Research ArticleArticles

Learning and Fatigue in Real Discrete Choice Experiments

Qi Jiang, Jerrod Penn and Wuyang Hu
Land Economics, October 2025, 101 (4) 441-462; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/le.101.4.052823-0046R1

References

  1. ↵
    1. Abate, T. G.,
    2. M. R. Mørkbak, and
    3. S. B. Olsen
    . 2018. “Inducing Value and Institutional Learning Effects in Stated Choice Experiments Using Advanced Disclosure and Instructional Choice Set Treatments.” Agricultural Economics 49 (3): 339–51.
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    1. Aguilar, F. X., and
    2. Z. Cai
    . 2010. “Conjoint Effect of Environmental Labeling, Disclosure of Forest of Origin and Price on Consumer Preferences for Wood Products in the US and UK.” Ecological Economics 70 (2): 308–16.
    OpenUrl
    1. Ahtiainen, H.,
    2. E. Pouta,
    3. W. Zawadzki, and
    4. A. Tienhaara
    . 2023. “Cost Vector Effects in Discrete Choice Experiments with Positive Status Quo Cost.” Journal of Choice Modelling 47: 100401.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Alfnes, F.,
    2. A. G. Guttormsen,
    3. G. Steine, and
    4. K. Kolstad
    . 2006. “Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for the Color of Salmon: A Choice Experiment with Real Economic Incentives.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 88 (4): 1050–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  5. ↵
    1. Arentze, T.,
    2. A. Borgers,
    3. H. Timmermans, and
    4. R. DelMistro
    . 2003. “Transport Stated Choice Responses: Effects of Task Complexity, Presentation Format and Literacy.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 39 (3): 229–44.
    OpenUrl
  6. ↵
    1. Bateman, I. J.,
    2. D. Burgess,
    3. W. G. Hutchinson, and
    4. D. I. Matthews
    . 2008. “Learning Design Contingent Valuation (LDCV): NOAA Guidelines, Preference Learning and Coherent Arbitrariness.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 55 (2): 127–41.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  7. ↵
    1. Bech, M.,
    2. T. Kjaer, and
    3. J. Lauridsen
    . 2011. “Does the Number of Choice Sets Matter? Results from a Web Survey Applying a Discrete Choice Experiment.” Health Economics 20 (3): 273–86.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  8. ↵
    1. Ben-Akiva, M. E., and
    2. S. R. Lerman
    . 1985. Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to Travel Demand. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  9. ↵
    1. Boxebeld, S.
    2024. “Ordering Effects in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Literature Review Across Domains.” Journal of Choice Modelling 51: 100489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2024.100489.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. ↵
    1. Bradley, M., and
    2. A. Daly
    . 1994. “Use of the Logit Scaling Approach to Test for Rank-Order and Fatigue Effects in Stated Preference Data.” Transportation 21 (2): 167–84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    1. Braga, J., and
    2. C. Starmer
    . 2005. “Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis.” Environmental and Resource Economics 32 (1): 55–89.
    OpenUrl
  12. ↵
    1. Brouwer, R.,
    2. T. Dekker,
    3. J. Rolfe, and
    4. J. Windle,
    5. J.
    2010. “Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments.” Environmental and Resource Economics 46: 93–109.
    OpenUrl
  13. ↵
    1. Brown, T. C.,
    2. D. Kingsley,
    3. G. L. Peterson,
    4. N. E. Flores,
    5. A. Clarke, and
    6. A. Birjulin
    . 2008. “Reliability of Individual Valuations of Public and Private Goods: Choice Consistency, Response Time, and Preference Refinement.” Journal of Public Economics 92 (7): 1595–1606.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  14. ↵
    1. Bulte, E.,
    2. S. Gerking,
    3. J. A. List, and
    4. A. de Zeeuw
    . 2005. “The Effect of Varying the Causes of Environmental Problems on Stated WTP Values: Evidence from a Field Study.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 49 (2): 330–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  15. ↵
    1. Campbell, D.,
    2. M. Boeri,
    3. E. Doherty, and
    4. W. G. Hutchinson
    . 2015. “Learning, Fatigue and Preference Formation in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 119: 345–63.
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    1. Campbell, D.,
    2. M. R. Mørkbak, and
    3. S. B. Olsen
    . 2018. “The Link Between Response Time and Preference, Variance and Processing Heterogeneity in Stated Choice Experiments.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 88: 18–34.
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    1. Carlsson, F., and
    2. P. Martinsson
    . 2001. “Do Hypothetical and Actual Marginal Willingness to Pay Differ in Choice Experiments?: Application to the Valuation of the Environment.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 41 (2): 179–92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  18. ↵
    1. Carlsson, F.,
    2. H. He, and
    3. P. Martinsson
    . 2013. “Easy Come, Easy Go: The Role of Windfall Money in Lab and Field Experiments.” Experimental Economics 16: 190–207.
    OpenUrl
  19. ↵
    1. Carlsson, F.,
    2. M. R. Mørkbak, and
    3. S. B. Olsen
    . 2012. “The First Time Is the Hardest: A Test of Ordering Effects in Choice Experiments.” Journal of Choice Modelling 5: 19–37.
    OpenUrl
  20. ↵
    1. Carson, R. T., and
    2. T. Groves
    . 2007. “Incentive and Informational Properties of Preference Questions.” Environmental and Resource Economics 37 (1): 181–210.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. ↵
    1. Carson, R. T., and
    2. J. J. Louviere
    . 2011. “A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches.” Environmental and Resource Economics 49: 539–59.
    OpenUrl
  22. ↵
    1. Caussade, S.,
    2. J. de Dios Ortúzar,
    3. L. I. Rizzi, and
    4. D. A. Hensher
    . 2005. “Assessing the Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choice Experiment Estimates.” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 39 (7): 621–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  23. ↵
    1. Chung, C.,
    2. T. Boyer, and
    3. S. Han
    . 2011. “How Many Choice Sets and Alternatives Are Optimal? Consistency in Choice Experiments.” Agribusiness 27 (1): 114–25.
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    1. Collins, J. P., and
    2. C. A. Vossler
    . 2009. “Incentive Compatibility Tests of Choice Experiment Value Elicitation Questions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 58 (2): 226–35.
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    1. Czajkowski, M.,
    2. M. Giergiczny, and
    3. W. H. Greene
    . 2014. “Learning and Fatigue Effects Revisited: Investigating the Effects of Accounting for Unobservable Preference and Scale Heterogeneity.” Land Economics 90 (2): 324–51. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.90.2.324.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    1. Czajkowski, M.,
    2. C. A. Vossler,
    3. W. Budziński,
    4. A. Wiśniewska, and
    5. E. Zawojska
    . 2017. “Addressing Empirical Challenges Related to the Incentive Compatibility of Stated Preferences Methods.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 142: 47–63.
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    1. Day, B.,
    2. I. J. Bateman,
    3. R. T. Carson,
    4. D. Dupont,
    5. J. J. Louviere,
    6. S. Morimoto,
    7. R. Scarpa, and
    8. P. Wang
    . 2012. “Ordering Effects and Choice Set Awareness in Repeat-Response Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 63 (1): 73–91.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    1. Day, Brett, and
    2. Jose-Luis Pinto Prades
    . 2010. “Ordering Anomalies in Choice Experiments.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59 (3): 271–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  29. ↵
    1. De Palma, André,
    2. Gordon M. Myers, and
    3. Yorgos Y. Papageorgiou
    . 1994. “Rational Choice under an Imperfect Ability to Choose.” American Economic Review 84 (3): 419–40.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  30. ↵
    1. DeSarbo, W. S.,
    2. D. R. Lehmann, and
    3. F. G. Hollman
    . 2004. “Modeling Dynamic Effects in Repeated-Measures Experiments Involving Preference/Choice: An Illustration Involving Stated Preference Analysis.” Applied Psychological Measurement 28 (3): 186–209.
    OpenUrl
  31. ↵
    1. DeShazo, J. R., and
    2. G. Fermo
    . 2002. “Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 44 (1): 123–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  32. ↵
    1. Elrod, T.,
    2. J. J. Louviere, and
    3. K. S. Davey
    . 1992. “An Empirical Comparison of Ratings-Based and Choice-Based Conjoint Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 29 (3): 368–77.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  33. ↵
    1. Fang, D.,
    2. R. M. Nayga Jr.,
    3. G. H. West,
    4. C. Bazzani,
    5. W. Yang,
    6. B. C. Lok,
    7. B. C.,
    8. C. Levy, and
    9. H. A. Snell
    . 2021. “On the Use of Virtual Reality in Mitigating Hypothetical Bias in Choice Experiments.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 103 (1): 142–61.
    OpenUrl
  34. ↵
    1. Fiebig, D. G.,
    2. M. P. Keane,
    3. J. Louviere, and
    4. N. Wasi
    . 2010. “The Generalized Multinomial Logit Model: Accounting for Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity.” Marketing Science 29 (3): 393–421.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  35. ↵
    1. Fraser, I.,
    2. K. Balcombe,
    3. L. Williams, and
    4. E. McSorley
    . 2021. “Preference Stability in Discrete Choice Experiments: Some Evidence Using Eye-Tracking.” Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics 94: 101753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2021.101753.
    OpenUrl
    1. Fuller, K., and
    2. C. Grebitus
    . 2023. “Consumers’ Preferences and Willingness to Pay for Coffee Sustainability Labels.” Agribusiness 39 (4): 1007–25.
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    1. Gerstenblüth, M.,
    2. J. E. Harris, and
    3. P. Triunfo
    . 2022. “Addiction and Rational Choice: Evidence from an Eye Tracking Experiment with Cigarette Packages.” medRxiv preprint 2022-07. https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.07.07.22277382.
  38. ↵
    1. Haab, T.,
    2. L. Y. Lewis, and
    3. J. Whitehead
    . 2020. “State of the Art of Contingent Valuation.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.450.
  39. ↵
    1. Hanley, N.,
    2. R. E. Wright, and
    3. G. Koop
    . 2002. “Modelling Recreation Demand Using Choice Experiments: Climbing in Scotland.” Environmental and Resource Economics 22 (3): 449–66.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  40. ↵
    1. Heiner, R.
    , 1983. “The Origin of Predictive Behavior.” American Economic Review 73 (4): 560–95.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  41. ↵
    1. Hensher, D. A
    . 2001. “Measurement of the Valuation of Travel Time Savings.” Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 35 (1): 71–98.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  42. ↵
    1. Hensher, D. A
    . 2006. “How Do Respondents Process Stated Choice Experiments? Attribute Consideration under Varying Information Load.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 21 (6): 861–78.
    OpenUrl
  43. ↵
    1. Herriges, J.,
    2. C. Kling,
    3. C. C. Liu, and
    4. J. Tobias,
    5. J.
    2010. “What Are the Consequences of Consequentiality?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 59 (1): 67–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
    1. Hess, S.,
    2. D. A. Hensher, and
    3. A. Daly
    . 2012. “Not Bored Yet: Revisiting Respondent Fatigue in Stated Choice Experiments.” Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46 (3): 626–44.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Hess, S., and
    2. J. M. Rose
    . 2012. “Can Scale and Coefficient Heterogeneity Be Separated in Random Coefficients Models?” Transportation 39: 1225–39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    1. Hess, S., and
    2. K. Train
    . 2017. “Correlation and Scale in Mixed Logit Models.” Journal of Choice Modelling 23: 1–8.
    OpenUrl
  47. ↵
    1. Hildebrand, K.,
    2. C. Chung,
    3. T. A. Boyer, and
    4. M. Palma
    . 2023. “Does Change in Respondents’ Attention Affect Willingness to Accept Estimates from Choice Experiments?” Applied Economics 55 (28): 3279–95.
    OpenUrl
  48. ↵
    1. Holmes, T. P., and
    2. K. J. Boyle
    . 2005. “Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions.” Land Economics 81 (1): 114–26. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.81.1.114.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  49. ↵
    1. Howard, G.,
    2. B. E. Roe,
    3. E. C. Nisbet, and
    4. J. F. Martin
    . 2017. “Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Techniques in Choice Experiments: Do Cheap Talk and Honesty Priming Effects Fade with Repeated Choices?” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2): 543–73.
    OpenUrl
  50. ↵
    1. Hoyos, D.
    2010. “The State of the Art of Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments.” Ecological Economics 69 (8): 1595–1603.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  51. ↵
    1. Johnston, R. J.,
    2. K. J. Boyle,
    3. W. Adamowicz,
    4. J. Bennett,
    5. R. Brouwer,
    6. T. A. Cameron,
    7. W. M. Hanemann, et al.
    2017. “Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 4 (2): 319–405.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  52. ↵
    1. Jones, M. S.,
    2. L. A. House, and
    3. Z. Gao
    . 2015. “Respondent Screening and Revealed Preference Axioms: Testing Quarantining Methods for Enhanced Data Quality in Web Panel Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 79 (3): 687–709.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
    1. Kassas, B.,
    2. X. Cao,
    3. Z. Gao,
    4. L. A. House, and
    5. Z. Guan
    . 2023. “Consumer Preferences for Country of Origin Labeling: Bridging the Gap Between Research Estimates and Real-World Behavior.” Journal of Choice Modelling 48: 100429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocm.2023.100429.
    OpenUrl
  54. ↵
    1. Kilders, V., and
    2. V. Caputo
    . 2024. “A Reference‐Price‐Informed Experiment to Assess Consumer Demand for Beef with a Reduced Carbon Footprint.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 106 (1): 3–20.
    OpenUrl
  55. ↵
    1. Krucien, N.,
    2. V. Watson, and
    3. M. Ryan
    . 2017. “Is Best–Worst Scaling Suitable for Health State Valuation? A Comparison with Discrete Choice Experiments.” Health Economics 26 (12): e1–e16.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  56. ↵
    1. Ladenburg, J., and
    2. S. B. Olsen
    . 2008. “Gender-Specific Starting Point Bias in Choice Experiments: Evidence from an Empirical Study.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 56 (3): 275–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  57. ↵
    1. Lim, S. L.,
    2. J. C. Yang,
    3. J. Ehrisman,
    4. L. J. Havrilesky, and
    5. S. D. Reed
    . 2020. “Are Videos or Text Better for Describing Attributes in Stated-Preference Surveys?” Patient-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 13 (4): 401–8.
    OpenUrl
  58. ↵
    1. Mariel, P.,
    2. D. Hoyos,
    3. J. Meyerhoff,
    4. M. Czajkowski,
    5. T. Dekker,
    6. K. Glenk,
    7. J. B. Jacobsen, et al.
    2021. Environmental Valuation with Discrete Choice Experiments: Guidance on Design, Implementation and Data Analysis. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
  59. ↵
    1. McNair, B. J.,
    2. J. Bennett, and
    3. D. A. Hensher
    . 2011. “A Comparison of Responses to Single and Repeated Discrete Choice Questions.” Resource and Energy Economics 33 (3): 554–71.
    OpenUrl
  60. ↵
    1. Meyerhoff, J., and
    2. K. Glenk
    . 2015. “Learning How to Choose: Effects of Instructional Choice Sets in Discrete Choice Experiments.” Resource and Energy Economics 41: 122–42.
    OpenUrl
  61. ↵
    1. Michaud, C.,
    2. D. Llerena, and
    3. I. Joly
    . 2013. “Willingness to Pay for Environmental Attributes of Non-Food Agricultural Products: A Real Choice Experiment.” European Review of Agricultural Economics 40 (2): 313–29.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  62. ↵
    1. Newell, A., and
    2. H. A. Simon
    . 1972. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
  63. ↵
    1. Newell, L. W., and
    2. S. K. Swallow
    . 2013. “Real-Payment Choice Experiments: Valuing Forested Wetlands and Spatial Attributes within a Landscape Context.” Ecological Economics 92: 37–47.
    OpenUrl
  64. ↵
    1. Nguyen, T. C.,
    2. H. T. Le,
    3. H. D. Nguyen,
    4. M. T. Ngo, and
    5. H. Q. Nguyen
    . 2021. “Examining Ordering Effects and Strategic Behaviour in a Discrete Choice Experiment.” Economic Analysis and Policy 70: 394–413.
    OpenUrl
  65. ↵
    1. Oehlmann, M., and
    2. J. Meyerhoff
    . 2017. “Stated Preferences towards Renewable Energy Alternatives in Germany: Do the Consequentiality of the Survey and Trust in Institutions Matter?” Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy 6 (1): 1–16.
    OpenUrl
  66. ↵
    1. Oppewal, H.,
    2. M. Morrison,
    3. P. Wang, and
    4. D. Waller
    . 2010. “Preference Stability: Modeling How Consumer Preferences Shift after Receiving New Product Information.” In Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-Art and the State-of-Practice, edited by S. Hess and A. Daly, 499–516). Leeds: Emerald Group.
  67. ↵
    1. Penn, J. M., and
    2. W. Hu
    . 2018. “Understanding Hypothetical Bias: An Enhanced Meta‐Analysis.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 100 (4): 1186–1206.
    OpenUrl
  68. ↵
    1. Penn, J. M., and
    2. W. Hu
    . 2021. “Videos Improve Attention and Cheap Talk in Online Surveys.” Frontiers of Economics in China 16 (2): 347–76.
    OpenUrl
  69. ↵
    1. Penn, J.,
    2. W. Hu, and
    3. T. Ye
    . 2024. “Efficacy of Hypothetical Bias Mitigation Techniques: A Cross-Country Comparison.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 125: 102989.
    OpenUrl
  70. ↵
    1. Ready, R. C.,
    2. P. A. Champ, and
    3. J. L. Lawton
    . 2010. “Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment.” Land Economics 86 (2): 363–81. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.86.2.363.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  71. ↵
    1. Savage, S. J., and
    2. D. M. Waldman
    . 2008. “Learning and Fatigue during Choice Experiments: A Comparison of Online and Mail Survey Modes.” Journal of Applied Econometrics 23 (3): 351–71.
    OpenUrl
  72. ↵
    1. Scarpa, R.,
    2. D. Campbell, and
    3. W. G. Hutchinson
    . 2007. “Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment.” Land Economics 83 (4): 617–34. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.83.4.617.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. ↵
    1. Scarpa, R.,
    2. M. Thiene, and
    3. D. A. Hensher
    . 2010. “Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter?” Land Economics 86 (4): 817–39. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.86.4.817.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  74. ↵
    1. Schmidt, J., and
    2. T. H. Bijmolt
    . 2020. “Accurately Measuring Willingness to Pay for Consumer Goods: A Meta-Analysis of the Hypothetical Bias.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 48: 499–518.
    OpenUrl
  75. ↵
    1. Swait, J., and
    2. W. Adamowicz
    . 2001. “Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86 (2): 141–67.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  76. ↵
    1. Swait, J., and
    2. J. Louviere
    . 1993. “The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models.” Journal of Marketing Research 30 (3): 305–14.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  77. ↵
    1. Train, K.
    2009. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  78. ↵
    1. Vossler, C. A.,
    2. M. Doyon, and
    3. D. Rondeau
    . 2012. “Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments.” American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 4 (4): 145–71.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  79. ↵
    1. Vossler, C. A.,
    2. D. A. Keiser,
    3. C. L. Kling, and
    4. D. J. Phaneuf
    . 2025. “Information Scripts and the Incentive Compatibility of Discrete Choice Experiments.” Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists 12 (2): 459–92.
    OpenUrl
  80. ↵
    1. Welling, M.,
    2. E. Zawojska, and
    3. J. Sagebiel
    . 2022. “Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation.” Environmental and Resource Economics 82: 257–83.
    OpenUrl
Back to top

In this issue

Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools
Learning and Fatigue in Real Discrete Choice Experiments
Qi Jiang, Jerrod Penn, Wuyang Hu
Land Economics Oct 2025, 101 (4) 441-462; DOI: 10.3368/le.101.4.052823-0046R1
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

Keywords