Ratio scales of acid sourness

Moskowitz, Howard R.

doi:10.3758/bf03212670

Cited by 35 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, here it is important to distinguish between employing the power function in a purely descriptive, curve-fitting role on the one hand, and, on the other, taking it to have fundamental theoretical significance (cf. Anderson, 1972Anderson, , 1981Nihm, 1976;Weiss, 1981). In a descriptive role additive constants present no problem, but at the theoretical level it is questionable that they can be justified.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taste intensity and the case of exponents greater than 1

McBride

1983

Australian Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The magnitude estimation of taste intensity has often produced exponents greater than 1, suggesting that the perceived intensity of some taste stimuli increases at a faster rate than does stimulus concentration, i.e., the psychophysical functions are positively accelerating. However, a reanalysis of published data reveals that when these magnitude scales are replotted in linear coordinates, instead of the conventional log-log form, there is often no evidence of positive acceleration and the numerical value of the exponent bears no reliable relationship to the shape of its psychophysical function. Reasons for this finding are discussed and the implications for taste research are noted.The power function S = kZ n, where S is subjective magnitude, I stimulus intensity, n the exponent, and k a constant, has been widely used in psychophysics.An attractive feature of this formulation is the capacity of the exponent, a single numerical value, to reflect the shape of a psychophysical function. Thus, obtaining an exponent less than 1 implies that the psychophysical function would be negatively accelerating (compressed, concave downward) if plotted in linear coordinates; an exponent equal to 1 implies a straight line (linear) relationship; and an exponent greater than 1 implies a positively accelerating (expanded, concave upward) psychophysical function, i.e., implies that the subjective magnitude grows at a faster rate than the stimulus intensity (Bartoshuk, 1977, Figure 1; Stevens, 1961Stevens, , 1975.When taste stimuli are evaluated with the conventional sip procedure and the response technique of magnitude estimation, and when power functions are fitted to the data, the resulting exponents have often been found to exceed 1 . This is especially true of sucrose (Meiselman, 1971, Table 1; Moskowitz, 1970;Stevens, 1969) and many other sugars (Moskowitz, 1971a). The exponent for the salt stimulus sodium chloride has also been reported to be greater than 1 (Meiselman, 1971, Table 1; Stevens, 1969). Values for bitter stimuli (e.g., quinine sulfate and quinine hydrochloride) are around 1 or lower (Meiselman, 1971), and exponents for acids are usually below 1 (Moskowitz, 1971b).The results of magnitude estimation scaling are usually presented in the form of log-log plots, with the slope reflecting the value of the exponent. It follows, though, that if the psychophysical functions of those taste stimuli with exponents greater than 1 are replotted in linear (arithmetic) coordinates, then the functions should be positively accelerating. A preliminary analysis (McBride, Note 1) has revealed that this is not always the case. When magnitude scales of sucrose sweetness with exponents of around 1.3 are replotted in linear coordinates, the Requests for reprints should be sent to R.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taste intensity and the case of exponents greater than 1

McBride

1983

Australian Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Magnitude estimation (Stevens 1957) has been widely accepted as a scaling tool for use when studying the relationship between stimulus magnitude and response magnitude Anderson 1970). The relationship between a stimulus and its perceived response has been established in a variety of sensory modalities (Moskowitz and Arabie 1970;Moskowitz 1970;Moskowitz 1971;Meiselman 1968;Sauvageot 1987;Krajewska and Powers 1988). Little work has been published on the relationship between physical carbonation level and magnitude of carbonation perception, although carbonated beverages have been popular for decades.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Power Function of Carbonation

Yau

McDaniel

1990

Journal of Sensory Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. The relationship between the physical carbonation level of carbonated spring water and the magnitude of carbonation perception was determined by a trained panel using two assessing conditions, swallowing and expectoration. Spring water was carbonated to 5 carbonation levels. Panelists were asked to rate their perception of carbonation intensity by using magnitude estimation. The power function equations were established with high correlation coefficients for both assessing conditions. The exponents, 2.79 (swallowing) and 2.65 (expectoration), suggested a sharp increase of perceived CO2 magnitude with increasing concentration. There was no significant difference between exponents resulting from the two assessing conditions. Therefore, the response should not be affected if samples are expectorated in studies of carbonation perception.

show abstract

“…It challenges the feasibility of a classical, static approach using Fechner's (1860) or Stevens's (1955) law to estimate the psychophysical function for a type of stimulus, a sense quality, or a sense modality (e.g., Moskowitz, 1971;Stevens, 1955) while avoiding all kinds of"biases" (e.g., Poulton, 1989;Zwislocki & Goodman, 1980). The variability and context dependency of momentary responses do not preclude the existence of a stable sensory basis for judgment.…”

Section: A Model For Context-dependent Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contextual effects in difference judgments

Schifferstein¹

1995

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Manipulating stimulus spacing, stimulus frequency, or stimulus range usually affects intensity judgments. In six experiments, I investigated the locus of analogues of these contextual effects in a "difference" estimation task. When all stimuli elicited the same taste quality, stimulus distribution affected the scale values only when water was included in the stimulus set (Experiments 1-3). When the subjective ranges of two taste qualities were manipulated, different scale values were obtained for the separate qualities in the two conditions (Experiment 4). Manipulation of the expected response distribution did not affect the scale values or the responses (Experiments 5-6). It is concluded that shifts in stimulus distributions or stimulus ranges result in shifts in subjective scale values. The contextual effects can be interpreted as relative shifts of a number of gustatory continua, with water lying on a separate continuum. Proposed is a model for context-dependent judgments, consisting of four stages: stimulus classification, stimulus placement, continuum placement, and continuum projection.

show abstract

Ratio scales of acid sourness

Cited by 35 publications

References 14 publications

Taste intensity and the case of exponents greater than 1

Taste intensity and the case of exponents greater than 1

The Power Function of Carbonation

Contextual effects in difference judgments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About