Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 751

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating the ‘Labeled Magnitude Scale’ for Measuring Sensations of Taste and Smell

Green, Barry G., Dalton, Pamela, Cowart, Beverly, Shaffer, Greg, Rankin, Krystyna, Higgins, Jennifer·1996·Chemical Senses

Abstract

The Labeled Magnitude Scale (LMS) is a semantic scale of perceptual intensity characterized by a quasi-logarithmic spacing of its verbal labels. The LMS had previously been shown to yield psychophysical functions equivalent to magnitude estimation (ME) when gustatory, thermal and nociceptive stimuli were presented and rated together, and the upper bound of the LMS was defined as the 'strongest imaginable oral sensation'. The present study compared the LMS to ME within the more limited contexts of taste and smell. In Experiment 1, subjects used both methods to rate either taste intensity produced by sucrose and NaC1 or odor intensity produced by acetic acid and phenyl ethyl alcohol, with the upper bound of the LMS defined as either the 'strongest imaginable taste' or the 'strongest imaginable odor'. The LMS produced psychophysical functions equivalent to those produced by ME. In, Experiment 2 a new group of subjects used both methods to rate the intensity of three different taste qualities, with the upper bound of the LMS defined as the 'strongest imaginable [sweetness, saltiness, or bitterness]'. In all three cases the LMS produced steeper functions than did ME. Experiment 3 tested the hypothesis that the LMS yields data comparable to ME only when the perceptual domain under study includes painful sensations. This hypothesis was supported when the LMS again produced steeper functions that ME after subjects had been explicitly instructed to omit painful sensations (e.g. the 'burn' of hot peppers) from the concept of 'strongest imaginable taste'. We conclude that the LMS can be used to scale sensations of taste and smell when they are broadly defined, but that it should be modified for use in scaling specific taste (and probably odor) qualities. The implications of these results for theoretical issues related to ME, category-ratio scales and the size of the perceptual range in different sensory modalities are discussed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/chemse/21.3.323

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 751

Metadata

Authors
Green, B. G., Dalton, P., Cowart, B., Shaffer, G., Rankin, K., & Higgins, J.
Venue
Chemical Senses
Published
1996
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
323-334
ISSN
  • 0379-864X (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-3553
OpenAlex
W2148298325
Cited by
751
References
1
FWCI
10.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluating the ‘Labeled Magnitude Scale’ for Measuring Sensations of Taste and Smell. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/chemse/21.3.323
The paper
Green, B. G., Dalton, P., Cowart, B., Shaffer, G., Rankin, K., & Higgins, J. (1996). Evaluating the ‘Labeled Magnitude Scale’ for Measuring Sensations of Taste and Smell. Chemical Senses. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/21.3.323

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.