Consumer Acceptability, Eye Fixation, and Physiological Responses: A Study of Novel and Familiar Chocolate Packaging Designs Using Eye-Tracking Devices
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants for Sensory Sessions
2.2. Stimuli
2.3. Sensory Session, Video Acquisition, and Analysis
2.4. Facial Expressions and Eye-Tracking Measurements
2.5. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Perceptual Maps
3.2. Self-Reported Responses for Novel and Familiar Chocolate Packaging
3.3. Eye-Tracking Measurements
3.4. Multivariate Data Analysis
3.4.1. Eye-Tracking Data
3.4.2. Linking Eye-Tracking Data with FaceReader™ Responses
3.4.3. Integrating Self-Reported and Biometric Responses of Consumers
4. Discussion
4.1. Perceptual Maps
4.2. Self-Reported Responses
4.3. Eye-Tracking Measurements
4.4. Multivariate Data Analysis
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Stewart-Knox, B.; Mitchell, P. What separates the winners from the losers in new food product development? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2003, 14, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, A.I.; Jongen, W. New insights into consumer-led food product development. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2006, 17, 457–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bell, R. Report review: Reaching the billion dollar mark: A review of today’s global brands, September 2001, from AC Nielsen. Eur. Retai. Dig. 2002, 33, 80. [Google Scholar]
- Creusen, M.E.; Schoormans, J.P. The different roles of product appearance in consumer choice. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2005, 22, 63–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wells, L.E.; Farley, H.; Armstrong, G.A. The importance of packaging design for own-label food brands. Int. J. Retail Distrib. Manag. 2007, 35, 677–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghaei, S.; Naeini, A. Consumer attitudes toward new pasta products in iran market: A qualitative and quantitative study. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2018, 8, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothman, R.L.; Housam, R.; Weiss, H.; Davis, D.; Gregory, R.; Gebretsadik, T.; Shintani, A.; Elasy, T.A. Patient understanding of food labels: The role of literacy and numeracy. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2006, 31, 391–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harper, L.; Souta, P.; Ince, J.; Mckenzie, J. Food Labelling Consumer Research: What Consumers Want; A Literature Review; Foods Standards Agency: London, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ocké, M.; Van Rossum, C.; Fransen, H.; Buurma, E.; De Boer, E.; Brants, H.; Niekerk, E.; Van der Laan, J.; Drijvers, J.; Ghameshlou, Z. Dutch national food consumption survey. Young Child. 2010, 68, S21. [Google Scholar]
- Sørensen, H.S.; Clement, J.; Gabrielsen, G. Food labels—An exploratory study into label information and what consumers see and understand. Int. Rev. Retail Distrib. Consum. Res. 2012, 22, 101–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitterer-Daltoé, M.L.; Queiroz, M.I.; Fiszman, S.; Varela, P. Are fish products healthy? Eye tracking as a new food technology tool for a better understanding of consumer perception. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 55, 459–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ballco, P.; de-Magistris, T.; Caputo, V. Consumer preferences for nutritional claims: An exploration of attention and choice based on an eye-tracking choice experiment. Food Res. Int. 2019, 116, 37–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grunert, K.G.; Wills, J.M.; Fernández-Celemín, L. Nutrition knowledge, and use and understanding of nutrition information on food labels among consumers in the UK. Appetite 2010, 55, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Malam, S.; Clegg, S.; Kirwan, S.; McGinigal, S.; Raats, M.; Shepherd, R.; Barnett, J.; Senior, V.; Hodgkins, C.; Dean, M. Comprehension and Use of UK Nutrition Signpost Labelling Schemes; London Food Standards Agency: London, UK, 2009.
- Watson, W.L.; Kelly, B.; Hector, D.; Hughes, C.; King, L.; Crawford, J.; Sergeant, J.; Chapman, K. Can front-of-pack labelling schemes guide healthier food choices? Australian shoppers’ responses to seven labelling formats. Appetite 2014, 72, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Orth, U.R.; Malkewitz, K. Holistic package design and consumer brand impressions. J. Mark. 2008, 72, 64–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schwartz, B. The tyranny of choice. Sci. Am. 2004, 290, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Matukin, M.; Ohme, R.; Boshoff, C. Toward a better understanding of advertising stimuli processing: Exploring the link between consumers’ eye fixation and their subconscious responses. J. Advert. Res. 2016, 56, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Henderson, J.M.; Brockmole, J.R.; Castelhano, M.S.; Mack, M. Visual saliency does not account for eye movements during visual search in real-world scenes. In Eye Movements; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Shepherd, M.; Findlay, J.M.; Hockey, R.J. The relationship between eye movements and spatial attention. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 1986, 38, 475–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gofman, A.; Moskowitz, H.R.; Fyrbjork, J.; Moskowitz, D.; Mets, T. Extending rule developing experimentation to perception of food packages with eye tracking. Open Food Sci. J. 2009, 3, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Horowitz, T.S.; Wolfe, J.M. Visual search has no memory. Nature 1998, 394, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pieters, R.; Wedel, M. Goal control of attention to advertising: The yarbus implication. J. Consum. Res. 2007, 34, 224–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Milosavljevic, M.; Cerf, M. First attention then intention: Insights from computational neuroscience of vision. Int. J. Advert. 2008, 27, 381–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piqueras-Fiszman, B.; Velasco, C.; Salgado-Montejo, A.; Spence, C. Using combined eye tracking and word association in order to assess novel packaging solutions: A case study involving jam jars. Food Qual. Preference 2013, 28, 328–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meyerding, S.G.; Merz, N. Consumer preferences for organic labels in germany using the example of apples—Combining choice-based conjoint analysis and eye-tracking measurements. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 772–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Motoki, K.; Saito, T.; Nouchi, R.; Kawashima, R.; Sugiura, M. Tastiness but not healthfulness captures automatic visual attention: Preliminary evidence from an eye-tracking study. Food Qual. Preference 2018, 64, 148–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rebollar, R.; Lidón, I.; Martín, J.; Puebla, M. The identification of viewing patterns of chocolate snack packages using eye-tracking techniques. Food Qual. Preference 2015, 39, 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ares, G.; Giménez, A.; Bruzzone, F.; Vidal, L.; Antúnez, L.; Maiche, A. Consumer visual processing of food labels: Results from an eye-tracking study. J. Sens. Stud. 2013, 28, 138–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Facereader, F. Tool for Automatic Analysis of Facial Expression, version 6.0; Noldus Information Technology Wageningen: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Kantar, T. Building Irresistible Brands. Available online: http://www.tnsglobal.com/what-we-do/by-expertise/brand-communication/needscope (accessed on 3 April 2018).
- Gacula, M., Jr.; Rutenbeck, S. Sample size in consumer test and descriptive analysis. J. Sens. Stud. 2006, 21, 129–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokolov, A.N.; Pavlova, M.A.; Klosterhalfen, S.; Enck, P. Chocolate and the brain: Neurobiological impact of cocoa flavanols on cognition and behavior. NeuroSci. Biobehav. Rev. 2013, 37, 2445–2453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Churchill, A.; Behan, J. Comparison of methods used to study consumer emotions associated with fragrance. Food Qual. Preference 2010, 21, 1108–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beckley, J.H.; Paredes, D.; Lopetcharat, K. Product Innovation Toolbox: A Field Guide to Consumer Understanding and Research; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Garber, L.L., Jr.; Burke, R.; Jones, J. The Role of Package Appearance in Consumer Purchase Consideration and Choice; Marketing Science Institute: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Birch, L.L.; Anzman-Frasca, S. Learning to prefer the familiar in obesogenic environments. In Early Nutrition: Impact on Short-and Long-Term Health; Karger Publishers: Basel, Switzerland, 2011; Volume 68, pp. 187–199. [Google Scholar]
- Viejo, C.G.; Fuentes, S.; Howell, K.; Torrico, D.; Dunshea, F.R. Robotics and computer vision techniques combined with non-invasive consumer biometrics to assess quality traits from beer foamability using machine learning: A potential for artificial intelligence applications. Food Control 2018, 92, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Chernatony, L.; McDonald, M. Creating Powerful Brands: The Strategic Route to Success in Consumer, Industrial, and Service Markets; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Quliyev, O.; Ayyubzada, A. The place and importance of domestic tourists’ perceptual maps in tourism marketing. In Proceedings of the 37th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development, Baku, Azerbaijan, 14–15 February 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Schauss, A.G. The physiological effect of color on the suppression of human aggression: Research on baker-miller pink. Int. J. Biosoc. Res. 1985, 2, 55–64. [Google Scholar]
- Dahlén, M.; Lange, F. Advertising weak and strong brands: Who gains? Psychol. Mark. 2005, 22, 473–488. [Google Scholar]
- Gunaratne, N.M.; Viejo, C.G.; Gunaratne, T.M.; Torrico, D.D.; Ashman, H.; Dunshea, F.R.; Fuentes, S. Effects of imagery as visual stimuli on the physiological and emotional responses. Multidiscip. Open Access J. 2019, 2, 206–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seibt, B.; Neumann, R.; Nussinson, R.; Strack, F. Movement direction or change in distance? Self-and object-related approach–avoidance motions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2008, 44, 713–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, C.Y. The use of facial recognition to evaluate human emotion when recognizing shading and texture. Sci. Des. 2016, 62, 5_69. [Google Scholar]
- Deliza, R.; MacFie, H.J. The generation of sensory expectation by external cues and its effect on sensory perception and hedonic ratings: A review. J. Sens. Stud. 1996, 11, 103–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarma, M.; Bhattacharyya, K. Facial expression based emotion detection-a review. ADBU J. Eng. Technol. 2016, 4, 201–205. [Google Scholar]
- Songa, G.; Slabbinck, H.; Vermeir, I.; Russo, V. How do implicit/explicit attitudes and emotional reactions to sustainable logo relate? A neurophysiological study. Food Qual. Preference. 2019, 71, 485–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Juodeikiene, G.; Zadeike, D.; Klupsaite, D.; Cernauskas, D.; Bartkiene, E.; Lele, V.; Steibliene, V.; Adomaitiene, V. Effects of emotional responses to certain foods on the prediction of consumer acceptance. Food Res. Int. 2018, 112, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guntz, T.; Crowley, J.L.; Vaufreydaz, D.; Balzarini, R.; Dessus, P. The Role of Emotion in Problem Solving: First Results from Observing Chess. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Modeling Cognitive Processes from Multimodal Data, Boulder, CO, USA, 16 October 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Ko, C.-H.; Yu, C.-Y. Gender Differences in Emotional Responses to Iconic Design, Advanced Applied Informatics (IIAI-AAI). In Proceedings of the 2016 5th IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics, Kumamoto, Japan, 10–14 July 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Briton, N.J.; Hall, J.A. Beliefs about female and male nonverbal communication. Sex Roles 1995, 32, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Question | Anchors in Continuous Line Scale |
---|---|
How familiar is the package? | Not at all familiar–somewhat unfamiliar–neither unfamiliar nor familiar–somewhat familiar–extremely familiar |
Rate how you like the sample? | Dislike extremely–somewhat dislike–neither like nor dislike–somewhat like–like extremely |
How group to solo is the package? | Group–less group–moderate–less solo–solo |
How reserved to unreserved is the package? | Reserved–less reserved–moderate–less unreserved–unreserved |
How negative to positive is the package? | Negative–less negative–moderate–less positive–positive |
How calm to excited is the package? | Calm–less calm–moderate–less excited |
How stimulated to relaxed is the package? | Stimulated–less stimulated–moderate–less relaxed–relaxed |
Category | Output | Scale |
---|---|---|
Emotions | Neutral | 0–1 |
Happy | 0–1 | |
Sad | 0–1 | |
Angry | 0–1 | |
Surprised | 0–1 | |
Scared | 0–1 | |
Disgusted | 0–1 | |
Contempt | 0–1 | |
Dimensions | Valence | −1–1 |
Arousal | 0–1 | |
Head orientation | X | Degrees |
Y | Degrees | |
Z | Degrees | |
Gaze direction | Left | −1 |
Forward | 0 | |
Right | 1 | |
Facial states | Mouth | 0 (closed), 1 (opened) |
Left eye | 0 (closed), 1 (opened) | |
Right eye | 0 (closed), 1 (opened) | |
Left eyebrow | −1 (lowered), 0 (neutral), 1 (raised) | |
Right eyebrow | −1 (lowered), 0 (neutral), 1 (raised) |
Familiarity | Package Concept | Familiarity | Liking | Group-Solo | Reserved-Unreserved | Negative-Positive | Calm-Excited | Stimulated-Relaxed |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Novel | Bold | 3.14 e ± 3.43 | 8.12 c,d,e ± 3.01 | 6.75 a,b,c ± 3.95 | 7.78 a,b ± 3.19 | 8.69 c,d ± 3.96 | 8.75 b,c,d ± 4.73 | 6.43 c,d ± 4.07 |
Fun | 4.27 d,e ± 4.03 | 9.02 b,c,d ± 3.40 | 6.41 a,b,c,d ± 3.75 | 7.73 a,b ± 3.55 | 10.1 a,b,c ± 3.78 | 10.1 a,b ± 3.91 | 6.16 c,d ± 4.45 | |
Every day | 5.71 c,d ± 4.25 | 7.92 d,e ± 3.70 | 7.38 a,b ± 4.23 | 5.37 b,c ± 4.18 | 8.89 c,d ± 4.25 | 3.91 e ± 4.11 | 9.55 a,b ± 3.60 | |
Special | 6.20 c,d ± 4.37 | 9.98 a,b,c,d ± 3.45 | 7.41 a,b ± 4.17 | 5.74 b,c ± 3.84 | 10.4 a,b,c ± 3.52 | 4.07 e ± 3.43 | 9.74 a ± 3.94 | |
Healthy | 5.59 c,d,e ± 4.46 | 9.12 b,c,d ± 3.58 | 6.56 a,b,c,d ± 4.19 | 7.73 a,b ± 3.82 | 9.29 b,c,d ± 4.07 | 6.88 d ± 4.82 | 7.99 a,b,c ± 4.03 | |
Premium | 6.95 c ± 4.57 | 9.37 b,c,d ± 3.93 | 8.16 a ± 4.76 | 5.56 b,c ± 4.56 | 9.60 b,c ± 4.18 | 7.10 c,d ± 4.89 | 7.54 a,b,c ± 4.27 | |
Familiar | Ferrero Rocher | 13.7 a ± 2.33 | 11.9 a ± 2.73 | 3.60 e ± 4.26 | 6.95 a,b ± 4.61 | 12.3 a ± 2.58 | 9.72 a,b ± 4.48 | 7.13 b,c ± 4.92 |
Marvellous Creations | 11.6 a,b ± 4.35 | 10.5 a,b ± 3.24 | 5.00 b,c,d,e ± 4.83 | 8.90 a ± 4.24 | 11.5 a,b ± 3.43 | 11.5 a ± 3.41 | 4.39 d ± 4.04 | |
Maltesers | 13.1 a ± 2.67 | 9.55 b,c,d ± 3.84 | 4.00 d,e ± 4.56 | 8.43 a ± 4.22 | 10.9 a,b,c ± 3.41 | 10. 9 a,b ± 3.88 | 4.57 d ± 3.82 | |
Roses | 9.19 b ± 4.54 | 10.1 a,b,c ± 2.94 | 4.14 c,d,e ± 3.99 | 7.13 a,b ± 4.23 | 10.7 a,b,c ± 3.47 | 9.59 a,b,c ± 4.41 | 6.41 c,d ± 4.27 | |
Green & Black’s | 6.03 c,d ± 4.81 | 6.39 e ± 3.16 | 8.01 a ± 4.66 | 4.28 c ± 4.18 | 7.25 d ± 3.18 | 3.95 e ± 3.53 | 9.73 a ± 3.57 | |
Lindt | 12.00 a,b ± 3.99 | 10.8 a,b ± 3.24 | 6.57 a,b,c,d ± 4.53 | 6.69 a,b,c ± 4.36 | 11.4 a, ± 3.10 | 9.77 a,b ± 4.62 | 5.79 c,d ± 4.29 |
Familiarity | AOI | Neutral NS | Happy NS | Sad | Angry NS | Surprised NS | Scared NS | Disgusted NS | Contempt NS | Valence NS | Arousal NS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Novel | Brand name | 0.80 ± 0.12 | 0.08 ± 0.19 | 0.09 a ± 0.08 | 0.15 ± 0.20 | 0.09 ± 0.12 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.005 ± 0.004 | 0.12 ± 0.14 | −0.10 ± 0.07 | 0.33 ± 0.10 |
Image | 0.42 ± 0.29 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.24 a,b ± 0.12 | 0.08 ± 0.07 | 0.23 ± 0.17 | 0.38 ± 0.39 | 0.007 ± 0.005 | 0.03 ± 0.05 | −0.47 ± 0.31 | 0.59 ± 0.34 | |
Ingredients | 0.44 ± 0.32 | 0.009 ± 0.01 | 0.24 a,b ± 0.09 | 0.10 ± 0.10 | 0.22 ± 0.19 | 0.42 ± 0.39 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.03 ± 0.05 | −0.50 ± 0.31 | 0.57 ± 0.36 | |
Manufacturers information | 0.43 ± 0.24 | 0.02 ± 0.06 | 0.23 a,b ± 0.17 | 0.20 ± 0.25 | 0.23 ± 0.17 | 0.34 ± 0.36 | 0.006 ± 0.005 | 0.01 ± 0.02 | −0.51 ± 0.23 | 0.56 ± 0.30 | |
Nutritional information | 0.50 ± 0.26 | 0.06 ± 0.12 | 0.17 a,b ± 0.11 | 0.11 ± 0.11 | 0.16 ± 0.19 | 0.26 ± 0.35 | 0.03 ± 0.05 | 0.07 ± 0.11 | −0.33 ± 0.30 | 0.54 ± 0.33 | |
Net weight | 0.62 ± 0.22 | 0.03 ± 0.04 | 0.18 a,b ± 0.18 | 0.14 ± 0.25 | 0.14 ± 0.26 | 0.14 ± 0.21 | 0.02 ± 0.03 | 0.05 ± 0.31 | −0.25 ± 0.23 | 0.45 ± 0.22 | |
Bar code | 0.42 ± 0.19 | 0.02 ± 0.04 | 0.40 b ± 0.20 | 0.10 ± 0.08 | 0.14 ± 0.26 | 0.30 ± 0.33 | 0.01 ± 0.009 | 0.01 ± 0.02 | −0.50 ± 0.18 | 0.54 ± 0.29 |
Familiarity | AOI | Neutral NS | Happy NS | Sad NS | Angry NS | Surprised NS | Scared NS | Disgusted NS | Contempt NS | Valence NS | Arousal NS |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Familiar | Brand name | 0.57 ± 0.31 | 0.008 ± 0.005 | 0.19 ± 0.13 | 0.05 ± 0.04 | 0.22 ± 0.10 | 0.28 ± 0.36 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.02 ± 0.02 | −0.340.31 | 0.53 ± 0.35 |
Image | 0.24 ± 0.06 | 0.01 ± 0.01 | 0.44 ± 0.30 | 0.08 ± 0.05 | 0.17 ± 0.13 | 0.46 ± 0.33 | 0.009 ± 0.006 | 0.001 ± 0.002 | −0.64 ± 0.14 | 0.67 ± 0.45 | |
Ingredients | 0.43 ± 0.34 | 0.007 ± 0.009 | 0.21 ± 0.25 | 0.08 ± 0.04 | 0.16 ± 0.18 | 0.39 ± 0.34 | 0.01 ± 0.007 | 0.02 ± 0.03 | −0.45 ± 0.35 | 0.65 ± 0.26 | |
Manufacturers information | 0.58 ± 0.38 | 0.005 ± 0.004 | 0.27 ± 0.30 | 0.04 ± 0.02 | 0.14 ± 0.17 | 0.15 ± 0.18 | 0.008 ± 0.007 | 0.16 ± 0.28 | −0.28 ± 0.29 | 0.75 ± 0.12 | |
Nutritional Information | 0.45 ± 0.27 | 0.007 ± 0.007 | 0.17 ± 0.09 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | 0.21 ± 0.14 | 0.38 ± 0.34 | 0.008 ± 0.005 | 0.02 ± 0.05 | −0.41 ± 0.31 | 0.67 ± 0.25 | |
Net weight | 0.71 ± 0.30 | 0.004 ± 0.002 | 0.11 ± 0.03 | 0.09 ± 0.08 | 0.13 ± 0.08 | 0.12 ± 0.21 | 0.004 ± 0.004 | 0.07 ± 0.10 | −0.21 ± 0.13 | 0.48 ± 0.37 | |
Bar code | 0.50 ± 0.37 | 0.007 ± 0.005 | 0.16 ± 0.13 | 0.05 ± 0.03 | 0.22 ± 0.09 | 0.44 ± 0.47 | 0.008 ± 0.006 | 0.008 ± 0.01 | −0.46 ± 0.44 | 0.61 ± 0.32 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gunaratne, N.M.; Fuentes, S.; Gunaratne, T.M.; Torrico, D.D.; Ashman, H.; Francis, C.; Gonzalez Viejo, C.; Dunshea, F.R. Consumer Acceptability, Eye Fixation, and Physiological Responses: A Study of Novel and Familiar Chocolate Packaging Designs Using Eye-Tracking Devices. Foods 2019, 8, 253. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8070253
Gunaratne NM, Fuentes S, Gunaratne TM, Torrico DD, Ashman H, Francis C, Gonzalez Viejo C, Dunshea FR. Consumer Acceptability, Eye Fixation, and Physiological Responses: A Study of Novel and Familiar Chocolate Packaging Designs Using Eye-Tracking Devices. Foods. 2019; 8(7):253. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8070253
Chicago/Turabian StyleGunaratne, Nadeesha M., Sigfredo Fuentes, Thejani M. Gunaratne, Damir D. Torrico, Hollis Ashman, Caroline Francis, Claudia Gonzalez Viejo, and Frank R. Dunshea. 2019. "Consumer Acceptability, Eye Fixation, and Physiological Responses: A Study of Novel and Familiar Chocolate Packaging Designs Using Eye-Tracking Devices" Foods 8, no. 7: 253. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8070253