Characterizing Individual Differences in Sweet Taste Hedonics: Test Methods, Locations, and Stimuli

Abstract

Sweetness drives the consumption of added sugars, so understanding how to best measure sweet hedonics is important for developing strategies to lower sugar intake. However, methods to assess hedonic response to sweetness vary, making results across studies difficult to integrate. We compared methods to measure optimal sucrose concentration in 21 healthy adults (1) using paired-comparison preference tracking vs. ratings of liking, (2) with participants in the laboratory vs. at home, and (3) using aqueous solutions vs. vanilla milk. Tests were replicated on separate days to assess test-retest reliability. Test-retest reliability was similar between laboratory and home testing, but tended to be better for vanilla milk and preference tracking. Optimal sucrose concentration was virtually identical between laboratory and home, slightly lower when estimated via preference tracking, and about 50% lower in vanilla milk. However, optimal sucrose concentration correlated strongly between methods, locations, and stimuli. More than 50% of the variability in optimal sucrose concentration could be attributed to consistent differences among individuals, while much less variability was attributable to differences between methods. These results demonstrate convergent validity between methods, support testing at home, and suggest that aqueous solutions can be useful proxies for some commonly consumed beverages for measuring individual differences.

Acute Taste Dysfunction in Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients after Transoral Robotic Surgery

“…Tests were offered in-person or virtually via video conference due to ongoing concerns about COVID transmission, as virtual taste testing has similar test-retest reliability to in-person testing. 36 Taste stimuli included deionized water, quinine HCl 0.001 M (bitter), sodium chloride 1 M (saline; salty), sucrose 0.5 M (sweet), citric acid 0.65 M (sour), and monosodium glutamate (MSG) 0.6 M (umami or savory). Taste identification (TI), intensity, and hedonic score (HS) were tested in thee oral regions: whole-mouth, left posterolateral tongue, and right posterolateral tongue.…”

Harnessing Food Product Reviews for Personalizing Sweetness Levels

“…Generally, sweet-taste-liking response is characterized as either positive, with an increase of sweetness intensity, negative, or an inverted-U shape [49], with no consensus on the optimal way to identify these phenotypes [50]. Overall, people who prefer lower sweetness intensity are likely to rate highly sweet products lower than those with a higher sweetness intensity preference [20].…”

“…Food companies are aiming to optimize the sensory profile and liking of the products, by measuring taste perception and hedonics using multiple sensory evaluation techniques, such as descriptive sensory analysis, hedonic and preference tests [9,19]. Sweetness ratings can be achieved using various methods, and though the scores depend on the measurements, the scales and the context [9,20], optimal concentration of sucrose is mostly consistent among different test conditions [20].…”

Exploring differences in Korean consumers' perceptions of plant‐based jerky at different test locations: a comparison of the central location test, drive‐thru test, and home‐use test

“…Parallelly, the spread of the smartphone is an important factor, wherein the accessibility of the online environment both allows panellists to have remote control of and facilitates at‐home testing procedures. Thus, many recent studies have employed remote sensory testing (Cheung et al ., 2022; Dinnella et al ., 2022; Tapia & Lee, 2022; Viejo et al ., 2022). For example, in a study examining the effectiveness and validity of remote sensory tests based on comparisons with various conventional laboratory applications, including the discrimination test (triangle and tetrad tests), descriptive analysis, temporal dominance of sensations, and check‐all‐that‐apply (CATA), excluding the tetrad, each produced similar results to those obtained from the laboratory (Dinnella et al ., 2022).…”