ArticleFood quality and preference2015
Perception of chemesthetic stimuli in groups who differ by food involvement and culinary experience.
Article in Food quality and preference, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Impact of capsaicin on aroma release: in vitro and in vivo analysis.Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.) · 2020Article
- Effect of Product Involvement on Panels' Vocabulary Generation, Attribute Identification, and Sample Configurations in Beer.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Influence of biological, experiential and psychological factors in wine preference segmentation.Australian journal of grape and wine research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the English language, there is generally a limited lexicon when referring to the sensations elicited by chemesthetic stimuli like capsaicin, allyl isothiocyanate, and eugenol, the orally irritating compounds found in chiles, wasabi, and cloves, respectively. Elsewhere, experts and novices have been shown to use language differently, with experts using more precise language. Here, we compare perceptual maps and word usage across three cohorts: experts with formal culinary education, naïve individuals with high Food Involvement Scale (FIS) scores, and naïve individuals with low FIS scores. We hypothesized that increased experience with foods, whether through informal experiential learning or formal culinary education, would have a significant influence on the perceptual maps generated from a sorting task conducted with chemesthetic stimuli, as well as on language use in a descriptive follow-up task to this sorting task. The low- and highFIS non-expert cohorts generated significantly similar maps, though in other respects the highFIS cohort was an intermediate between the lowFIS and expert cohorts. The highFIS and expert cohorts generated more attributes but used language more idiosyncratically than the lowFIS group. Overall, the results from the expert group with formal culinary education differed from the two naïve cohorts both in the perceptual map generated using MDS as well as the mean number of attributes generated. Present data suggest that both formal education and informal experiential learning result in lexical development, but the level and type of learning can have a significant influence on language use and the approach to a sorting task.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.