124.05. 2 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was below 124.05. Table 4 8. Significant Means Differences between Gender for Study Two 9 p oint s cale gLMS Male Female Male Female n= 97 n= 103 n= 80 n= 120 Coke from Memory 6.9 a1 6.3 b 16.9 a 17.4 a Broccoli from Memory 5.8 b 6.4 a 5.1 b 14.3 a Black Coffee Memory 3.9 a 3.0 a 6.1 a 24.8 b Pepperoni from Memory 6.7 a 6.2 b 16.3 a 12.9 a Black Coffe e Taste 3.6 a 2.8 b 13.6 a 33.9 b Salty 7.5 b 8.0 a 40.1 b 49.5 a Sour 5.4 b 6.4 a 36.8 b 45.0 a Bitter 7.9 a 8.3 a 55.3 b 70.2 a 1Means followed by different letters represent significant differences.

PAGE 69

69 Table 4 9. Significant Means Diffe rences Between Foodie Type 1 for Study Two 9 p oint s cale gLMS Foodie NonFoodie Foodie NonFoodie n= 106 n= 94 n= 96 n= 104 Broccoli from Memory 5.5 b 2 6.8 a 12.2 a 9.1 a Orange Juice from Memory 7.4 a 7.3 a 31.9 a 22.3 b Favorite Food from Memory 9.0 a 8.6 b 83.0 a 49.8 b Grapefruit Juice from Memory 4.4 a 4.9 a 2.3 b 6.3 a Milk Chocolate from Memory 7.5 a 7.3 a 44.5 a 29.4 b Cheese Cake from Memory 7.3 a 7.4 a 38.2 a 27.7 b Least Favorite Food from Memory 1.0 b 2.5 a 77.6 b 33.5 a Black Coffee from Memory 3.3 a 3.9 b 22.5 a 12.5 a Cheese Cake Taste 7.4 a 7.4 a 29.9 a 18.7 b Black Coffee Taste 2.9 b 3.6 a 33.3 b 18.8 a Grapefruit Juice Taste 3.2 a 3.4 a 29.8 b 11.2 a Orange Juice Taste 6.9 a 6.6 a 38.5 a 28.3 b Pepperoni Taste 6.9 a 6. 4 b 16.1 a 15.7 a Sour 6.0 a 5.9 a 48.0 a 35.9 b Bitter 8.0 a 8.2 a 74.3 a 55.0 b Difference in Liking 8.0 a 6.2 b 160.6 a 83.2 b 1 Sorted by Foodie and Nonfoodie representing panelists whose difference in liking value is above or below respectfully, the means (7.15 for the 9point scale and 120.35 for the gLMS) 2Means followed by different letters represent significant differences.

PAGE 70

70 Table 4 10. Significant Means Differences Between Quinine Tasters 1 for Study Two 9 point s cale gLMS High Low High Low n= 116 n= 84 n= 116 n= 84 Broccoli from Memory 6.4 a 2 5.8 a 13.8 a 6.2 b Orange Juice from Memory 7.5 a 7.2 a 30.2 a 22.4 b Favorite Food from Memory 8.8 a 8.8 a 72.1 a 59.9 b Grapefruit Juice from Memory 4.6 a 4.7 a 2.1 b 8.1 a Cheese Cake from Memory 7.6 a 7.0 b 33.7 a 31.4 a Least Favorite Food from Memory 1.7 a 1.7 a 61.2 b 45.7 a Black Coffee from Memory 3.4 a 3.9 a 24.0 b 8.0 a Cheese Cake Taste 7.4 a 7.4 a 27.0 a 20.0 b Black Coffee Taste 3.1 a 3.5 a 34.6 b 13.6 a Grapefruit Juice Taste 3.1 a 3.5 a 27.5 b 9.8 a Salty 8.0 a 7.5 b 60.3 a 25.6 b Sweet 7.4 a 6.9 b 56.9 a 25.3 b Sour 6.2 a 5.6 b 54.5 a 24.0 b Bitter 9.0 a 6.8 b 85.7 a 34.7 b Difference in Liking 7.2 a 7.1 a 133.2 a 102.6 b 1 Sorted by Higher and Lower representing panelists whose rating of quinine is above or below respectfully, the mean (8.10 for the 9 point scale and 64.24 for the gLMS) 2Means followed by different letters represent significant differences.

PAGE 71

71 Table 4 11. Significant Correlations (p<0.05) (r values) for Study Two 9 point s cale gLMS n= 200 n= 200 Bitter vs Broccoli from Memory 0.1612 Bitter vs Cheese Cake 0.1936 Bitter vs Cheese Cake from Memory 0.1536 Bitter vs Black Coffee 0. 2207 Bitter vs Black Coffee from Memory 0.1453 Bitter vs Favorite Food 0.3360 Bitter vs Grapefruit Juice 0.2700 Bitter vs Grapefruit Juice from Memory 0.1466 Bitter vs Least Favorite Food 0.3399 Bitter vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.17 23 Bitter vs Salty 0.1975 0.6956 Bitter vs Sour 0.1520 0.6446 Bitter vs Sweet 0.6515 Cheese Cake vs Broccoli from Memory 0.1407 Cheese Cake vs Cheese Cake from Memory 0.4543 0.3567 Cheese Cake vs Milk Chocolate from Memory 0.3180 0.4041 Cheese Cake vs Favorite Food 0.4478 Cheese Cake vs Least Favorite Food 0.2977 Cheese Cake vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.6884 Cheese Cake vs Pepperoni from Memory 0.1470 0.2086 Cheese Cake from Memory vs BMI 0.1822 Cheese Cake from Memory vs Broccoli from Memory 0.1367 Cheese Cake from Memory vs Milk Chocolate from Memory 0.3010 0.2627 Cheese Cake from Memory vs Coke from Memory from Memory 0.2532 Cheese Cake from Memory vs Favorite Food 0.3059 Cheese Cake from Memory vs Orange Juice from Me mory 0.2720 Cheese Cake from Memory vs Pepperoni from Memory 0.3625 Milk Chocolate from Memory vs BMI 0.1949 Milk Chocolate from Memory vs Favorite Food 0.1435 0.4934 Milk Chocolate from Memory vs Grapefruit Juice from Memory 0.1449 Milk Choco late from Memory vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.4011 Milk Chocolate from Memory vs Pepperoni from Memory 0.1723 Black Coffee vs Black Coffee from Memory 0.7010 0.7734 Black Coffee vs Favorite Food 0.2406

PAGE 72

72 Table 4 11. Continued Black Coffee vs Gr apefruit Juice from Memory 0.2205 Black Coffee vs Least Favorite Food 0.2646 0.2445 Black Coffee from Memory vs Broccoli from Memory 0.1625 Black Coffee from Memory vs Grapefruit Juice from Memory 0.2504 Black Coffee from Memory vs Favorite Food 0.2454 Black Coffee from Memory vs Least Favorite Food 0.1918 Black Coffee from Memory vs Pepperoni from Memory 0.1523 Black Coffee from Memory vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.1421 Difference in Liking vs Bitter 0.3743 Difference in Liking vs Cheese Cake 0.1285 Difference in Liking vs Cheese Cake from Memory 0.2713 Difference in Liking vs Milk Chocolate from Memory 0.4264 Difference in Liking vs Broccoli from Memory 0.3277 Difference in Liking vs Black Coffee from Memory 0.2577 0 .1822 Difference in Liking vs Favorite Food 0.4604 0.8865 Difference in Liking vs Grapefruit Juice 0.3263 Difference in Liking vs Grapefruit Juice from Memory 0.1871 Difference in Liking vs Least Favorite Food 0.9404 0.9177 Difference in Likin g vs Orange Juice 0.4062 Difference in Liking vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.3370 Difference in Liking vs Salty 0.2764 Difference in Liking vs Sour 0.1916 Difference in Liking vs Sweet 0.3239 Favorite Food vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.1435 0 .4214 Grapefruit Juice vs Black Coffee 0.2341 0.3020 Grapefruit Juice vs Black Coffee from Memory 0.2241 0.2392 Grapefruit Juice vs Favorite Food 0.2835 Grapefruit Juice vs Grapefruit Juice from Memory 0.6584 0.5759 Grapefruit Juice vs Least Favor ite Food 0.1814 0.3045 Grapefruit Juice vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.1715 Grapefruit Juice vs Pepperoni from Memory 0.1487 Grapefruit Juice from Memory vs Broccoli from Memory 0.2769 Grapefruit Juice from Memory vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.261 7 Least Favorite Food vs Broccoli from Memory 0.3603 Least Favorite Food vs Cheese Cake from Memory 0.1926 Least Favorite Food vs Milk Chocolate from Memory 0.2922 Least Favorite Food vs Favorite Food 0.6296 Least Favorite Food vs Grapefr uit Juice from Memory 0.2480

PAGE 73

73 Table 4 11. Continued Least Favorite Food vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.2040 Orange Juice vs Cheese Cake 0.4042 Orange Juice vs Milk Chocolate from Memory 0.1661 0.3463 Orange Juice vs Coke from Memory 0.1556 0.215 6 Orange Juice vs Favorite Food 0.1990 Orange Juice vs Grapefruit Juice 0.1892 Orange Juice vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.4082 0.3513 Orange Juice vs Least Favorite Food 0.2646 Orange Juice vs Pepperoni from Memory 0.2585 0.2613 Orange Juice f rom Memory vs BMI 0.1575 Orange Juice from Memory vs Broccoli from Memory 0.2117 Orange Juice from Memory vs Coke from Memory 0.2040 Pepperoni vs BMI 0.1794 0.1825 Pepperoni vs Cheese Cake 0.2307 Pepperoni vs Cheese Cake from Memory 0.3594 Pepperoni vs Milk Chocolate from Memory 0.1764 Pepperoni vs Coke from Memory 0.1446 0.2189 Pepperoni vs Grapefruit Juice 0.2364 Pepperoni vs Grapefruit Juice from Memory 0.1407 Pepperoni vs Orange Juice 0.2766 0.3552 Pepperoni vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.1965 0.2966 Pepperoni vs Pepperoni from Memory 0.6586 0.7441 Pepperoni from Memory vs BMI 0.1944 0.2142 Pepperoni from Memory vs Coke from Memory 0.2168 0.2419 Pepperoni from Memory vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.1490 0.3135 Salty vs BMI 0.1421 Salty vs Milk Chocolate from Memory 0.1895 Salty vs Black Coffee 0.1688 Salty vs Black Coffee from Memory 0.1490 Salty vs Favorite Food 0.2280 Salty vs Grapefruit Juice 0.2205 Salty vs Least Favorite Food 0.1425 0.2683 Sour vs Cheese Cake 0.2040 0.2047 Sour vs Black Coffee 0.1944 Sour vs Black Coffee from Memory 0.1709 Sour vs Favorite Food 0.2202 Sour vs Grapefruit Juice 0.1825 Sour vs Orange Juice 0.1533

PAGE 74

74 Table 4 11. Continued Sour vs Orange Juice from M emory 0.1517 Sour vs Salty 0.2375 0.5773 Sour vs Sweet 0.2907 Sweet vs Broccoli from Memory 0.1435 Sweet vs Cheese Cake 0.2356 Sweet vs Cheese Cake from Memory 0.1411 Sweet vs Milk Chocolate from Memory 0.2608 Sweet vs Favorite Food 0. 3257 Sweet vs Least Favorite Food 0.2642 Sweet vs Orange Juice 0.1539 Sweet vs Orange Juice from Memory 0.2088 Sweet vs Salty 0.2998 0.7233

PAGE 75

75 A B Figure 4 7 Correlation and Regression between Grapefruit Juice and Grapefruit Ju ice from Memory in study two. A) 9 -point scale B) gLMS

PAGE 76

76 A B Figure 4 8 Correlation and Regression between Grapefruit Juice and Least Favorite Food in study two. A) 9 -point scale B) gLMS

PAGE 77

77 A B Figure 4 9 Correlation and Regression between Grapefrui t Juice and Black Coffee in study two. A) 9 -point scale B) gLMS

PAGE 78

78 A B Figure 4 10. Correlation and Regression between Orange Juice and Milk Chocolate from Memory in study two. A) 9 -point scale B) gLMS

PAGE 79

79 A B Figure 4 11. Correlation and Regression bet ween Milk Chocolate from Memory and Favorite Food in study two. A) 9 point scale B) gLMS

PAGE 80

80 A B Figure 4 1 2 Correlation and Regression between Difference in liking and Favorite Food in study two. A) 9 -point scale B) gLMS

PAGE 81

81 A B Figure 4 1 3 Correla tion and Regression in study two using the gLMS between Favorite Food and A) Cheese Cake and B) Cheese Cake from Memory Figure 4 1 4 Correlation and Regression Cheese Cake and Least Favorite Food in study two using the gLMS

PAGE 82

82 A B Figure 4 1 5 Correl ation and Regression in study two using the gLMS between Cheese Cake and A) Orange Juice and B) Orange Juice from Memory

PAGE 83

83 A B C Figure 4 1 6 Correlation and Regression in study two using the gLMS between Difference in Liking and A) Grapefruit Juice and B) Orange Juice C) Chocolate from Memory

PAGE 84

84 A B Figure 4 1 7 Correlation and Regression between Bitter and Salty in study two. A) 9 point s cale B) gLMS

PAGE 85

85 A B Figure 4 18. Correlation and Regression between Bit ter and Sour in study two. A) 9 point s cal e B) gLMS

PAGE 86

86 A B Figure 4 19. Correlation and Regression between Swe et and Salty in study two. A) 9 point s cale B) gLMS

PAGE 87

87 A B Figure 4 2 0 Correlation and Regression between Sour and Salty in study two. A) 9 point s cale B) gLMS

PAGE 88

88 A B Figure 4 2 1 C orrelation and Regression between Salty and Least Favorite Food in study two. A) 9 -point scale B) gLMS

PAGE 89

89 Figure 4 2 2 Correlation and Regression Salty and Favorite Food in study two using the gLMS

PAGE 90

90 A B C D Figure 4 2 3 Correlation and Regressi on in study two using the gLMS between Bitter and A) Black Coffee, B) Grapefruit Juice, C) Favorite Food, D) Least Favorite Food

PAGE 91

91 Figure 4 2 4 Correlation and Regression between Sour and Grapefruit Juice in study two using the gLMS

PAGE 92

92 A B C Figure 4 2 5 Correlation and Regression in study two using the gLMS between Sweet and A) Favorite Food, B) Cheese Cake, and C) Milk Chocolate from Memory

PAGE 93

93 Figure 4 2 6 Correlation and Regression between Difference in Liking and Bitter in study two using the gLMS Table 4 1 2 Strongest imaginable LIKING of any kind Anchors Totals for Study Two Key of Categories Overall Male Female Foodies 1 NonFoodies 2 An event 28 15 13 11 17 Being at a Place 13 3 10 6 7 Being Happy/Laughing 8 2 6 4 4 Being Loved/Being in Love 28 7 21 12 16 Being Successful 14 10 4 4 10 Being with Friends/Family/Loved Ones 39 13 26 21 18 Food/Beverage 17 7 10 11 6 Hugging/Kissing 3 1 2 1 2 Playing/Watching a Sport 20 10 10 11 9 Riding a Rollercoaster 4 4 0 2 2 Security 0 0 0 0 0 Sex 12 6 6 5 7 Sleeping 3 0 3 3 0 Things 11 2 9 5 6 Total 200 80 120 96 104 1 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was above 120.35 2 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was below 120.35.

PAGE 94

94 Table 4 1 3 Strongest ima ginable DISLIKING of any kind Anchors Totals for Study Two Key of Categories Overall Male Female Foodies 1 NonFoodies 2 Activity 21 11 10 14 7 Being Sick/Hurt/Medical 64 23 41 31 33 Bugs/Spiders/Animals 8 1 7 5 3 Cleaning 0 0 0 0 0 Death of Loved O ne/Friend 61 23 38 25 36 Eating Something 10 5 5 6 4 Hatred 1 0 1 1 0 Life Threatening Event/Fear of Death 35 17 18 14 21 Total 200 80 120 96 104 1 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was above 120.35 2 Represents panelists whose d ifference in liking value was below 120.35. Table 4 1 4 Strongest imaginable SENSATION of any kind Anchors Totals for Study Two Key of Categories Overall Male Female Foodies 1 NonFoodies 2 Brightest Light 15 6 9 8 7 Emotion 48 26 22 15 33 Food/Beverage 3 2 1 2 1 Pain 107 38 69 57 50 Sound 21 7 14 9 12 Temperature 6 1 5 5 1 Total 200 80 120 96 104 1 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was above 120.35 2 Represents panelists whose difference in liking value was below 120.35.

PAGE 95

95 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION In conclusion, the hedonic gLMS provides stronger and more data across groups and within -groups than the hedonic 9 point scale for the population studied. Using AOV, correlations, and regression graphs in comparison, the hedonic gL MS reflects new insight towards sensory evaluation procedures. We have seen from the results that the hedonic 9 -point scale clearly falters in comparing across -groups and ceiling effects. The hedonic gLMS does not show these ceiling effects and provide st ronger significant differences across -groups. With comparing gender, foodie type, and quinine tasters with AOV, the hedonic gLMS differences were stronger than the hedonic 9 -point scale. The hedonic gLMS also performed well with nonfood questions (favori te and least favorite food and favorite song). The hedonic gLMS provides significant differences when analyzing overall liking of food product and intensity ratings of tastes. T he correlation coefficients and regression graphs show that both scales have significant correlations for the overall liking of many different food products. However, it is clearly seen that the hedonic gLMS show s mu ch more results and stronger correlations. The hedonic 9 point scale is unable to separate the data from the ceili ng effect which limits the amount of significant differences the scale shows. Since the hedonic gLMS personalizes the ceiling or top anchors to each panelist, it allows for better separation of the data. The regression graphs produced from the hedonic gL MS correlations provide a clearer understanding of the panel results. The data is more specific and accurate to the panelists ratings establishing a stronger connection between sensory testing and feelings. Stronger correlations from the hedonic gLMS p roduce a stronger bond of likability to a food product, based on panelists sensory abilities.

PAGE 96

96 Having the scale customized to each individual panelist with regard to their own opinions allows for more accurate ratings from panelists. They know exactly ho w they are rating each product based upon their self -generated anchors similar to having built -in reference point s on the scale. The hedonic gLMS assesses liking for food in the context of all hedonic experiences proving better results across group compa risons. Therefore, the ability of the hedonic gLMS to provide more valid across -subject comparisons will provide the industry with more accurate data with regard to consumer acceptance. Companies will be able to separate out the data to see the overall lik ing of their product for different groups. This will allow the company to better market their product to target specific groups. Further Research : Even though the hedonic gLMS scale has proven to provide more accurate data, more work needs to be done analyzing and adjusting the hedonic gLMS. Different anchors need to be explored in order to limit the variability between panelists. Adding different nonfood anchors to the scale would provide more across group comparison. Since this studys findings only apply to the population test further research is needed. There limited groups of people due to the testing location. This study needs to be done with large r age group s ethnic backgrounds, in different states and countries to make sure the hedonic g LMS is truly the ultimate scale to use. Another step in testing the hedonic gLMS scale compared to the hedonic 9 point scale is to do numerous sensory panels with both scales using just one product or the same group of products over a certain time period. A study also needs to be performed to see what other nonfood items would prove to be valuable anchors.

PAGE 97

97 LIST OF REFERENCES Amerine MA, Pangborn RM, Roessler EB. 1965. Principles of sensory evaluation of food. New York, NY.:Academic Press. Bartoshuk L Duffy V, Fast K, Kyeton J, Lucchina L, Phillips M. 2001. What makes a supertaster? Chem. Senses 26(8):1074. Bartoshuk LM. 2000. Comparing sensory experiences across individuals: Recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste percept ion. Chem Senses 25(4):44760. Bartoshuk LM. 1979. Bitter taste of saccharin related to the genetic ability to taste the bitter substance 6 normal -propylthiouracil. Science 205(4409):9345. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy V, Green BG, Hoffman HJ, Ko CW, Lucchina LA, M arks LE, Snyder DJ, Weiffenbach JM. 2004a. Valid across -group comparisons with labeled scales: the gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiol Behav 82(1):10914. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Chapo AK, Fast K, Yiee JH, Hoffman HJ, Ko CW, Snyder DJ. 2004b. From psyc hophysics to the clinic: missteps and advances. Food Quality and Preference 15(7 8):61732. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Fast K, Green BG, Prutkin J, Snyder DJ. 2003. Labeled scales (eg, category, Likert, VAS) and invalid across -group comparisons: what we have learned from genetic variation in taste. Food Quality and Preference 14(2):12538. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Lucchina LA, Prutkin J, Fast K. 1998. PROP (6 -n propylthiouracil) supertasters and the saltiness of NaCl. In: Anonymous Olfaction and Taste Xii. P7936. Bartoshuk LM, Duffy VB, Miller IJ. 1995. PTC/PROP tastinganatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects. Physiol Behav 58(1):203. Bartoshuk LM, Fast K, Snyder DJ. 2005. Differences in our sensory Invalid comparisons with labeled scales. Current Directions in Psychological Science 14(3):1225. Bartoshuk LM, Snyder DJ, Duffy VB. 2006. Hedonic gLMS: Valid comparisons for food liking/disliking across obesity, age, sex and PROP status. Chem Senses 31(5):A50. Bendig AW, Hughes JB. 1953. Effect of amount of verba l anchoring and number of rating-scale categories upon transmitted information. J Exp Psychol 46(2):8790. Borg G. 1982. A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. Psychophysical judgment and the process of perce ption. Berlin: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften 25 33. Borg G. 1961. Interindividual Scaling and Perception of Muscular Force. Report from the Departm. of p sychiatry, m edical s chool No.1, April 1961. Umea, Sweaden: Departm. of Psychiatry, Medical S chool.

PAGE 98

98 Brandt MA, Skinner E, Coleman J. 1963. Texture profile method. Journal of Food Science 28: 40410. Cardello A, Lawless HT, Schutz HG. 2008. Effects of extreme anchors and interior label spacing on labeled affective magnitude scales. Food Qual Prefer 19(5):47380. Cordonnier S, Delwiche J. 2008. An alternative method for assessing liking:Positional relative rating versus the 9-point hedonic scale. Journal of Sensory Studies 23: 28492. Cox DN, Clark MN, Mialon VS. 2001. A cross cultural methodological study of the uses of two common hedonic response scales. Food Quality and Preference 12(2):11931. Duffy VB, Lanier SA, Hutchins HL, Pescatello LS, Johnson MK, Bartoshuk LM. 2007. Food Preference Questionnaire as a Screening Tool for Assessing Dietary Risk of Cardiovascular Disease within Health Risk Appraisals. J Am Diet Assoc 107(2):23745. Duffy VB, Bartoshuk LM, Lucchina LA, Snyder DJ, Tym A. 1996. Supertasters of PROP (6 -n propylthiouracil) rate the highest creaminess to high-fat milk products. Chemica l Senses 21: 598. Duffy VB, Peterson JM, Bartoshuk LM. 2004. Associations between taste genetics, oral sensation and alcohol intake. Physiol Behav 82(2 3):43545. Gay C. 1988. A statistical assessment of taste -testing methods. The University of Reading. Ge ldard FA. 1972. The H uman S enses. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Wiley. Green BG, Dalton P, Cowart B, Shaffer G, Rankin K, Higgins J. 1996. Evaluating the 'labeled magnitude scale' for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chem Senses 21(3):32334. Green BG, Sh affer GS, Gilmore MM. 1993. Derivation and evaluation of a semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties. Chem Senses 18(6):683702. Greenhoff K, MacFie HJ. 1994. Preference mapping in practice. Measurement of Food Preferences 1 3766. Hall MJ, Bartoshuk LM, Cain WS, Stevens JC. 1975. PTC taste blindness and taste of caffeine. Nature 253(5491):4423. Helm E, Trolle B. 1946. Selection of a taste panel. Wallerstein Lab Community 9(28):181194. Hinreiner EH. 1956. Organoleptic evalua tion by industry panels -the cutting bee. Food Technology 31(11):6267. Jones LV, Peryam DR. 1954. Development of a scale from measuring soldiers food preferences. Food Technol 8(12):S22. Lawless HT. 1977. Pleasantness of mixtures in taste and olfaction. Se ns Processes 1(3):22737.

PAGE 99

99 Lawless HT, Heymann H. 1998. Sensory evaluation of food; principles and practices. New York, NY. Cha pman and Hall. Lawless HT, Horne J, Spiers W. 2000. Contrast and range effects for category, magnitude and labeled magnitude scal es in judgements of sweetness intensity. Chem Senses 25(1):8592. Leopol d DA, Holbrook EH, Noell CA, Mabry RL. 2006. Disorder of taste and smell. 2008(November 20): http://www.emedicine.com/ent/TOPIC333.HTM. Marks LE, Bartoshuk LM. 1979. Ratio scaling of t aste intensity by a matching procedure. Percept Psychophys 26(5):3359. Meilgaard M, Civille G, Carr BT. 1999. Sensory evaluation techniques. CRC Press, London. Meiselman HL, Schutz HG. 2003. History of food acceptance research in the US Army. Appetite 40(3):199 216. Miller IJ, Whitney G. 1989. Sucrose octaacetate -taster mice have more vallate taste -buds than non tasters. Neurosci Lett 100(13):2715. Mintel. 2009. Global Consumer Groups: Impact on Ne w Product Development. 2007(Nov 02): http://www.gnpd.com /sinatra/gnpd/frontpage/&s_item=home. Moskowitz HR. 1977. Magnitude estimation: Notes on what, how, when, and why to use it. Journal of Food Quality 1195228. Moskowitz HR, Chandler JW. 1977. New uses of magnitude estimation. Sensory Properties of Foods 1 89210. Nelson G. 1998. Biology of taste buds and the clinical problem of taste loss. New Anatomy 253: 7078. Pangborn RM. 1979. Physiological and psychological misadventures in sensory measurement or the crocodiles are coming. In: M. Johnson, editor. Senso ry evaluation methods for the practicing food technologists Chicago, IL: Institute of food technologists. P2122. Peryam DR, Girardot NF. 1952. Advanced taste -test method. Food Engineering 24(July):58 61,194. Sidel JL, Stone S, Bloomquist J. 1981. Use and misuse of sensory evaluation in research and quality control. Journal of Dairy Science 64: 22962302. Steiner JE. 1977. Facial expressions of the neonate infant indicating the hedonics of foodrelated chemical stimuli. Taste and Development: The Genesis of Sweet Preference 176 189. Stevens SS. 1958. Adaptation-level vs the relativity of judgment. Am J Psychol 71(4):63346.

PAGE 100

100 Stone H, Sidel JL. 1985. Sensory E valuation P ractices. Food science and technology. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, Inc. Stone H, Sidel JL 1978. Computing exact probabilities in sensory discrimination tests. Journal of Food Science 43: 102829. Stone H, Sidel JL. 1993. Sensory E valuation P ractices. 2nd ed. San Deigo: Academic Press, Inc Stone H, Sidel JL. 2004. Sensory E valuation P ractices 3rd ed. Oxford: Academic. 377. Szczesniak AS. 1963. Classification of textural characteristics. Journal of Food Science 28: 38589. Vickers ZM. 1983. Magnitude estimation vs category scaling of the hedonic quality of food sounds. J Food Sci 48(4):11836. Villanueva ND, Petenate AJ, Da Silva M. 2005. Performance of the hybrid hedonic scale as compared to the traditional hedonic, self adjusting and ranking scales. Food Quality and Preference 16(8):691703.

PAGE 101

101 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Born in Springfield, Massachu setts f rom a very young age Jaclyn loved everything associated with food. She grew up in northern Connecticut, experimenting and developing different dishes. Making homemade applesauce became a hobby. She received her a ssociates d egree in Biology from Macon State College in Macon, Georgia in 2005 whereby she discovered an interest in food science. After finishing her first year at the University of Florida in 2006, she was the first intern of the Checkers Restaurant Company in Tampa, FL learning the ins and outs of the business, as well as, working on the quick service restaurants product development projects. After graduating from the University of Florida with her B.S. in food s cience in 2007, she worked with the USDA in the Agricultural Marketing S ervice, Fruit and Vegetable Program, grading products for the government as a summer intern. In May 2009, Jaclyn earned a M.S. degree in food s cience at the University of Florida When not involved in formal academic activities, she is either at the gym working out, cooking, or doing research. She looks forward to all the future challenges that life will bring.