Cited by 41Sensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsTactile and Sensory InteractionsMultisensory perception and integration

A smooth wine? Haptic influences on wine evaluation

Open access
Wang, Qian Janice, Spence, Charles·2018·International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijgfs.2018.08.002

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, Q. J., & Spence, C.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Wang, Qian Janice
Venue
International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-12
Volume
14
Pages
9-13
ISSN
1878-450X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2887276073
Cited by
40
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6
FWCI
3.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science (publishedVersion)
  • Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • el Bulli Foundation
  • Universidad Nacional de Tres de Febrero
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Sensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
Keywords
wine evaluation, surface texture, velvet, sandpaper, orthonasal olfaction, perceived sweetness, dessert wine, wine packaging, hospitality industry

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