2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2007.11.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of complexity and intensity on sensory specific satiety and food acceptance after repeated consumption

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
47
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(48 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
1
47
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Köster et al (2002) stated that as a consumer is repeatedly exposed to a more complex product than the product he/she prefers, the complexity of the new product will become less complex and might lead to increases in liking over time. The results of two recent studies (Sulmont-Rossé et al, 2008;Weijzen, Zandstra, Alfieri, & De Graaf, 2008) showed that samples which were perceived to be high in complexity and intensity were more resistant to a decrease in acceptability ratings compared to the samples with lower complexity and taste intensity. However, clear strategies to quantify differences in complexity levels of samples of this nature have not been developed.…”
Section: Discussion Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Köster et al (2002) stated that as a consumer is repeatedly exposed to a more complex product than the product he/she prefers, the complexity of the new product will become less complex and might lead to increases in liking over time. The results of two recent studies (Sulmont-Rossé et al, 2008;Weijzen, Zandstra, Alfieri, & De Graaf, 2008) showed that samples which were perceived to be high in complexity and intensity were more resistant to a decrease in acceptability ratings compared to the samples with lower complexity and taste intensity. However, clear strategies to quantify differences in complexity levels of samples of this nature have not been developed.…”
Section: Discussion Of Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Less work has been done on texture complexity (normally combined with flavor) (Bitnes, Ueland, Møller & Martens, 2009). For example, Weijzen, Zandstra, Alfieri & De Graaf (2008) selected four commercially available snacks which were "clearly different in taste and texture", and Mielby et al (2013) studied visual appearance complexity with mixed fruit images. Porcherot and Issanchou (1998), working with five experimental crackers varying in flavor but "identical in composition, shape and texture", asked consumers to score the crackers on a number of scales: Simple/Complex, Easy to describe/Difficult to describe, Composed of few ingredients/Composed of a lot of ingredients, and Mind few sensations/Mind a lot of sensations, among others.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, results reported by Mielby, Kildegaard, Gabrielsen, Edelenbos & Thybo (2012) indicate that despite individual differences, we all have some sort of common understanding of what seems more or less "complex". A simple way of measuring perceived complexity, validated by several authors, is to ask the subjects directly how complex they perceive the product to be (Moskowitz & Barre, 1977;Sulmont-Rosse, Chabanet, Issanchou & Köster, 2008;Weijzen et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A positive result means that appetite rating of control product is lower than test product. investigation such as testing acceptance of novel foods over repeated exposure would be needed (Weijzen, Zandstra, Alfieri, & de Graaf, 2008). In addition to cognitive and oral factors, other non-measured post-ingestive factors, such as gastric emptying and intestinal absorption rates (Burton-Freeman, 2000;Read, French, & Cunningham, 1994;Wren & Bloom, 2007), hormonal secretion (Blom et al, 2006) and post-prandial circulating amino acids (Veldhorst et al, 2008) may explain the effects of the test dairy product on appetite.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%