dbI1IOBbl ~~S 1, Given increasing Irht tlaluQ beta and an increasing aophasis on collaotint better lualitY infornation IrP relltivelY asila test populations, it is advised tbet Wills raia adltioal leans of gaining loeesl to consulers vhieb Plia 1 lora direct control over the research proaeJs and cost, i,e, iprc~sd relss to the otilife Southern Reeearch facility, an atsrntbe oi8a~t, coolrr etudieJ oantrl andlcr 1 postal approach to collecting pl~calnt Lilt data YiWlOut b It~ibl~ CldB OP laDlJMf 8·P&~P~I inhCrlnr ii the Gerplan lodel of prcQet teeting, 2, It is atroagk Fccoradtd that the use of untrained in-houee volunteere in pack placelsnt teeta he avoided, The dcgce of respondent bias is u~ca~ptlbl;. 3~ nt use of thb triad elicitation Iethod or interviewing is advised for generating attributes Ir use in ao··ar product tilts id ell etpdies, It would he valuable for P~ personnel in the probff dnclopcpt function to have rd~P sight Or oons\uper cQpldnt data, and to gain experience observing focus groups used by be Irbtiag function in ~ gualitative preduct evaluation, 51 In coaParative evaluations of hslrafa products it is soleffles apparent that although irritation differences in ttns of lagnitude are not notable, there are ~at dillsraacts in terP of irritation nPalit~, MI is an ilportant observation since lost r~~pro~ct tests OPE use lagnitude scales and lay Lr,rare das a obsoure genuine irritation sualltY differences, IT reflect a spontaneous coosatr attelpt to express differences in irritation pMlltl in a situation pLr( no differences aalprnl I~at In tona of irritation lagnitude. Irritation gPality sodes 18 be incorporated in product test vehicles wherever a quality difference say be suJpclcd. ~4 Ippraprllta attributes to be considered (using q~ph~a salts) would be IIICB and 1I~IO, ClibPDF - v~~fastio.soni - 6, ~ithin a strong emph~sls on consumer elicitation of product attribute vocabulary, certain physiologically based 'universals' should nevertheless be l~olred out for, and jemantic equivalents derived and 'educated in' to the product test situation wing nominal definitions if necessary, As an example, most Group research shows that a reasoMble universal core vocabulary would look at least something as follows: ~AGKEFFORT: The amount of effort necessary, sucking or inhaling on the cigarette, to take in a usuallsatisfactory puff of smoke, .SHOKe TEXTUReQB~PUrHFU1: Ihe amount or density of ~oke filling the mouth on taldng a usual puff of mnoke, ~OIITH.BURN: ~p~ an taste, but a temperature hotness, tickling, prickling, turrlng, or related ~f~ in the mouth andlor on the tongue, rHRILAT BOAil: game as mouth turn, Cut located at the very back of the mouth and in the throat, an after effect of irhalation rather than an immediate effect, and a Ifnned~p sensation, ~HR~BTCATCKIHLT: Only felt specifically at the paint of inhalation a mnaatarr rush, hot, or gripping feeling at the throat or upper chest felt as the smoke goes down, ICB~TE; The aPIPI1P~ of taste wNch the cigarette gives, irrespective of the pleasantness or unpleasantness of the taste net a physical sensation, tut a true taste, qqe~L~a; The aualftv of aroma which the cigarette gives, ~9~ a physical sensation but a true aroma, h' AFTERTASTE: The ineunt of lingering taJtelmouth coating in the mouth area left over frcm smoking the cigarette, C Clit; PDF -!::!!::!!::!.f3 StlC.i: 0111