Cited by 192Multisensory perception and integrationSensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsTactile and Sensory Interactions

Effect of background noise on food perception

Open access
Woods, A.T., Poliakoff, E., Lloyd, D.M., Kuenzel, J., Hodson, R., Gonda, H., Batchelor, J., Dijksterhuis, G.B. +1 more·2011·Food Quality and Preference

Abstract

We investigated the effects of auditory background noise on the perception of gustatory food properties (sugar level, salt level), food crunchiness and food liking. Participants blindly consumed different foods whilst passively listening to either no sound, or quiet or loud background white noise. The foods were then rated in terms of sweetness, saltiness and liking (Experiment 1) or in terms of overall flavour, crunchiness and liking (Experiment 2). Reported sweetness and saltiness was significantly lower in the loud compared to the quiet sound conditions (Experiment 1), but crunchiness was reported to be more intense (Experiment 2). This suggests that food properties unrelated to sound (sweetness, saltiness) and those conveyed via auditory channels (crunchiness) are differentially affected by background noise. A relationship between ratings of the liking of background noise and ratings of the liking of the food was also found (Experiment 2). We conclude that background sound unrelated to food diminishes gustatory food properties (saltiness, sweetness) which is suggestive of a cross-modal contrasting or attentional effect, whilst enhancing food crunchiness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.07.003

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Woods, A. T., Poliakoff, E., Lloyd, D. M., Kuenzel, J., Hodson, R., Gonda, H., Batchelor, J., Dijksterhuis, G. B., & Thomas, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Unilever Research and Development Vlaardingen (NL)
Corresponding author
Woods, A.T.
Venue
Food Quality and Preference
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-01
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
42-47
ISSN
0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2142059242
Cited by
192
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Nuffield Foundation
  • European Commission
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Sensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
background noise, food perception, taste perception, sweetness, salty taste, food liking, attentional effects, white noise, flavor perception

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