Trial reportPloS one2022
Analysis of physiological and non-contact signals to evaluate the emotional component in consumer preferences.
Trial report in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neurophysiological approaches to exploring emotional responses to cosmetics: a systematic review of the literature.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation method of Driver's olfactory preferences: a machine learning model based on multimodal physiological signals.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Emotions are an essential drive in decision making and may influence consumer preference. In this study we assessed the influence of brands in product preference after tasting 2 soft-drinks (Coca Cola vs. Cola beverage), by using physiological measurements, namely the skin conductance, the respiratory rate and heart rate variability (HRV) extracted using contactless sensors. The experimental protocol enrolled twenty-five young subjects which were asked to taste 2 soft drinks in random order, without knowing the brand (blind condition) and then knowing the brand (not blind condition). After each phase the subject was asked to choose the preferred beverage. Our main hypothesis is that if the subject knows the brand there is an arousal effect, independently from the absolute appreciation of the product. In order to evaluate the emotional components, the skin conductance, respiratory and Video-Photoplethysmographic (PPG) signals were continuously recorded throughout the experiment. The Video-PPG was then processed to extract HRV parameters. We observed that the arousal levels changed among beverages and conditions, going from higher arousal for Coca-Cola in the blind condition, to higher arousal for Cola in the not blind condition. Moreover, 44% of the subjects changed their preference when the brand was uncovered: from blind to not blind conditions, 6 subjects went from Cola to Coca-Cola as preferred drink and 5 went from Coca-Cola to Cola. Opposite results were found for the two beverages when comparing the physiological response when the beverage was/was not preferred. Finally, differences were found also between consumers and not consumers of Coca-Cola and the blind/not blind comparison. We conclude that the brand is a fundamental element in a request for choice and it can affect the first emotional response of a subject.
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.