ArticleFrontiers in neuroergonomics2021
Comparing Explicit and Implicit Measures for Assessing Cross-Cultural Food Experience.
Article in Frontiers in neuroergonomics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Linking Categorical and Dimensional Approaches to Assess Food-Related Emotions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Measuring Implicit Approach-Avoidance Tendencies towards Food Using a Mobile Phone outside the Lab.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Challenges and Opportunities in Consumer Neuroergonomics.Frontiers in neuroergonomics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study investigated the potential of implicit physiological measures to provide objective measures of affective food experience in contrast to explicit self-report ratings in a cross-cultural context. Dutch and Thai participants viewed 120 food images portraying universal food image categories (regular and molded food) and cultural food image categories (typically Dutch and Thai food). The universal food images were taken as ground truth high and low valence stimuli, where we assumed no genuine difference in affective experience between nationalities. In contrast, for the cultural food images, we did expect a genuine difference between nationalities. Participants were asked to rate valence, arousal and liking of each food image. In addition, heart rate (HR) and phasic electrodermal activity (EDA) responses to the images were recorded. Typically Asian and Western response biases were found for explicit ratings of regular and molded food with an extreme response style for Dutch, and a middle response style for Thai participants. However, such bias was not observed in HR. For cultural food image categories, HR showed the hypothesized interaction between participant nationality and food image category, reflecting the expected genuine difference between nationalities in affective food experience. Besides presenting participants with images, we also asked participants to taste typically Thai and Dutch drinks. Similar to images, a significant interaction between participant nationality and cultural food category was found for HR. An interaction was also found for sip size, while this was not seen in explicit measures. We attribute this to differences in the moment that these measures were taken. In this study, phasic EDA did not appear to be a sensitive measure of affective food experience, possibly since stimuli mostly differed in valence rather than arousal. To conclude, our study constitutes an example where cultural bias negatively affected the accuracy of self-reports, and only the implicit physiological measures followed the prior expectations of genuine food experience, indicating the potential of these measures to study cross-cultural food experience.
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.