Cited by 350Sensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsMultisensory perception and integrationOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The role of expectancy in sensory and hedonic evaluation: The case of smoked salmon ice-cream

Open access

Abstract

Our experience of flavour involves integration of multiple sensory inputs, and the hedonic evaluation of this complex flavour experience is important in determination of food choice. The appearance of food also generates expectations about food flavour, and past work suggests that these expectations if confirmed enhance the flavour experience. What is less clear is what happens when cues prior to ingestion predict a flavour which is in marked contrast to the actual flavour characteristics. To test this, we conducted three experiments where expectations about food flavour were generated by plausible but inaccurate food labels for a highly novel food, smoked-salmon ice-cream. In Experiment 1, the experience of the food in the mouth generated strong dislike when labelled as ice-cream, but acceptance when labelled as frozen savoury mousse. Labelling the food as ice-cream also resulted in stronger ratings of how salty and savoury the food was than when labelled as a savoury food. Experiment 2 confirmed these findings, and also found that an uninformative label also resulted in acceptable liking ratings. Experiment 3 explicitly tested the effect of labels on flavour expectation, and confirmed that the ice-cream label generated strong expectations of a sweet, fruity flavour, consistent with the visual appearance of the ice-cream, but in marked contrast to the flavour of salty fish. As in Experiments 1 and 2, liking was minimal when the food was tasted after the ice-cream label condition, but liking was acceptable in the other label conditions. These data show that the contrast between expected and actual sensory qualities can result in a strong negative affective response and enhancement of the unexpected sensory qualities.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodqual.2008.02.009

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 40 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Frank, 1991, Taste-odor similarities predict taste enhancement and suppression in taste-odor mixture, Chemical Senses, 16, 523

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 350

Metadata

Authors
Yeomans, M. R., Chambers, L., Blumenthal, H., & Blake, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Sussex (GB)
  • Firmenich (Switzerland) (CH)
Corresponding author
Yeomans, Martin R.
Venue
Food Quality and Preference
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-09
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
565-573
ISSN
0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2049678539
Cited by
350
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 22
FWCI
17.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Sensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Keywords
food labeling, sensory evaluation, hedonic evaluation, novel foods, liking, visual appearance, food choice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review