Cited by 71Multisensory perception and integrationSensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsConsumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends

Touching tastes: The haptic perception transfer of liquid food packaging materials

Tu, Yangjun, Yang, Zhi, Ma, Chaoqun·2015·Food Quality and Preference

Abstract

Based on the theory of crossmodal correspondence, which addresses transfer effects from one sense to another, and research that has explored the impact of touch on taste, the present study examined how the packaging materials of traditional Chinese cold tea drinks generated touch–taste associations. Blindfolded participants used a set of tasting attribute items to evaluate the taste of a liquid food product that differed only by the materials used to contain it, although they were led to believe that the products could differ. The results of Experiment 1 suggest that consumers’ haptic perception of packing materials significantly impacted their sense of the product’s SWEET dimension, but not the product’s SOUR or BITTER dimensions. Consumers rated a liquid food product’s sense of cold and ice (sub-dimensions of SWEET) higher when it was presented in a glass container rather than in paper or organic plastic containers. However, with the cups’ weight controlled, the results of Experiment 2 revealed that consumers’ haptic perception of packing materials only significantly impacted their sense of ice, but not their sense of cold. Consumers rated a liquid food product’s sense of ice higher when it was presented in a glass container rather than in an organic plastic container. The preliminary findings of both experiments indicate a crossmodal correspondence between the touch of food packaging materials and the taste of the food contained within them. Sensation transference provides the most likely explanation for the results. Affective ventriloquism effects provide another, but less likely, explanation. The study’s implications for choosing between packaging materials for liquid food products are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.07.001

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tu, Y., Yang, Z., & Ma, C.
Affiliations
  • Hunan University (CN)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Yang, Zhi
Venue
Food Quality and Preference
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-01
Volume
39
Pages
124-130
ISSN
0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055462361
Cited by
71
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 2
FWCI
7.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • New Century Talent Supporting Project (NCET-10-0370)
  • China Ministry of Education, Soft Science Major Project (2012ZK1003)
  • Hunan province and the Natural Science Foundation (13JJ3051)
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
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Consumer Packaging Perceptions and Trends
Keywords
cross-modal correspondence, haptic perception, liquid food packaging, packaging materials, taste perception, glass containers, paper containers, perceived sweetness

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