Contact Us

Abbott, J.A. 1973. Sensory assessment of textural attributes of foods. IN "Texture Measurements of Foods,". p. 17. D. Reidel Pub. Co., Washington, D.C.

Abbott, N., Etievant, P., Langlois, D., Lesschaeve, I., Issanchou, S. 1993. Evaluation of the Representativeness of the Odor of Beer extracts Prior to Analysis by GC Eluate Sniffing. Journal of Agriculture & Food Chemistry 41:777.
Abdullah, A., Malundo, T.M.M., Resurreccion, A.V.A., Beuchat, L.R. 1993 Descriptive Sensory Profiling for Optimizing the Formula of a Peanut Milk-Based Liquid Coffee Whitener. Journal of Food Science 58:120.
Abenson, M.H. 1969. Epileptic fits provoked by taste. British Journal of Psychiatry 115: 123.

Abeshouse, B.S. and S. Lerman. 1947. Parageusia as a symptom of genitourinary disease. Urologic and Cutaneous Review. 51: 621-626.

Ables, M.F. and R.M. Benjamin. 1960. Thalamic relay nucleus for taste in albino rat. Journal of Neurophysiology. 23: 376-82.

Abraham, G.R. 1944. Uber die Beteiligung der Vorderbeine au der chemorezeption bei einigen Wasserwanzen. Zeitschrift fur Vergleichende Physiologie 30: 321-42.

Abraham, K.L., L.V. L. Sastry and C.P. Natarjan. 1972. Fruit flavours. Indian Food Packer 26: 13-23.

Abrahams, H., D. Krakauer and K.M. Dallenbach. 1937. Custatory adaptation to salt. American Journal of Psychology 49: 462-469.

Achtel, R.A. and S. Evans Downing. 1972. Ventricular responses to hypoxemia following chemoreceptor denervation and adrenalectomy. American Heart Journal 84: 377-386.

Adey, W.R. 1959. The sense of smell. Handbook of Physiology, Section 1, vol. 1, pp. 535-547. Flavor Chemistry.

Aguilar, C.A. , R. Hollender, G.R Ziegler. 1994. Sensory Characteristics of Milk Chocolate with Lactose from Spray-Dried Milk Powder. Journal of Food Science, Volume 59(6):1239-1243.

Allison, A.M.A. and E. Chambers IV. 2000December. the importance of caffeine as a flavor component in beverages. Journal of Sensory Studies 15(4): 449.

Amerine, M.S., R.M. Pangborn, and E.B. Roessler. 1965. Principles of the Sensory Evaluation of Food. Academic Press, New. York. The sense of taste, pp. 27-128. Olfaction, pp. 145-206; Visual, auditory, tactile and other senses, pp. 220-242.

Ammons, R.B. 1947. Acquisition of motor skill: I. Quantitative analysis and theoretical formulation. Psychol. Rev. 54:263.

Amoore, J.E. 1967. Specific anosmia, a clue to the olfactory code. Nature 214:1095-1098.

Amoore, J.E., J.W. Johnston, Jr., and M. Rubin. 1964. The stereochemical theory of odor. Sci. American 210(2):42-49.

AMSA. 1978. "Guidelines for Cookery and Sensory Evaluation of Meat." Am. Meat Sci. Assn. and Natl. Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, Ill.

Anonymous. 1932. Descriptions of acceptable food products. Journal Home Economics 24:1024. Anonymous. 1964. Sensory testing guide for panel evaluation of foods and beverages. Food Technology. :1135.

Anonymous. 1981. Sensory evaluation guide for testing food and beverage products. Food Technology 35:50.

Anselmi, C., Centini, M., Mariani, M., Sega, A., Pelosi, P. 1993. Influence of the Rego- and Stereochemistry on the Floral Odor of THP and THF Ethers. Journal of Agriculture & Food Chemistry 41:781.

Antinone, M.J., H.T. Lawless, R.A. Ledford, M. Johnston. 1994. Diacetyl as a flavor component in full fat cottage cheese. Journal of Food Science 59:1.

Arora, G. ,F. Cormier, and B. Lee. 1995. Analysis of odor-active volatiles in cheddar cheese headspace by multidimensional GC/MS/Sniffing. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 43:748-752.

ASTM Committee E-18. 1968. "Manual on Sensory Testing Methods, " STP. 434. Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM Committee E-18. 1972. Standard recommended practice for determining effect of packaging on food and beverage products during storage. E460. In. "1975 Annual Book of ASTM Standards". Part 46, p. 257. Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM Committee E-18. 1972. Standard recommended practice f0or sensory evaluation of industrial and institutional food purchases. E461. In "1975 Annual Book of ASTM Standards," Part 46, p. 260. Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM Committee E-18. 1973. Standard recommended practice for establishing conditions for laboratory sensory evalution of foods and beverages, E480. in "1975 Book of ASTM Standards,"Part 46, p. 266. Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM Committee E-18. 1978. Standard definitions of terms relating to sensory evaluation of materials and products, E253. Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM Committee E-18. 1979. Standard recommended procedure to establish guidelines for open dating food and beverage products. E687-79. Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

ASTM Committee E-18. 1981. Guidelines for the selection and training of sensory panel members, STP 758. Am. Soc. for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

Balascia, J.R. 1986. Category appraisal: Point the way for product development. Cereal Foods World 31(4):303. Baker, G.A., M.S. Amerine and E.B. Roessler. 1954. Errors of the second kind in organoleptic differences testing. Food Research 19:206-210.

Bakir, H.M., Melton, S.L., and Wilson, J.L. 1993. Fatty Acid Composition, Lipids and Sensory Characteristics of White Amur (Ctenopharyngodon idella) Fed Different Diets. Journal of Food Science 58:90.

Baron, R.F., Penfield, M.P. 1993. Panelist Texture Preferences Affect Sensory Evaluation of Green Bean Cultivars (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Journal of Food Science 58:138.

Bayton, J.A. 1956. Statistical vs. psychological bias in consumer taste preference research. Trans. Mid-Atlantic Conf., Am. Soc. Qual. Control 23, New York.

Beauchamp, G.K. 1987Jan-Feb. The human preference for excess salt. American Scientist 75(1):27.

Beebe, J.G. and D. Waddell. 1948. A general psychological scale of taste. J. Psychol. 26:517.

Beidler, L.M. 1966. Chemical excitation of taste and odor receptors. IN Flavor Chemistry, Advances in Chemistry Series, No. 56 pp. 1-26.

Beidler, L.M. 1954. A theory of taste stimulation. J. Gen. Physiology. 38(2):133-139.

Beidler, L.M. The physiological basis of flavor (taste and odor). In Flavor Research and Food Acceptance. Arthur D. Little, Inc. pp. 3-28.

Beidler, L.M. 1966. A physiological basis of taste sensation. J. Food Science 31:275-281.

Bernard, R.A., B. P. Halpern, and M.R. Kare. 1961. Effect of vitamin A deficiency in taste. Proc. Sco. Exp. Biol. Med. 198:784.

Benedito, J., J.A. Carcel, R. Gonzalez and N. Sanjuan. 2000December. Prediction of instrumental and sensory textural characteristics of Mahon cheese from ultrasonic measurements. Journal of Texture Studies 31(6): 631-643.

Benito-Delgado, J., N.G. Marriot, J.R. Claus, H. Wang, and P.P. Graham. 1994. Chuck longisimuss and infraspinatus muscle characteristics as affected by rigor state, blade tenderization, and calcium chloride injection. Journal of Food Science 59:2.

Benner, R.A., R. Miget, G. Finne, and G.R. Acuff. 1994. Lactic acid/ melanosis inhibitors to improve shelf life of brown shrimp. Journal of Food Science 59:2.

Berry, B.W. 1993. Fat Level and Freezing Temperature Affect Sensory, Shear, Cooking and compositional Properties of Ground Beef Patties. Journal of Food Science 58:34.

Berry, B.W. 1994. Fat level, high temperature cooking, and degree of doneness affect sensory , chemical, and physical properties of beefpatties. Journal of Food Science 59:1.

Bertino, M., G.K. Beauchamp and K.C. Jen. 1983. Rated taste perception in two cultural groups. Chem. Senses 8(1):3.

Bicchi, C.P.,A.E. Binello, G.M. Pellegrino, and A.C. Vanni. 1995. Characterization of green and roasted coffees through the chlorogenic acid fraction by PHLC-UV and principal component analysis. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 43:1549-1555.

Birch, G.G. and C.K. Lee. 1974 Structural functions of taste in the sugar series: sensory properties of deoxy sugars. Food Sci. 39:947.

Birch, G.G. and N.D. Cowell and D. Exton. 1970. A quantitative investigation of Shallenberger's sweetness hypothesis. J. Food Technology. 5:277.

Birch, G.D., N.D. Cowell and R.H. Young. 1972. Structural basis of and interaction between sweetness and bitterness in sugars. J. Sci. Food. Agric. 21:1207.

Birch, G.G., C.K. Lee, and E.J. Rolfe. 1971. Organoleptic effects in sugar structures. J. Sci. Food Agric. 21:650.

Bishop, D.J., Olson, D.G., Knipe, C.L. 1993. Pre-Emulsified Corn Oil, Pork Fat, or Added Moisture Affect Quality of Reduced Fat Bologna Quality. Journal of Food Science 58:484.

Blair, J.R. 1978. Interface of marketing and sensory evaluation in product development. Food Technol. 32(11):61.

Blakeslee, A.F. 1932. Genetics of sensory thresholds: Taste for phenyl-thio-carbamide. Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. 18:120.

Blakeslee, A.F. and T.N. Salmon. 1935. Genetics of sensory thresholds: Individual taste reactions for different substances. Proc. Natl. Acad Sci. 21:84.

Bliss, C.I., M.L. Greenwood, M.H. McKenrick. 1953. A comparison of scoring methods for taste tests with mealiness of potatoes. Food Technology 7:491-495.

Bloom, K., L.M. Duizer and C.J. Findlay. 1995. An objective numerical method of assessing the reliability of time-intensity panelists. Journal of Sensory Studies 19(3):285-294.

Boggs, M.M. and H.L. Hanson. 1949. Analysis of foods by sensory difference tests. Adv. in Food Res. 2:219.

Bohren, B.B. and R. Jordan. 1953. A technique for detecting flavor changes in stored dried eggs. Food Res. 18:583.

Bornstein, B.L., Wiet, S.G., Pombo, M. 1993. Sweetness Adaptation of Some Carbohydrate and High Potency Sweeteners. Journal of Food Science 58:595.
Purpose: To detect changes in sweetness and bitterness in beverages.
Sensory: 15 trained panelists were used to determine sweetness and bitterness. A intensity value of 100 was used for each sample.

Bourne, Malcolm C. 1994. Converting from empirical to rheological tests on foods - itÍs a matter of time. Cereal Foods World 39:1.
Purpose: Discussion of empirical tests and fundamental tests on rheological studies of food.
Sensory Evaluation: Fundamental tests can be poor predictors of sensory evaluation and empirical tests are good predictors but not rigorously defined. Modeling fundamental tests after empirical tests needs to happen for successful sensory assessments on foods.

Bower, J.A. and L. Turner. 2001March. Effect of liking, brand name and price on purchase intention for branded, own label and economy line crisp snack foods. Journal of Sensory Studies 16(1): 95.

Braddock, JC, Sims, CA, O'Keefe, SF, 1995. Flavor and oxidative stability of roated high oleic acid peanuts, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):489-493.
Purpose: This study compared roasted peanuts with normal and high amounts of oleic acid for undesirable flavors and changes in flavor.
Sensory Evaluation: 20 trained panelists judged nuts with high percentage of oleic acid for peanut flavor, cardboard flavor, painty flavor and roasted peanut flavor.

Bratzler, I.J., M.E.Spooner, J.B. Weatherspoon, and J.A. Makey. 1969. Smoke flavor as related to phenol, carbonyl and acid content of bologna. J. Food Sci. 34:146.

Brandt, M.A., E.Z. Skinner, and J.A. Coleman. 1963. Texture profile method. J. Food Sci. 28(4):404.

Breslin, P.A.S. and C.D. Tharp. 2001February. Reduction of saltiness and bitterness after a chlorhexidine rinse. Chemical Senses 26(2): 105-116.

Burge, J.C., R.A. Schemmel, H.S. Park, and J.A. Greene III. 1984. Taste acuity and Zinc status in chronic renal disease. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 84(1):1203.

Buttery, R.G., G.R. Takeoka, and L.C. Ling. 1995. Furaneol: Odor threshold and importance to tomato aroma. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 43:1638- 1640.
Purpose: This experiment studied odor threshold determination for furaneol and norfuaneol to assess their importance in fresh and canned tomato aromas.
Sensory Evaluation: 18-23 experienced judges were used to determine threshold points.

Buttery, R., Ling, L. 1995. Volatile Flavor Components of Corn Tortillas and Related Products. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. pg. 1878.
Purpose: Chemical analysis of volatiles of corn products. Aroma effects on the taste of corn products.
Sensory Evaluation: Odor threshold 16-24 experienced judges, sniffed samples.

Byer, A.J. and D. Abrams. 1953. A comparison of the triangular and two taste-test methods. Food Technology 7:185.

Byrne, D.V., M.G. O'Sullivan, G.B. Dijksterhuis, W.L.P. Bredie and M. Martens. Sensory panel consistency during development of a vocabulary for warmed-over flavour. Food Quality and Preference 12(3): 171-187.

Carlin, A.F., O. Kempthorne, and J. Gordon. 1956. Some aspects of numerical scoring in subjective evaluation of foods. Food Res. 21:273.

Cameron, A.T. 1947. The taste sense and the relative sweetness of sugars and other sweet substances. Scientific Report Series No. 9. Sugar Research Foundation inc. (TP375/S9).

Camire, Mary Ellen, Susan Ismail, Therese M. Work, Alfred Bushway, and William A. Halteman. 1994 Improvements in canned lowbush blueberry quality. Journal of Food Science 59:2.
Purpose: This study investigated the effects of calcium chloride, calcium lactate, and citric acid as an agent in canning.
Sensory Evaluation: A 12 member trained panel evaluated blueberry samples using a 7 point scale for apperance, texture, and off-flavor.

Chambers IV, E., Robel, A. 1993. Sensory Characteristics of Selected Species of Freshwater Fish in Retail Distribution. Journal of Food Science 58:508.
Purpose: Using fresh-water fish in the marketplace to compare flavor and texture.
Sensory: A 10 panel of highly trained panelists were used 5 judged texture and 5 judged flavor. The flavor panel used a 10 point intensity scale and the texture panel used descriptive terms to describe the fish.

Caul, J.F. 1957. The profile method of flavor analysis. Adv. in Food Res. 7:1.

Chen, W., Forrest, J.C., Peng, I.C., Pratt, D.E., Judge, M.D. 1993. Palatability of Prerigor Cooked Boar Meat. Journal of Animal Science 71:645.
Purpose: To avoid lipid oxidation leading to warmed over flavor and odor intensity by cooking boar meat in prerigor state.
Sensory: 8 trained panelists, 5 female, 3 male, tested odor, rancidity, and tenderness using a 10cm horizontal line scale with verbal anchors.

Chervin, Christian and Patrick Boisseau. 1994. Quality maintenence of ready to eat shredded carrots by gamma radiation. Journal of Food Science 59:2.
Purpose: This experiment used ionizing radiation for processing fo ready to eat carrots in place of chlorination rinsing and spin drying treatments.
Sensory Evaluation: 12 panelists evaluated carrot samples for taste differences using trinagle tests.

Christensen, C.M. and Z.M. Vickers. 1981. Relationship of chewing sounds to judgments of food crispness. Journal of Food Science 46:574.

Chung, H.Y., Chen, F., and Cadwallader, K.R., Cooked blue crab claw meat aroma compared with lump meat, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):289-291.
Purpose: This experiment was to determine if there are any differences in aroma and flavor between the lump and claw meats of blue crab.
Sensory Evaluation: Volunteers with prior sensory evaluation experience performed triangle difference tests.

Civille, G.V. and A.S. Szczesniak. 1973. Guidelines for training a texture profile panel. J. Texture Studies 4(2):204.v Collins, J.L., Liao J.-Y., and Penfield, M.P., 1995. Chemical, physical and sensory attributes of formed and frozen, baked sweet potato, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):465-467.
Purpose: The purpose of this experiment was to develop a formed, frozen, baked sweet potato product.
Sensory Evaluation: An untrained panel of 30 students and staff evaluated samples for acceptability(color, flavor, texture, and overall acceptability) using an 8-point hedonic scale. (1-dislike extremely, 8-like extremely)

Conger, S.S. and K. Zook. 1968. Lab preference and acceptance panels: a case in point. Food Technology 22:75-76.

Costa, A.I.A., M. Dekker, R.R. Beumer, F.M. Rombouts, and W.M.F. Jongen. 2001June. A consumer-oriented classification system for home meal replacements. Food Quality and Preference3 12(4): 229-242.

Cover, S. 1940. Some modifications of the paired-eating method in meat cookery research. Food Research 5:379.

Cover, S. 1959. Scoring for three components of tenderness to characterize differences among beef steaks. Food Research 24:564-573.

Crombie, A.C. 1964. Early concepts of the senses and the mind. Scienfitic American. (May):2.

Freeman, D.W., and J.O. Hearnsberger. 1994. Rancidity in selected sites of frozen catfish fillets. Jounal of Food Science 59:1.
Purpose: This experiment invetigated both objective and subjective to assess rancidity in fillets.
Sensory Evaluation: A trained 5 member taste panel evaluated cooked fillets with an attribute ranking scale.

Frijters, J.E.R. 1981. An olfactory investigation of the compatability of oddity instructions with the design of a 3-AFC signal detection task. Acta Psychol. 49:1.

Frijters, J.E.R., Y.H. Blauw, and S.H. Vermaat. 1982. Incidential training in the triangular method. Chem. Senses 7:63.

Frijters, J.E.R., A. Kooistra. and P.F.G. Vereijken. 1980. Tables of d'for the triangular method and the 3-AFC signal detection procedure. Percept. Psychophys 27:176.

Fu, A.H., J.G. Sebranek, and E. A. Murano. 1994. Microbial and quality charicteristics of pork cuts from carcasses treated with sanitizing sprays. Journal of Food Science 59:2.
Purpose: This experiment assessed microbial and quality characteristics of pork ccarcasses.
Sensory Evaluation: A trrained 10 member panel evaluated pork chops for odor and taste to assess product quality.

Fukamachi, M., Matsui, T., Shimoda, M., Nakashima, M., Osajima, Y. 1993. sorption Depression of Flavors into Modified EVA Film by Lowering Film-Flavor Affinity. Journal of Agriculture & Food Chemistry 41:929.
Purpose: To use chemical modification to surface polarize EVA film.
Sensory: 10 panelists with experience with food flavor evaluated the flavor effect on lemon juice after the film was dipped into it. A 3-point scale was used.

Gacula, M.S., J.B. Beaume, K.I. Morgan, and R.L. Luckett. 1971. Statistical aspect of the correlation between objective and subjective measurements of meat tenderness. J. Food Sci. 36:185.

Gacula, M.I., Jr., L.A. Parker, J.J. Kubala, and J. Reaume. 1974. Data analysis: a variable sequential test for selection of sensory panels. J. Food Sci. 29:61.

Gacula, M.C. Jr. 1968. Analysis of incomplete block designs with reference samples in every block. J. Food Sci. 43(5):1461.

Gacula, M.C. Jr. 1975. The design of experiments for shelf life study. J. Food Sci. 40:399.

Gacula, M.C. Jr. and J.J. Kubala. 1972. Data analysis. Interlbock and intrablock estimates of variance on taste panel data. J. Food Sci. 37:832.

Gacula, M.C. Jr. and J.J. Kubala. 1975. Statistical models for shelf life failures. J. Food Sci. 40:404.

Gonzalez-vinas, M.A., A. Moya and M.D. Cabezudo. 2003May. Description of the sensory characteristics of Spanish unifloral honeys by free choice profiling.Journal of Sensory Studies 18(2): 103-113. Gould, R.F. ed., 1966. "Flavor Chemistry." American Chemical Society Monograph No. 56.

Gregg, L.L., Claus, J.R., Hackney, C.R., Marriott, N.G. 1993. Low-Fat, High Added Water Bologna from Massaged, Minced Batter. Journal of Food Science 58:259.
Purpose: To determine sensory, physical and chemical characteristics of Bologna based on the effect of massaging of minced batter.
Sensory: An 8 member trained panel using an 8 point structured scale for cohesiveness, firmness, juiciness, and saltiness.

Gregory, K.E., L.V. Cundiff, R.M. Koch, M.E. Dikman, and M. Koohmaraie. 1994. Breed effects, retrained heterosis, and estimates of genetic and phenotypic parameters for carcass and meat traits of beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science 72: 1174-1183.
Purpose: This experiment investigated the differences in carcass and meat traits in beef cattle between breeds.
Sensory Evaluation: A trained sensory panel evaluated longissimus muscle steaks for flavor, tenderness, and juiciness.

Gregson, R.A.M. 1962. A rating-scale method for determining absolute taste thresholds. J. Food Sci. 27(4):376.

Gregson, R.A.M. and McCowen. 1963. The relative perception of weak sucrose-citric acid mixtures. Journal Food Science 28:371-378.

Gridgement, M.T. 1964. Sensory comparisons: The 2-stage triangle test with sample variability. Journal Food Sci. 29:112.

Gridgeman, N.T. 1955. Taste comparisons: Two samples or three? Food Technol. 9:148.

Gridgeman, N.T. 1961. A comparison of some taste-test methods. j. Food Sci. 26(2):171.

Gridgeman, N.T. 1956. Group size in taste sorting trials. Food Res. 21:534.

Grim, A.C. and S.A. Goldblith. 1965. Some observed discrepancies in application of the triangle test to evaluation of irradiated whole-egg magma. Food Tech. 19:1452.

Grzegorczyk, P.B., S.W. Jones and C.M. Mistretta. 1979. Age-related differences in salt taste acuity. J. Gerontol 34:834.

Guilford, J.P. 1954. "Psychometric Methods." McGraw-Hill, New York.

Guinard, J.-X., H. Smiciklas-Wright, C. Marty, R.A. Sabha, I. Soucy, S. Taylor-Davis and C. Wright. 1996. Acceptability of fat-modified foods in a population of older adults: Contrast between sensory preference and purchase intent. Food Quality and Preference 1(1):21-28.

Guinard, J.X., B. Uotani, and P. Schlich. 2001June. Internal and external mapping of preferences for commercial lager beers: comparison of hedonic ratings by consumers blind versus with knowledge of brand and price. Food Quality and Preferencew 12(4): 243-255.

Guzman, J.C., McMillin, K.W., Bidner, T.D., Gugas-Sims, S., and Godber, J.S. 1995. Texture, Color, and Sensory Characteristics of Ground Beef Patties Containing Blood Proteins. Journal of Food Science 60(4):657-660.
Purpose: This experiment was designed to examine the texture, color, and sensory characteristics of beef patties with added bovine plasma (slaughter blood) in an effort to increase the protein and iron levels.
Sensory Evaluation: Six trained/experienced panelists were given 5 random samples and asked to judge the cooked beef patties of beefy, bloody, metallic, milky, sour, and soy taste using a 35 point scale.

Halek, G.W. and A. Chan. 1994. Partitoning and absolute flavor threshold interactions of aliphatic food packaging solvent homologs in high fat cookies. Journal of Food Science 59:2.
Purpose: This experiment investigated solid food for new information on partitioning and absolute flavor thresholds of individual compounds and mixtures.
Sensory Evaluation: An 11 membered trained panel evaluated cookies for flavor.

Hall, B.A., M.E. Tarver, and J.G. McDonald. 1959. A method for screening flavor panel members and its application to a two sample difference test. Food Tech. :699.

Halpern, B.P. 1986. What to control in studies of taste. IN 'Clinical Measurement of TAste and Smell'. (Ed.) H.L. Meiselman and R.S. Rivlin, p. 126, MacMillan, New York.

Handumrongkul, C. and J.L. Silva. 1994. Aerobic counts, color and adenine nucleotide changes in CO2 packed refigerated striped bass strips. Joournal of Food Science 59:1.
Purpose: Chlorine and CO2 effects on extending shelf life of fillet strips was evaluated.
Sensory Evaluation: 6 trained panelists evaluated cooked fish strips using a 9 point rating scale.

Harper, R. 1962. The psychologist's role in food-acceptance research. Food Technol. 16:70.

Harris, N.D., D.H. Strong, and M.L. Sunde. 1968. Intestinal flora and chicken flavor. Journal Food Science 33:543.

Harris, J.M. 1956. Positional bias in sensory assessments. Food Technology 10:86-90.

Hashim, I.B., Resurreccion, A.V.A., and McWatters, K.H. Descriptive Sensory Analysis of Irradiated Frozen or Refrigerated Chicken. Journal of Food Science 60 (4): 664-666.
Purpose: This experiment was designed to investigate the effects of irradiated chicken using sensory attributes.
Sensory Evaluation: A 14-member trained/experienced panel rated chicken samples for color, juiciness, sweet, salty, sour, bitter, chickeny, warmed over, brothy, sweet aromatic, cardboard, tenderness, and grainy using a 0-150mm vertical line scale.

Hornstein, I. And T. Roy. 1967. The chemistry of flavor. Chemical and Engineering News. April 3, 1967, p. 92-103.

Hawthorn, J. 1977. Food-habits-Ancient and modern. Food Technol. in Australia 29:481.

Helm, E. and B. Trolle. 1946. Selection of a taste panel. Wallerstein Lab. Comms. 9:181.

Henika, R.G. 1982. Use of response-surface methodology in sensory evaluation. Food Technology :96.

Heron, W.T. 1928. The warming-up effect in learning nonsense syllables. J. Genetic Psychol. 35:219.

Hersleth, M., b.-H. Mevik, T. Naes and J.-X Guinard. 2003October. Effect of contextual factors on liking for wine-use of robust design methodology. Food Quality and Preference 14(7): 615-622. Heuberger, E., T. Hongratanaworakit, C. Bohm, R. Weber, and G. Buchbauer. 2001April. Effects of chiral fragrances on human autonomic nervous system parameters and self-evaluation. Chemical Senses 26(3): 281-292.

Hirsh, N. 1974. Getting fullest value from sensory testing. Part I: Use and misuse of testing methods. Food Prod. Dev. 8(10):33.

Hirsh, N. 1975. Getting fullest value from sensory testing. Part II. Consiering the test objectives. Food Prod. Dev. 9(1):10.

Hirsh, N. 1975. Getting fullest value from sensory testing. Part III: Use and misuse of test panels. Food Prod. Dev. 9(2):78.

Ho, CP, Huffman, DL, Bradford, DD, Egbert, WR, Mikel, W.B., and Jones, WR, 1995. Storage stability of vacuum packaged frozen pork sausage, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):257-261.
Purpose:
Sensory Evaluation:

Hogue, D.V. and A.M. Briant. 1957. Determining flavor differences in crops treated with pesticides. I. A comparison of a triangle and multiple comparison method. Food Res. 22:351.

Hopkins, J.W. 1954. Some observations on sensitivity and repeatability of triad difference tests. Biometrics 10:521.

Hopkins, J.W. and N.J. Gridgeman. 1955. Comparative sensitivity of pair and triad flavor intensity difference tests. Biometrics 11:63.

Hopkins, J.W. 1950. A procedure for quantifying subjective appraisals of odor, flavor, and texture of foodstuffs. Biometrics 6(1):1.

Hoyle, Nana and John H. Merrit. 1994. Quality of fish protien hydrolysates from herring. Journal of Food Science 59:1.
Purpose: This experiment investigated the quality of FPH and the degree of hydrolysis in herring.
Sensory Evaluation: 10 judges evaluated FPH's using a category scaling

Howard, L.R., Miller Jr., G.H., Wagner, A.B., 1995. Microbiological, chemical, and sensory changes in irratiated Pico de Gallo, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):461-464.
Purpose: This studied the effects of gamma processing on microbiological, sensory, and chemical quality in pico de gallo.
Sensory Evaluation: Color, texture, odor and heat were evaluated on a 10 point scale (0-none, 10-intense) by a 10-member trained sensory panel.

Howard, L.R., and Dewi, T., 1995. Sensory, microbiological and chemical quality of mini-peeled carrots as affected by edible coating treatment, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):142-144.
Purpose:This study determined the effects of an edible cellulose coating on the sensory, microbiological, and chemical quality of carrots.
Sensory Evaluation: 10 experienced judges evaluated three randomly coded carrots using a structured 10-point scale.(0-none, 10-intense) on discoloration, orange color intensity, frsh carrot flavor and aroma, slipperiness, and overall acceptability.

Howard, L.R., Braswell, D., Heymann, H., Lee, Y., Pike, L.M., and Aselage, J., 1995. Sensory attributes and intrumental analysis relationships for strained processed carrot flavor, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):145-149.
Purpose:This experiment determined how the genotype of carrots affects the strained carrot flavor.
Sensory Evaluation: 10 trained judges evaluated samples for descriptive properties of processed strained carrot aroma, flavor, taste and aftertaste using an unstructured, 18 cm line (0 cm=none, 18 cm=intense).

Huange, Y.W., R.T. Lovell, and R.A. Dunham. 1994. Carcass characteristics of channel and hybrid catfish and quality changes during refigerated storage. Journal of Food Science 59:1.
Purpose: Channel and blue hybrid catfish were evaluated for lipid degredation and microbial counts and compared during 13 day refrigerated storage.
Sensory Evaluation: Panelists evaluated samples of broiled fish using an instructured scale.

Hulin-Bertaud, S., K.N. Kilcawley, M.g. Wilkinson and c.M. Delahunty. 2000September. Sensory and compositional relationships between commercial cheddar-flavored enzyme-modified cheeses and natural cheddar. Journal of Food Science 65(6): 1076-1082.

IFT. 1971. Author guidelines for IFT research papers reporting sensory evaluation data. Committee on Sensory Evaluation, Inst. of Food Technologists. Food Technol. 25(3):58.

IFT. 1975. Minutes of Snesory Evaluation Div. business meeting at 35th Ann. Meet., Inst. of Food Technologists, Chicago, June 10.

IFT 1979. "The Role of Sensory Evaluation in Product Quality Assurance," Inst. of Food Technologists' Sensory Evaluation Div. symposium. Food Technol. 33(9):37.

IFT. 1980. "The Wide Scope of Sensory Evaluation," Inst. of Food Technologists' Sensory Evaluation Div. symposium. Food Technology. 34(11):56.

IFT. 1981. Guidlines for the preparation and review of papers reporting sensory evaluation data. Sensory Evaluation Div., Inst. Food Technologists. Food Technol. 35(4):16.

Ilmberger, J., E. Heuberger, C. Mahrhofer, H. Dessovic, D. Kowarik, and G. Buchbauer. 2001April. The influence of essential oils on human attention. I: Alertness. Chemical Senses 26(3): 239-245.

Inglett, G.E., K. Warner, R.K. Newman. 1994. Sensory and Nutritional Evaluations of Oatrim. Cereal Foods World, Volume 39 (10): 755-759.
Purpose: To study and evaluate the substitution of fat with Oatrim.
Sensory Evaluation: Twenty trained and experienced panelists evaluated Oatrim substituted oatmeal cookies on the characteristics of sweet, grainy, toasted, buttery, cardboardy, and texture properties including density, cohesiveness, and moisture.

Irion, A.L. 1949. Retention and warming-up effects in paired associate learning. J. Expt. Psychol. 39:669.

Irion, A.L. 1950. The relationship between length of interval separating two learning tasks and performance on the second task. J. Expt. Psychol. 40:613.

Irion, A.L. 1948. The relation of 'set' to retention. Psychol. Rev. 55:336.

Ishii, R. and M. O'Mahony. 1987. Defining a taste by a single standard: Aspects of salty and umami tastes. J Food Sci. 52:1405.

Ishimaru, T., S. Hatanaka, T. Miwa, and M. Furukawa. 2001January. Clinical bitterness masking test for phantogeusia. Chemical Senses 26(1): 91-93.

Jones, B.K. and J.D. Tatum. 1994. Predictors of beef tenderness among carcasses produced under commercial conditions. Journal of Animal Science 72:1492-1501.
Purpose: This study investigated the effectiveness of alternative traits for predicting tenderness of beef carcasses.
Sensory Evaluation: A six membered trained sensory panel used an 8 point rating scale to evaluate muscle fiber tenderness and connective tissue amount in cooked steaks.

Jonnalagadda, P.R., R.V. Bhat, R.V. Sudershan, and A.N. Naidu. 2001June. Suitability of chemical parameters in setting quality standards for deep-fried snacks. Food Quality and Preference 12(4): 223-228.

Kallithraka, S., J. Bakker, M.N. Clifford and L. Vallis. 2001March. Correlations between saliva protein composition and some T-I parameters of astringency. Food Quality and Preference 12(2): 145-152.

Kane, L., Braddock, R.J., Sims, C.A., and Matthews, R.F., 1995. Lemon juice aroma concentration by reverse osmosis, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):190-194.
Purpose: This study investigated the effectiveness of reverse osmosis to concentrate lemon aroma.
Sensory Evaluation: A total of 47 panelists were given triangle tests comparing unprocessed and concentrated aromas.

Kaneko, R. and N. Kitabatake. 2001February. Structure-sweetness relationship in thaumatin: importance of lysine residues. Chemical Senses 26(2): 167-177.

Katz, R. and H. Moskowitz. 2003July. Next generation healthy soup: An exploration using conjoint analysis. Journal of Sensory Studies 18(3): 249-268. Kawabe, T., Morita, H. 1993. Volatile Components in Culture Fluid of Polyporus tuberaster. Journal of Agriculture & Food Chemistry 41:637.
Purpose: To determine odor characteristics of mushrooms after cultured in liquid medium after filtration.
Sensory: A 10 member panel used a 5 point scale and were able to make comments regarding odor.

Kerrola, K., Kallio, H., 1993. Volatile Compounds and Odor Characteristics of Carbon Dioxide Extracts of Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) Fruits. Journal of Agriculture & Food Chemistry 41:785.
Purpose: To isolate volatile components of coriander fruits and compare them with odor characteristics of carbon dioxide extracts to characterize flavoring ability of the extracts.
Sensory: 5 trained panelists with experience in descriptive sensory methods were used to select odor attributes. Sample evaluations were then done by 12 nonsmoking panelists aged 25-52, with 5 having previous descriptive sensory experience.

Kerrola, K., B. Galanbosi, H. Kallio. 1994. Characteristics of Volatility Composition and Odor of Angelica. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 42:9.
Purpose: To characterize Angelica strains using the terms green, tarpenic, fresh, celeriac, and sweet.
Sensory Evaluation: An expert panel tested samples of Angelica hidden in foil-wrapped 35 mL glass bottles with cotton covering the sample to eliminate visual identification but allow the aromatics to pass through.

Kerrola, K., B. Galambosi, and H. Kallio. 1994. Volatile components and odor intensity of four phenotypes of hyssop. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 42:3.
Purpose: This experiment investigated four phenotypes of hyssop for volatile compounds as differentiated by their corolla. This is to aid in the selection of species producing a high yield and quality of essential oils.
Sensory Evaluation: 12 assessors, 4 with previous experience in sensory analysis, evaluated odor intensity of samples using a 12 point structural interval scale. Herbal samples and CO2 extracts were rated in separate sessions.

Kim, C.R., Hearnsberger, A.P., Vickery, A.P., White, C.H., and Marshall, D.L., 1995. Sodium acetate and bifidobacteria increase shelf-life of refrigerated catfish fillets, Journal of Food Science, 60(1): 25-27.
Purpose:This experiment studied the effects of sodium acetate and bifidobacteria on catfish fillets.
Sensory Evaluation:An eight-membered untrained panel evaluated fish fillets every three days for uncooked odor and appearance. Samples were compared to fresh control. Scale: 5:like control. 6-9, more liked than control, 1-4: most disliked than control.

King, F. 1937. Obtaining a panel for judging flavors in food. Food Research 2:207-219.

King, S.C., P.J. Lawler and J.K. Adams. 2000September. Effect of aspartame and fat on sweetness perception in yoghurt. Journal of Food Science 65(6): 1056-1059.

Koenig, O., g. Bourron, and J-P. Royet. 2000December. Evidence for separate perceptive and semantic memories for odours: a priming experiment. Chemical Senses 25(6): 703-708.

Konigsbacher, K.S. 1978. How the government views sensory evaluation . Food Technol. 32(11):64.

Kolsarlci, N., and Candogan, K. 1995. The Effects of Potassium Sorbate and Lactic Acid o the Shelf-Life of Vacuum-Packed Chicken Meats. Poultry Science 74 (11): 1884-1893.
Purpose: This experiment was designed to evaluate a mixture of 5% potassium sorbate and 3% lactic acid on quality of vacuum packed chicken legs and breasts during storage.
Sensory Evaluation: Eight panelists (it did not say if they were trained or not) evaluated the differences in color, appearance, flavor, tenderness, and overall acceptability of the chicken meat on a scale from 1 to 9.

Korth, B. 1982. Use of regression in sensory evalution. Food Technology (11):91.

Korth, B. 1982. Use of regression in sensory evaluation. Food Technology 36:91.
Purpose:Discusses sensory evaluation from the viewpoint of the general function of regression, the uses of regression in sensory evaluation, the statistical results of regression, and examples of poor and good regression.
Uses in Sensory Evaluation

Koskinenb, S., N. Kalviainen and H. Turorila. 2003Dec. Perception of chemosensory stimuli and related responses to flavored yogurts in the young and elderly. Food Quality and Preference 14(8): 623-635.

Kramer, A. 1963. Revised tables for determining significance of differences. Food Technology 17(12):124.

Kramer, A. 1960. A rapid method for determining significance of differences from rank sums. Food Tech. 14:576.

Labows, j.N. Jr. 1980. What the nose knows-Investigating the significance of human odors. The Sciences 20(9):10.

Labows, J.N. and C.J. Wysocki. 1984. Individual differences in odor perception. Perfumer Flavorist 9:21.

Land, D.G. 1979. Some factors influencing the perception of flavour-contributing substances in foods. IN "Progress in Flavour Research," ed. D.G. Land and H.E. Nurster. Elsevier Pub. co., New York.

Landskell, J.L., Miller, M.F., Wheeler, T.L, Koohmaraie, M., and Ramsey, C.B. 1995. Postmortem injection of calcium chloride effects of beef quality traits. Journal of Animal Science. 73:1735-1740.
Purpose: The purpose of this experiment is to determine how injections of calcium chloride would affect beef steak palatibility and quality traits.
Sensory Evaluation: An eight-member trained panel evaluated 1 cm3 samples for tenderness, juciness, flavor intensity, ease of fragmentation and amount of connective tissue using 8-point scales (8-extremely tender, juicy, intense, easy and none) (1-extremely tough, dry bland, difficult, abundant) and off-flavors using a 4-point scale (4-none, 1-intense)

Langwill, K. 1949. Taste perception and taste preferences of the consumer. Food Technol. 3:136.

Laramee, S.H. 1988(9). Foodservice research project example: Survey of patients' entree preferences. Journal of American Dietetic Association 88(9):1065.
Purpose: This study was to determine entree preferences of patients through the use of a patient survey instrument.

Larmond, E. 1977. "Laboratory Methods for Sensory Evaluation of Food," Pub. 1637, rev. ed. Food Res. Inst., Canada Dept of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ont.

Larmond, E. 1973. Physical requirements for sensory testing. Food Technol. 27(11):28.

Larmond, E. 1970. "Methods for Sensory Evaluation of Food." Canada Department of Agriculture.

Lawless, H.T, C. Hartono and S. Hernandez. 2000December. Thresholds and suprathreshold intensity functions for capsaicin in oil and aqueous based carriers. Journal of sensory Studies 15(4): 437.

Lawless, H.T., Claassen, M.R. 1993. Validity of Descriptive and defect-oriented Terminology Systems for sensory analysis of Fluid Milk. Journal of Food Science 58:108.
Purpose: To test current terms used for sensory evaluation of dairy products against common descriptive terms.
Sensory: Trained panelists consisted of 19 between the ages of 21-37. The consumer panel consisted of 90 participants between the ages of 17-82. A campus sample had 122 participants between the ages of 18 and 51. A 15 point hedonic scale was used.

Lawless, H., Torres, V., Figueroa, E. 1993. Sensory Evaluation of Hearts of Palm. Journal of Food Science 58:134.
Purpose: Determine sensory terms to describe hearts of palm.
Sensory: Two panels were used. One panel consisted of 9 with descriptive analysis training, the other panel was with 60 untrained members. Acceptability and descriptive tests were used.

Lea, P., M. Rodbotten and T. Naes. 1995. Measuring validity in sensory analysis. Food Quality and Preference 6(4)_:321-326.

Lecomte, N.B., Zayas, J.F., Kastner, C.L. 1993. Soya Proteins Functional and Sensory Characteristics Improved in Comminuted Meats. Journal of Food Science 58:464.
Purpose: To develop a method to mask off-flavors in Soya proteins in comminuted meat products and to evaluate the sensory characteristics of Soya in frankfurters.
Sensory: A trained 7 member panel was used to evaluate the frankfurters using an unstructured 60 point intensity scale.

Lee, E., Meyers, S.P., and Godber, J.S. 1993. Minced Meat Crabcake from Blue Crab Processing Byproducts-Development and Sensory Evaluation. Journal of Food Science 58:99.
Purpose: To evaluate flavor and texture of mince based crabcakes and to determine the characteristics of mince recovered from blue crab.
Sensory: An 8 member panel was selected based on ability to distinguish flavor and texture differences. Panel used a 1-10 scale to rate the cakes.

Lee, H.-S., K.-O.Kim, M. O'Mahony. 2001March. How do the signal detection indices react to frequency context bias for intensity scaling? Journal of Sensory Studies 16(1): 33-52.

Lindley, M.G., Beyts, P.K., Canales, I., Borrego, F. 1993. Flavor Modifying Characteristics of the Intense Sweetener Neohesperidin Dihydrochalcone. Journal of Food Science 58:592.
Purpose: To determine flavoring effects of NHDC into food and beverage products using less than 5 ppm.
Sensory: 11 all female, highly trained panelists were selected from a professional sensory company were selected. A 150 mm lines scale was used for appearance, odor, flavor, texture and aftertaste.

Linker, E. , M.E. Moore, and E. Galanter. 1964. Taste thresholds, dection models and disparate results. J. Expt. Psychol. 64:59.

Little, A.C. and L.J. Brinner. 1985. Taste responses to saltiness among hypertensive subjects under different therapeutic regimens. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 85(7):557.
Purpose: Was to investigate the perception of intensity and preference of saltiness in food systems, to see the function of age, sex, blood presssure status and therapeutic interventions with salt.
Abstract:Dietary sodium restriction is increasingly regarded as important in the prevention and treatment of essential hypertension. However, low-sodium diets are freqently considered unpalatable and therefore unfeasible. The objectives of this study were to determine (a) whether hypertensives, treated and untreated, differ in saltiness taste perception from age-matched normotensive controls and (b) whether sodium reduction can be accomplished by substituting another taste stimulus without reducing apparent saltiness and palatability. Subjects included 72 hypertensives, 44 to 69 years old, divided among three treatment groups; 25 age-matched normotensive controls; and an additional 21 normotensives, 20 tp 43 years old, to provide an age continuum for evaluating age effects. Taste responses were measured in terms of saltiness intensity and preference using tomato juice varying systematically in sodium chloride and citric acid content. No significant differences were found between salt and acid. Addition of citric acid permitted 50% reduction of sodium content in tomato juice without disturbing palatability criteria. Results provide a model for modifying other processed foods.

Little, A.D., Inc. 1958. "Flavor Research and Food Acceptance." Reinhold Pub. Corp., New York.

Liu, Y., F. Hsieh, H. Heymann, and H.E. Huff. 2000October. Effect of process conditions on the physical and sensory properties of extruded oat-corn puff. journal of Food Science 65(7): 1253-1259.

Lotong, V., E. Chambers IV and D.H. chambers. 2000September. Determination of the sensory attributes of wheat sourdough bread. V. Journal of Sensory Studies. 15(3): 309-326.

Ly, A. and A. Drewnowski. 3002January. Prop (6-n-propylthiouracil) tasting and sensory responses to caffeine, sucrose, neohesperidin dihydrochalcone and chocolate. Chemical Senses 26(1): 41-47.

MacFie, H.J.H. 1990. Assessment of the sensory properties of food. Nutrition Reviews 48(2):87.
Purpose: The purpose of the article is to discuss multimdimensional scaling and free-choice profiling for measuring aspects of sensory perception in the lab. Preference mapping with consumer tests were also related to laboratory panel scores.
Sensory Evaluation: Multidimensional scaling, multiway difference scaling, free-choice profiling, preference mapping were discussed.

MacLeod, C.M., F.A.Farmer, and H.R. Neilson. 1969. Organoleptic evaluation of low-dose irradiated chicken stored under refrigeration conditions. Food Tech. 23:964.

Magnusson, H., and Martinsdottir, E., 1995. Storage quality of fresh and frozen-thawed fish in ice, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):273-278.
Purpose: This studied the effects of antioxidants and packaging on shelf-life and sensory qualities of pork sausage during frozen storage.
ensory Evaluation: A trained descriptive sensory panel evaluated cooked sausage patties for juiciness, tenderness, off-flavor, cohesiveness, and flavor intensity using an 8-point scale.

Hartwig, P., and McDaniel, M.R., 1995. Flavor characteristics of lactic, malic, citric, and acetic acids at various pH levels, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):384-388.
Purpose: This experiment utilized 12 panelists (8 trained) to determine differences and similarities in flavor of different (food) acids and acid blends.

Mahoney, C.H., H.L. Stier, and E.A. Crosby. 1957. Evaluating flavor differences in canned food. I. Genesis of a simplified procedure fro making flavor difference tests. II. Fundamentals of the simplified procedure. Food Technol. 11(9):Insert 29, 37.

Mallundo, T.M., A.V.V. Resureccion, G.O. Ware, and L.R. Beuchat. 1994. Sensory, physical, and microbiological prroperties of liquid whitener from peanuts. Journal of Food Science 59:2.
Purpose: This experiment modeled sensory and physical properties of liquid whitener from peanuts using varying proportions of components and to determine microstability.
Sensory Evaluation: 11 trained panelists used a descriptive analysis 150mm unstructured line scales to evaluate whitened coffee samples.

Mannheim, H.C. and J. Kopelman. 1964. Evaluation of two methods of tomato juice concentration. II. Product comparisons. Food Tech. 18:911.

Martin, S.L. 1973. Selection and training of sensory judges. Food Technol. 28(11):16.

Masuoka, S., D. Hatjopoulos and M. O'Mahony. 1995. Beer bitterness detection: Testing thurstonian and sequential sensitivity analysis models for triad and tetrad methods. Journal of Sensory Studies 19(3):295-306.

Matulis, R.J., McKeith, F.K., Sutherland, J.W., and Brewer, M.S., 1995. Sensory characteristics of frankfurters as affected by fat, salt, and pH, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):42-47.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate effects of salt, fat and pH on the sensory characteristics of frankfurters.
Sensory Evaluation: A six-membered, trained panel evaluated frankfurters under red lights for hardness, cohesiveness, juiciness, saltiness, intensity of flavor, and off-flavor intensity with a reference frankfurter for comparison.

Matulis, R.J., McKeith, F.K., Sutherland, J.W., and Brewer, M.S., 1995. Sensory characteristics of frankfurters as affected by salt, fat, soy protein, and carrageenan, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):48-54.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate effects of fat, salt soy protein and iota-carageenan on the sensory characteristics of frankfurters.
Sensory Evaluation: A six-membered, trained panel evaluated frankfurters under red lights for hardness, cohesiveness, juiciness, saltiness, intensity of flavor, and off-flavor intensity with a reference frankfurter for comparison.

McGrath, M.J., and C. Karahadian. 1994. Evaluation of physical, chemical, and sensory properties of pawpaw fruit as indicators of ripeness. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 42:4.
Purpose: The relationship between volatile flavor development in tree-ripened and post-harvsest-ripened mature pawpaws and changes in soluble solids content, skin color, fruit hardness, and sensory attributes were investigated as related to fruit ripeness.
Sensory Evaluation: 35 panelists entailed training procedures and evaluated randomized samples with a descriptive odor analysis ballot consisting of an unmarked seven-point linear scale for each attribute of aroma.

McIsaac, C. ,S.M. Potter, and M.M. Weigel. 1993. Effect of Consumer Education on the Purchase of Soy-Containing Bakery Items. Cereal Foods World 38:154.
Purpose: To investigate the effect of eduacation on the purchase of bakery products that contained soy.
Sensory Evaluation: A ratings scale was used via a survey of 59 respondants with an average age of 40.9.

McKeith, F.K., Brewer, M.S., Osadjan, P.D., Matulis, R.J., Bechtel, P.J. 1993. Sensory and Textural Characteristics of Restructured Ham Coated with emulsions of Different Fat Levels. Journal of Food Science 58:482.
Purpose: To determine the effect of different fat levels on emulsions on binding properties, and sensory characteristics of coated and formed hams.
Sensory: A 6 member experienced panel was used with a 25cm unstructured line scale test to determine visual bind, color, saltiness, texture, and mouthfeel and flavor.

McLaughlin, S. and R.F. Margolskee. 1994. The sense of taste. American Scientist 82:538.

Meiselman, H.L. 1972. Human taste perception. CRC Critical Reviews in Food Technology 3(1):89.

Mendes, L.C., H.C. de Mnezes and M.A.A. P. Da Silva. 2001March. Optimization of the roasting of robusta coffee (C. canephora conillon) using acceptability tests and RSM. Food Quality and Preference 12(2): 153-162.

Meullenent, J.-F., V.K. Griffin, A.L.V. Caicedo. 2001March. Rice external preference mapping for asian consumers living in the United States. Journal of Sensory Studies 16(1): 73-94.

Mitchell, J.W. 1957. Problems in taste difference tasting. I. Test environment. Food technology 11:476.

Miller, M.F., Andersen, M.K., Ramsey, C.B., Reagan, J.O. 1993. Physical and Sensory Characteristics of Low Fat Ground Beef Patties. Journal of Food Science 58:461.
Purpose: To determine the effects on sensory characteristics of adding phosphate and water to reduced fat ground beef, then to compare them to regular ground beef.
Sensory: An 8 member trained panel was used with an 8-point scale judging juiciness, toughness, and off flavors.

Mitchell, J.W. 1957. Problems in taste difference testing. II. Subject variability due to time of day and day of week. Food Tech. 11:477.

Mitchell, J.W. 1956. Time error in paried comparison taste preference test. Food Tech. 10:218-220.

Mitchell, J.W. 1956. The effect of assignment of testing materials to the paired and odd position in the duo-trio taste difference test. Food Technol. 10:169.

Mojet, J., J. Heidema, and E. Christ-Hazelhof. 2003June. Taste perception with age: generic or specific losses in supra-threshold intensities of five taste qualities? Chemical Senses 28 (5): 397-413. Mook, J.H. 1984. Correlation of consumer and professional sensory descriptions. Cereal Foods World 29(7):403-405.
Purpose:The purpose of this paper is to present the approach used at Arthur D. Little, Inc. to translate consumers' descriptions of products into terms that sensory specialists can understand and use to monitor product development changes.
Sensory Evaluation:Profile attribute analysis and consumer responses were used to analyze crackers and cookies.

Morales, Maria T., Alonso, Maria V., Rios, Jose J., and Aparicio, Ramon. Nov. 1995. Virgin Olive Oil Aroma: Relationship between Volatile Compounds and Sensory Attributes by Chemometrics. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. Vol. 43, No. 11, pg. 2925.
Purpose: 32 samples of virgin olive oil were evaluated to bring out inter and intra dissimiliarities from a sensory, as well as, chemical volatile substances.
Sensory Evaluation: Six different panels constituted by five different nationalities (Spanish, Italian, Greek, British, and Dutch) used quantitative descriptive analysis. Random samples evaluated in triplicate. Some trained panelists and some untrained panelists. Aroma, odor, taste, after-taste, mouthfeel, and after-mouth feel perceptions were described as: green, fruity, sweet, ripe, over-ripe, undesirable, and pungent.

Morgan, J.B., Wheeler, T.L., Kiihmaraie, M., Savell, J.W., Crouse, J.D. 1993. Meat Tenderness and the Calpain Proteolytic System in Longissimus Muscle of Young Bulls and Steers. Journal of Animal Science 71:1471.
Purpose: To determine the effect of castration on palatability of 24 hour postmortem longissimus muscle in cattle.
Sensory: An 8 member trained sensory panel was used to judge juiciness, tenderness, connective tissue amount and flavor intensity using an 8-point scale.

Morrison, G.R. 1969. The relative effectivness of salt stimuli for the rat. Canadian Journal of Psychology 23: 34-40.

Morrison, G.R. 1969. Relative discriminability of sugars for the rat. Journal of Comparative and physiological Psychology. 68: 45-49.

Morrison, G.R. 1972. Detectability and preference for sodium chloride and sodium carbonate. Physiology and Behaviour 8: 25-28.

Morrison, G.R. and W. Norrison. 1966. Taste detection in the rat. Canadian Journal of Psychology 20: 208217.

Morrison, G.R. and J.C. Young. 1972. Taste control over sodium intake in sodium deficient rats. Physiology and Behaviour 8: 29-32.

Morse, R.I.D. 1954. Exploratory studies of preschool children's taste discrimination and preference for selected citrus juices. Florida State Horticultural Society 66: 292-301.

Morse, R.L.D. 1951. Rationale for studies of consumer food preferences. Advance in Food Research 3: 385-427.

Morton, N.E., W.C. Moloney and T. Fijii. 1954. Linkage in man: Pelger's nuclear anomaly, taste and blood groups. American Journal of Human Genetics. 6: 38-43.

Mosel, J.N. and G. Kantrowitz. 1954. Absolute sensitivity to the glutamic taste. Journal of General Psychology 51: 11-18.

Mosel, J.N. and G. Kantrowitz. 1952. The effect of monosodium glutamate on acuity to the primary tastes. American Journal of Psychology 65: 573-579.

Moser, H.A., H.J. Dutton, E.D. Evans and J.C. Cowan. 1950. conducting a taste panel for the evaluation of edible oils. Food Technology 4: 105-109.

Moses, H.E. 1933. Taste and odour control of Pennsylvania water supplies. Journal of the American Water Works Association. 25: 1066-1080.

Moskowitz, H.R. 2001March. Margarine: the drivers of liking and image. Journal of Sensory Studies 16(1): 53-72.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1970. Sweetness and intensity of artificial sweeteners. Perception and Psychophysics. 8: 40-42.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1971. The sweetness and pleasantness of sugars. American Journal of Psychology. 84: 387-405.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1971. Intensity scales for pure tastes and for taste mixture. Perception and Psychophysics. 9: 51-56.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1971. Ration scales of acid sourness. Perception and Psychophysics. 9: 371-374.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1972. Subjective ideals and sensory optimization in evaluating perceptual dimensions in food. Journal of Applied Psychology 56: 60-66.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1972. Perceptual attributes of the taste of sugars. Journal of Food Science 37: 624-626.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1972. Scales of subjective viscosity and fluidity of gum solutions. Journal of Texture Studies 3: 89-100.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1972. Perceptual changes in texture mixtures. Perception and Psyc hophysics 11: 257-262.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1973. Models of sweetness additivity. Journal of Experimental Psychology 99: 88-98.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1973. Effects of solution temperature on taste intensity in humans. Physiology and Behaviour. 10: 289-292.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1974. Sensory evalution by magnitude estimation. Food Technol. 28(11):16.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1975. Applications of sensory measurement to food evaluations. II. Methods of ratio scaling. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft+Technologie 8(6):249.

Moskowitz, H.R. 1978. Magnitude estimation: Notes on how, what, where and why to use it. J. Food Qual. 1:195.

Moskowitz, H.R. and P. Arabie. 1970. Taste intensity as a function of stimulus concentration and solvent viscosity. Journal of Texture Studies 1: 502-510.

Moskowitz, H.R. and C. Barbe. 1976. Psychometric analysis of food aromas by profiling and multidimensional scaling. J. Food Sci. 41(3):567.

Moskowitz, H.R., B. Drake and C.A. Akesson. 1972. Psychophysical and psychometric measures of texture IN Texture Measurements of Food. A Kramer and S. Szczesniak, Editor, D. Reidel Publsihing Company, Dordrecht, Holland, 118-129.

Moskowitz, H.R., B. Drake and C.A. Akesson. 1972. Psychophysical measures of texture. Journal of Texture Studies. 3: 135-145.

Moskowitz, H.W., V. Kumarain, K.N. Sharma, H.L. Jacobs, and S.D. Sharma. 1975. Cross-cultural differences in simple taste preferences. Science 190:1217.

Moskowitz, H.R., T. Nichols, H.L. Meiselman and J.L. Sidel. 1972July. Food preferences of military men, 1967. United States Army Natick Laboratories, Massachusetts.

Moskowitz, H.R. and J.L. Sidel. 1971. Magnitude and hedonic scales for food acceptability. J. Food Sci. 36:677-680.

Moskowitz, H.R. and T. Wehrly. 1972. Economic applications of sweetness scales. J. Food Sci. 37(3):411-415 .

Mosqueda, De. and M. Baragano. 1967. Proyecto de clasificacion de algunas frutas tropicales en base a su aroma y sabor. (Project of classification of some tropical fruits on their flavour and taste). Archivos Latinoamericanos de Nutricion. 17: 311-22.

Mottern, H.H., T.S. De Buckle and C. Pardo. 1970. Protein enrichmen of Colombian corn cakes. Cereal Science Today 15: 108-112.

Motilva, Maria-Jose, Fidel Toldra, Maria Nada, and Jose Flores. 1994. Pre-frezing hams affects lipoysis during dry curing. Journal of Food Science 59:2.
Purpose: This experiment investigated the effects of an initial freeze/thaw of raw hams on lipolysis during dry curing.
Sensory Evaluation: 30 trained panelists evaluated ham samples using paired comparison tests.

Mottern, H.H., T. Nold and J.J. Willaman. 1941. Survey of apple juice packed in 1940. Fruit Products Journal 21: 68-71.

Moulton, D.G. 1969. Sensory perception. Journal of Dairy Science 52: 811-815.

Mozell, M.M., B.P. Smith, P.E. Smith. 1969. Nasal chemoreception in flavour identification. Archives of Otolaryngology 990: 367-373.

Muller, J. and D. Rousseau. 1972. A study of the discriminatory behaviour of consumers in a double triad composition taste test. Psychologia Africana 14: 103-110. Nonaka, R. and M. O'Mahony. 1995. Comparison of flowise and sipwise methods of tasting. Journal of Sensory Studies 10(3):249-260.

Mullet, G.M. 1988(11). Applications of Multivariate Methods in Sensory and Consumer Research. . Applications of multivariate methods in strategic approaches to product marketing and promotion. Food Technology 36:145.

Nakayama, M. and C. Wessman. 1979. Application of sensory evaluation to the routine maintenance of product quality. Food Technol. 33(9):38.

Neuman, P.E. , and E. Chambers. 1993. Effects of Honey Type and Level on the Sensory and Physical Properties of an Extruded Honey-Graham Formula Breakfast Cereal. Cereal Foods World 38:418.
Purpose: To determine the effect on amount and type of honey, and lecithin level on the physical and sensory properties of extruded cereals.
Sensory Evaluation: Trained panel using descriptive sensory testing using 101 panelists with mixed ages of 18-65 and 67% female, 33% male.

Nilsson, K., and Ekstrand, B., 1995. Frozen storage and thawing methods affect biochemical and sensory attributes of rainbow trout, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):627-630.
Purpose: In this study, the effects of four freezing/thawing methods were studied on rainbow trout.
Sensory Evaluation: Eight persons familiar with sensory evaluation of fish were given samples from each of the four samples and judged each for intensity of firmness and juiciness on a continuous 100 mm. scale with "high" and "low" as anchor points.

North, S.L., and Neale, R.J. 1995. Knowledge, attitudes, and eating habits of teenagers with respect to salt in their diets. British Food Journal 97 (5): 3-11.
Purpose: To gain information on eating habits of adolescents in relation to the increasing number of hypertension cases in this age group.
Sensory Evaluation: There wasn't any real sensory evaluation, but a questionnaire was given out asking questions like:
- Do you add salt to your food?
- Do you add salt before or after tasting food?
- Estimate your salt intake level: very high, high, medium, low, or very low.
- Which snacks do you eat four or more times a week?
83 subjects, 11-13 years old 41 males and 42 females
131 subjects, 14-16 years old 64 males and 67 females

Nour, A.Y.M., L.A. Gomide, E.W. Mills, R.P. Lemenager, and M.D. Judge. 1994. Influence of production and postmortem technologies on composition and palatability of USDA select grade beef. Journal of Animal Science 72:1224-1231.
Purpose: This experiment investigated the interactions of dietary energy level and breed with carcass ES voltage and chilling rate, and it evaluated compostion and palatability of USDA select grade beef.
Sensory Evaluation: Six trained panelists evaluated loin steaks for initial hardness, initial juiciness, number of chews before meat was ready to swallow, juiciness after chewing, and resistance after chewing. A 15 cm scale with anchor points for selected reference standards was used.

Olarte, C., E. Gonzalez-Fandos and S. Sanz. 2001april. A proposed methodology to determine the sensory quality of fresh goat's cheese (Cameros cheese): application to cheeses packaged under modified atmospheres. Food Quality and Preference 12(3): 163-170.

O'Mahony, M. 1982. Some assumptions and difficulties with common statistics for sensory analysis. Food Technology :75.

O'Mahony, M. 1972. Salt taste sensitivity: a signal detection approach. Perception 1: 459.

O'Mahony, M. 1979. Salt taste adaptation: The psychophysical effects of adapting solutions and residual stimuli from prior tastings on the taste of sodium chloride. Perception 8:441.

O'Mahony, M. 1988. Cognitive aspects of difference testing and descriptive analysis: Criterion variation and concept formation, IN" Psychological Basis of Sensory Evaluation"<(ed.) r.l. mcbride and d.h. macfie. elsevier applied science, london.

O'Mahony, M., S. Atassi-Sheldon, J. Wong, K. Klapman-Baker and S.-Y. Wong. 1984. Salt taste sensivity and stimulus volume: sips and drops. Some implications for the Henkin Taste Test. Perception 13:725.

O'Mahony, M. and L.R. Goldstein. 1986. Effectiveness of sensory difference tests: sequential sensitivity analysis for liquid food stimuli. J. Food Sci. 51:1550.

O'Mahony, M. and N. Odbert. 1985. A comparison of sensory difference testing procedures: sequential sensitivity analysis and aspects of taste adaptation. J. Food Sci. 50:1055.

O'Mahony, M. S.-Y. Wong and N. Odbert. 1986. Sensory difference tests: Some rethinking concerning the general rule that more sensitive tests use fewer stimuli. Lebens. Wissenschaft u. Technol. 19:93.

O'Mahony, M. 1995. Who told you the triangle test was simple? Food Quality and Preference 6(4):227-238.

O'Neill, L., S. Nicklaus and F. Sauvageot. 2003October. A matching task as a potential technique for descriptive profile validation. Food Quality and Preference 14(7): 539-547. Osburn, W.N. and J.T. Keeton. 1994. Konjac flour gel as a fat substitute in low fat prerigor fresh pork sausage. Jounal of Food Science 59:3.
Purpose: Various levels of konjac flour gel in low fat pork sausage were evaluated for chemical, physical, sensory, textural, and microbial characteristics.
Sensory Evaluation: A trained 5 membered panel evaluated sausage samples ,using Spectrum universal intensity scale for aromatics, mouthfeel, and basic taste.

Palsgard, E. and G. Dijksterhuis. 2000September. The sensory perception of flavor release as a function of texture and time: a time-intensity study using flavored gels. Journal of Sensory Studies 15(3): 347-359. Pangborn, R.M. and I.M. Trabue. 1961. Taste interrelationships. II. Suprathreshold solutions of sucrose and citric acid. Journal Food Sci. 26:648.

Pangborn, R.M. 1962. Taste interrelationships. III. Suprathreshold solutions of sucrose and sodium chloride. Journal Food Science. 27:495-500.

Pangborn, R.M. and I.M. Trabue. 1964. Taste interrelationships. V. Sucrose, sodium chloride, and citric acid in lima bean puree. Journal Food Sci. 29:233.

Pangborn, R.M. 1959. Influence of hunger on sweetness preferences and taste thresholds. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 7:280.

Pangborn, R.M. 1975. Cross-cultural aspects of flavor preferences. Food Technol. 29(6):34.

Park, B. A.D. Whittaker, R.K. Miller, D.S. Hale. 1994. Ultrasonic Spectral Analysis for Beef Sensory Attributes. Journal of Food Science, Volume 59(4):697-701.
Purpose: To determine any variances in the sensory scores of beef between an Ultrasonic Spectral Analyzer and a trained and experience panel. Sensory Evaluation: An eight member trained and experienced panel used an eight point scale to evaluate beef samples for juiciness, muscle fiber tenderness, overall tenderness, flavor intensity, and connective tissue. These results were then compared with the evaluations of the same samples by an Ultrasonic Spectral Analyzer.

Park, Hayum, Manjeet Chinnan, Robert L. Shewfelt. 1994. Edible coating effects on storage life and quality of tomatoes. Journal of Food Science59:3.
Purpose: This experiment investigated using a corn-zein film to coat tomatoes to provide beneficial O2 compositon and to determine the effects on color change, weight loss, alcohol formation, and sensory quality.
Sensory Evaluation: 11 trained panelists evaluated tomatoe samples using an 150mm unstructured line scale for flavor, color, and firmness.

Park, J., Rhee, K.S., Kim, B.K., Rhee, K.C. 1993. High Protein Texturized Products of Defatted Soy Flour, Corn Starch and Beef: Shelf Life, Physical and Sensory Properties. Journal of Food Science 58:21.
Purpose: The evaluation of shelf-life, sensory properties, physical, microstructural characteristics, and chemical composition of high-protein texturized products of nondehydrated beef-defatted soy-flour-cornstarch blends.
Sensory Evaluation: A 7 member highly trained professional panelists did texture analysis using the Spectrum method.

Pearce, J. 1980. Sensory evaluation in marketing. Food Technol. 34(11):60.

Pelletier, C.A. and H.T. Lawless. 2003October. Measuring taste acceptance in neurologically impaired adults. Food Quality and Preference 14(7): 595-602. Peryam, D.R. 1964. Consumer preference evaluation of the storage stability of foods. Food Technol. 18(9):214.

Peryam, D.R. and V.W. Swartz. 1950. Measurement of sensory differences. Food Technol. 4:390.

Peryam, D.R. 1958. Sensory difference tests. In "Flavor Research and Food Acceptance," A.D. Little, Inc., p. 47 Reinhold Pub. Co., New York.

Peryam, D.R. and F.J Pilgrim. 1957. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technol. 11(9):Insert 9.

Peyvieux, C. and G. Dijksterhuis. 2001January. Training a sensory panel for TI: a case study. Food Quality and Preference 12(1): 19-28.

Pfaffman, C. 1964. Taste, its sensory and motivating properties. American Scientist 52(2):187-206.

Piggott, J.r. 1995. Design questions in sensory and consumer science. Food Quality and Preference 6(4):217-220.

Pilgrim, F.J., H.G. Schultz, and D. Peryam. 1955. Influence of MSG on taste perception. Food Research. 20:310-314.

Pilgrim, F.J. and D.R. Peryam. 1958. "Sensory Testing Methods-A Manual." Rept. 25-58. quartermaster Food and Container Inst. for the Armed Forces, Chicago, ILL.

Pilgrim, F.J. , H.G. Schutz, and D.R. Peryam. 1955. Influence of monosodium glutamate on taste perception. Food Res. 20:310.

Pino, J.A., A. Rosado, Goire, I., and E. Roneal. 1995. Evaluation of flavor characteristic compounds in dill herb essential oil by sensory analysis and gas chromatography. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 43:1307-1309.
Purpose: This experiment categorized dill oil by a quality rating test by aromas.
Sensory Evaluation: The sniffing method of gas chromatography(GC) was used by well-trained panelists.

Pokorny, J., A. Marcin, and J. Davidek. 1981. Comparison of the efficiency of triangle and tetrade tests for discrimination sensory analysis of food. Die Nahrung 25:561.

Poole, Susan E., Gregory Mitchell, and John L. Mayzl. 1994. Low dose irradiation affects microbial and sensory quality of subtropical seafood.
Purpose: This experiment investigated affects of irradiation an various subtropical seafood.
Sensory Evaluation: A 10 membered taste panel evaluated cooked samples using a 1 to 9 point hedonic scale.

Powers, J.J. 1988(11). Applications of Multivariate Methods in Sensory and Consumer Research. Uses of multivariate methods in screening and training sensory panelists. Food Technology 36:123.

Prell, P.A. 1976. Preparation of reports and manuscripts which include sensory evaluation data. Food Technol. 30(11):40.

Prescott, J., O. Young, and L. O'Neill. 2001June. The impact of variations in flavour compounds on meat acceptability: a comparison of Japanese and New Zealand consumers. Food Quality and Preference 12(4): 257-264.

Raharjo, S., D.R. Dexter, R.C. Worfel, J.N. Sofos, M.B. Solomon, G.W. Shults, and G.R. Schmidt. 1994. Restructuring veal steaks with salt/phosphate and sodium alginate/calcium lactate. Journal of Food Science 59:3.
Purpose: This experiment investigated the use of Na alginate/Ca lactate, salt phosphate, and low value types of beef cuts for preparation of restructured veal steaks for use in institutional markets.
Sensory Evaluation: 6 trained panelists evaluated restructured steaks using a 6 point scale for bind, juiciness, flavor, and texture.

Raharjo, S., Dexter, D.R., Worfel, RC, Sofos, JN, Solomon, MB, Shults, GW, and Schmidt, GR, 1995. Quality characteristics of restructured beef steaks manufactured by various techniques, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):68-71.
Purpose:This experiment evaluated various techniques of restructuring beef steaks and the effects of different ingredients on the steaks.
Sensory Evaluation: Five trained panelists evaluated steaks on 6-point scales of bind(1:very weak, 6:very strong), juiciness(1:very dry, 6:very juicy), and texture(1:ground beef, 6:steak). Color uniformity and off-flavor intensity were also evaluated.

Ramachandran, V.S. and S.M. Anstis. 1986June. The perception of apparent motion. Scientific American 254:102.

Reece, R.N. 1979. A quality assurance perspective of sensory evaluation. Food Technology 33(9):37.

Reddy, N.R., C.L. Schreiber, K.S. Buzard , G.E. Skinner, and D.J. Armstrong. 1994. Shelf life of fresh tilapia fillets packaged in high barrier film with modified atmospheres. Journal of Food Science 59:2.
Purpose: The various effect of modified atmmospheres was assessed as to the effect of shelf life on fresh fillets in high barrier film bags.
Sensory Evaluation: A 5 membered untrained panel evaluated fillet samples for apperance, odor, and texture.

Reed, D.A., L.M. Bartoshuk, V. Duffy, S. Marino and R.A. Price. 1995. Propylthiouracil tasting: Determination of underlying threshold distributions using maxiumum likelihood. Chemical Senses 20(5):529-533.

Resurreccion, A.V.A. 1988(11).Applications of Multivariate Methods in Sensory and Consumer Research. Applications of multivariate methods in food quality evaluation. Food Technology 36:128.

Roberts, Anna K. and Zata M. Vickers. 1994. Cheddar cheese aging: changes in sensory attributes and consumer acceptance. Journal of Food Science 59:2.
Purpose: This study investigated the changes in sensory attributes as cheddar cheese ages.
Sensory Evaluation: 6 trained panelistss evaluated cheesses of different ages on a 54 attribute unstructured line scale.

Roberts, Deborah D., Acree, Terry E. Aug. 1995. Simulations of Retronasal Aroma Using a Modified Headspace Technique: Investigating the Effects of Saliva, Temperature, Shearing, and Oil on Flavor Release. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. pg. 2181.
Purpose: Sniff test to investigate above items.
Sensory Evaluation: Panelists (13 female, 8 male) were given four samples at a time to sniff and rate odor on a line scale.

Roessler, E., R. Pangborn, J. Sidel, and H. Stone. 1978. Expanded statistical tables for estimating significance in paired-preference, paired-difference, duo-trio and triangle tests. J. Fod Sci. 43(3):940.

Rousseau, B. and M.O'Mahony. 2000November. investigation of the effect of within-trial retasting and comparison of the dual-pair, smae-different and triangle paradigms. Food Quality and Preference 11(6): 457-464.

Santerre, Charles R., John Goodrum, Jeanne Kee. 1994. Roasted peanuts and peanut butter quality are affected by supercritical fluid extraction. Journal of Food Science 59:2.
Purpose: This experiment investigated SFE processed peanuts for quality factors in roasted peanuts and peanut butter.
Sensory Evaluation: Peanuts were evaluated by a 10 membered trained panel using descriptive analyssis. Peanut butter was evaluated by a 9 membered trained panel .

Scharf, A. and H.P. Volkmer. 2000November. The impact of olfactory product expectations on the olfactory product experience. Food quality and Preference 11(6): 497-495.

Schutz, H.G. 1988(11). Applications of Multivariate Methods in Sensory and Consumer Research. Multivariate analyses and the measurement of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Food Technology 36:128.

Schutz, H.G. 1965. A food action rating scale for measuring food acceptance. J. Food Sci. 30(2):365.

Schutz, H.G. 1971. Sources of invalidity in the sensory evaluation of foods. Food Technol. 25(3):53.

Schultz, H.G. and J.D. Damrell. 1974. Prediction of hedonic ratings of rice by sensory analysis. Journal Food Sci. 29:203.

Schwenn, E. and L. Postman. 1967. Studies of learning to learn. V. Gains in performance as a function of warm-up and associative practice. J. Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior 6:565.

Seetharaman,K., R.D. Waniska, and L. Dexter. 1994. An approach to increasing fiber content of wheat tortillas. Cereal Foods World 39:6.
Purpose: Eight fibers from five sources were added to wheat tortillas and then evaluated for effects on processing and product quality.
Sensory Evaluation: An untrained taste panel subjectively evaluated tortillas for appearance, diameter, pH, moisture, total dietary fiber content, rollability, shelf stability, and organolepttic properties.

Setterfield, W., R.G. Schott, and L.H. Snyder. 1936. Studies in human inheritance XV Ohio J. Sci. 36:231.

Sfiras, J. And A. Demeilliers. 1973. Recent research on olfaction. CRC Critical Reviews in Food Tech. 3(3):313.

Shackelford, S.D., M. Koohmaraie, and T.L. Wheeler. 1994. The efficacy of adding a minimum adjusted fat thickness requirement to the USDA beef quality grading standards for select beef grade. Journal of Animal Science 72:1502-1507.
Purpose: Thsi experimaent investigated adding minimum 5mm adjusted fat thickness requirement to the USDA grading standard.
Sensory Evaluation: An eight membered trained sensory panel evaluated beef steaks for tenderness, juiciness, and beef flavor intensity an an 8 point scale.

Shallenberger, R.S. and T.E. Acree. 1967. Molecular theory of sweet taste. Nature (London) 216:480.

Shallenberger, R.S., T.E. Acree, and C.Y. Lee. 1969. Sweet taste of D and L sugars and amino acids and the steric nature of their chemoreceptor site. Nature (London) 221:555.

Shallenberger, R.S. 1963. Hydrogen bonding and the varying sweetness of the sugars. Journal Food Science 28:585-589.

Sharon, I.M. 1965. Sensory properties of foods and their function during feeding. Food Tech. 19(1):35-36.

Shediack, Jr., J.C. 1995. The making of a flavorist. . Cereal Foods World 40:206-7.
Purpose: The article discusses the basic role of a flavorist and outlines specifications for candidates for flavorist training.
Sensory Evaluation: Example of three tests for training are given: one each for sense of smell, taste threshold, and flavor(organoleptic).

Shimoda, M., Shiratsuchi, H., Minegishi, Y., Osajima, Y. 1993. Flavor Deterioration of Nonfermented Coarse-Cut Sausage during Storage. Flavor as a Factor of Quality for Nonfermented Sausage. 2. Journal of Agriculture & Food Chemistry 41:946.
Purpose: To relate flavor deterioration of nonfermented sausage during storage to the change in volatile compounds.
Sensory: 8-10 trained panelists used a dipole scale to evaluate the nonfermented sausage.

Shimoda, M.,H. Shigematsu, H. Shiratsuchi, and Y. Osajima. 1995. Comparison of volatile compounds among different grades of green tea and their relations to odor attributes. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 43:1621-1625.
Purpose: The sensory test was done to reveal the characteristics of aromas in 60 different tea samples.
Sensory Evaluation: A panel of three tea manufacturers and one professional cup-tester of green tea evaluated green-tea infusions using eleven Japanese odor descriptive terms.

Shimomura, J. and F. Motokizawa. 1995. Functional equivalence of the two sides of the human nose in odor detection. Chemical Senses 20(5):585-587.

Siegel, S.F. and E. Risvik. 1987. Cognitive set and food acceptance. Journal of Food Science 52(3): 825.

Simons, C.T., M. Iodi Carstens, and E. Carstens. 2003July. Oral irritation by mustard oil: Self-desensitization and cross-desensitization with capsaicin. Chemical Senses 28 (6): 459-465.
Small, A.D., Claus, JR, Wang, H., and Marriot, N.G., 1995. Particle size and mixing time effects on sensory and physical properties of low-fat, high-moisture pork frankfurters. Journal of Food Science, 60(1):40-41.
Purpose: This study was to see if mixing time and particles size affects sensory analysis.
Sensory Evaluation:A seven-membered, trained panel evaluated visual particle size in frankfurters on an 8-point scale (1=extremely coarse, 8=extremely fine).

Smith, E.A. , E. Chambers IV, S. Colley. 1994. Development of Vocabulary and References for Describing Off-Odors in Raw Grains. Cereal Foods World 39 (7):495-499.
Purpose: To obtain an objective and consistent method for inspectors to grade grain based on odor parameters and document findings within a certain set of vocabulary.
Sensory Evaluation: Trained and experienced panelists used petri dished with 120 ml of samples to document findings based on odor. Panelists then worked to combine findings into 29 specific words describing the odor.

Smith, J.S., and Alfawaz, M., 1995. Antioxidative activity of Maillard reaction products in cooked ground beef, sensory and TBA values, Journal of Food Science, 60(1):234-236.
Purpose: This evaluated the effects of Maillard reaction products on the development of rancidity of cooked beef.
Sensory Evaluation: A five-membered trained panel evaluated ground beef samples using a 15-point numerical, descriptive analysis scale (0=none, 15=extreme) for aroma and flavor.

Smythe, J.E. and C.W. Bamforth. 2003October. The path analysis method of eliminating preferred stimuli (PAMEPS) as a means to determine foam preferences for lagers in European judges based upon image assessment. Food Quality and Preference 14(7): 567-572. Soldo, T., I. Blank, and T. Hofmann. 2003June. (+)-(S)-Alapyridaine-A general taste enhancer?Chemical Senses 28 (5): 371-379. Stewart-Knox, B., H. Parr, B. Bunting and P. Mitchell. 2003October. A model for reduced fat food product development success. Food Quality and Preference 14(7): 583-593. Stewart, R.A. 1971. The role of sensory evaluation in quality assurance. Food Tech. 25:401-404.

Stillman, J.A. and R.J. Irwin. 1995. Advantages of the same-different method over the traingle method for the measurement of taste discrimination. Journal of Sensory Studies 10(3):261-272.

Sidel, J.L. and H. Stone. 1976. Experimental design and analysis of sensory tests. Food Technol. 30(11):32. Simone, M. and R.M. Pangborn. 1957. Consumer acceptance methodology : One vs. two samples. Food Technol. 11(9):Insert 25.

Sinki, G.S. 1988 (7). Finding the Universally acceptable taste. Food Technology 36(7):90. Purpose: This dicusses the development of universally acceptable tastes.
Content: How diverse are the tastes of different consumers? What are the scientific interpretations for this diversity? Is there a common thread for pleasing the palate?

Sjostrom, L.B., S.E. Cairncross and J.F. Caul. 1957. Methodology of the flavor profile. Food Technol. 11(9): Insert 20.

Skinner, E. 1980. Sensory evaluation in distribution. Food Technol. 34(11):65.

Soltan, H.C. and S.E. Bracken. 1958. The relation of sex to taste reactions. J. Heredity 49:280.

Sortillo, Eliezer and Navam Hettiarachchy. 1994. Corn meal sunflower extrudates and thier phsiochemical properties. Journal of Food Science 59:2.
Purpose: This experiment investigated mixed sunflower meal-corn meal extrudates to determine some chemical, physical, and sensory properties.
Sensory Evaluation: A 15 member panel evaluated extrudates for crispiness using a 6 point scale.

Sparkman, A.F., L.F. Simmons, S. Sullivan, C. Roberts-Gray. 1988(4). Tools to measure sensory appeal of menus planned for children. Journal Am. Dietetic Assoc. 88:488.
Purpose: To describe the Menu Variety Checklist and Score Sheet to facilitate evaluation of sensory appeal into menus planned for children.
Specht, K, W. Bates. 1994. Identification of Volatility Flavor Compounds with High Aroma Values for Shallow-Fried Beef. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, Volume 42:10.
Purpose: To judge the differences of aroma of shallow-fried beef when cooking temperatures and times change. T