Chem. Senses 25: 85-92,
2000
© Oxford University Press 2000
Contrast and Range Effects for Category, Magnitude and Labeled Magnitude Scales in Judgements of Sweetness Intensity
Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, NY 14853, USA
Correspondence to be sent to: Harry Lawless, Department of Food Science, Stocking Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, NY 14853, USA. e-mail: htl1{at}cornell.edu
The labeled magnitude scale (LMS) is a verbally anchored quasi-logarithmically spaced response scale with properties similar to magnitude estimation. Three experiments examined whether the LMS showed context effects similar to those found with magnitude estimation and category scales. Two versions of the LMS were used, one anchored at the high end to the strongest imaginable sweetness and the other to the strongest imaginable oral sensation. In a simple contrast experiment, subjects judged the sweetness of a 10% sucrose fruit beverage in the context of a less sweet (5%) beverage or a more sweet (20%) beverage. Consistent with previous literature, the sweetness was judged more intense in the low context and less intense in the high context, for all scaling methods. In a second experiment, this effect persisted (although was smaller) when the contextual item preceded the to-be-rated item, a so-called ‘reversed-pair’ design. Once again, the effect was highly significant for all scaling methods. In a third experiment, a range effect was examined using wide and narrow ranges of concentration. Psychophysical functions were flatter in a wide context and steeper in a narrow context, consistent with previous observations on range-mapping bias. This result was obtained for all scales. In three common contextual effects, the labeled magnitude scale behaved similarly to other scaling procedures. Its application to comparisons across individuals may be limited if those individuals have different experiential contexts within which they make their judgements.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Prescott Rating a New Hedonic Scale: A Commentary on "Derivation and Evaluation of a Labeled Hedonic Scale" by Lim, Wood and Green Chem Senses, November 1, 2009; 34(9): 735 - 737. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Hayes, L. M. Bartoshuk, J. R. Kidd, and V. B. Duffy Supertasting and PROP Bitterness Depends on More Than the TAS2R38 Gene Chem Senses, March 1, 2008; 33(3): 255 - 265. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. Keskitalo, H. Tuorila, T. D Spector, L. F Cherkas, A. Knaapila, K. Silventoinen, and M. Perola Same genetic components underlie different measures of sweet taste preference Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, December 1, 2007; 86(6): 1663 - 1669. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Hayes and V. B. Duffy Revisiting Sugar-Fat Mixtures: Sweetness and Creaminess Vary with Phenotypic Markers of Oral Sensation Chem Senses, March 1, 2007; 32(3): 225 - 236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Guest, M. Wells, C. Dancer, and G. Essick Validation of a Handheld Display Device for an Expandable Labeled Magnitude Scale (LMS) Chem Senses, July 1, 2006; 31(6): 515 - 520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Horne, H. T. Lawless, W. Speirs, and D. Sposato Bitter Taste of Saccharin and Acesulfame-K Chem Senses, January 1, 2002; 27(1): 31 - 38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|