Gustatory, Olfactory and Trigeminal Interactions in a Model Carbonated Beverage

Abstract

Flavour results from the integration of aroma, taste and chemosensory information within the brain. Understanding interactions between the anatomically separate systems which relay this information is crucial to our appreciation of how different aspects of food contribute to flavour perception and the formulation of successful products. To examine these interactions, a beverage system was created containing elements capable of stimulating gustatory, olfactory and trigeminal systems. Using ingredients relevant to commercial beverages, water, aroma volatiles, tastants and carbonation, enabled examination of the effects of tastant-aroma-carbonation interactions on sensory perception. Samples, selected according to Doptimal designs, were evaluated by a trained panel. Predictive polynomial models were generated from mean panel data to explain variations in the attributes as a function of design factors. Increasing both sugars and acids resulted in increases in perceived flavour. Evidence of differential flavour enhancement profiles of two sugars at perceptually equi-sweet levels, glucose and fructose, supported previous findings in a non-carbonated system (Hewson et al., Food Qual Prefer 19:323-334, 2008). This difference was also evident in models generated for some mouthfeel attributes (tingling and irritant attributes). Carbonation increased sourness, in agreement with previous literature (McLellan et al., J Food Sci 49:1595-1597, 1984 Yau and McDaniel, J Food Sci 57:1412-1416, but also suppressed sweetness. Interestingly, evaluation of beverages revealed the perception of a bitter aftertaste, which was primarily driven by CO 2 level, enhanced by citric acid, and suppressed by increasing sugar concentration. This study provides a comprehensive assessment of the sensory profile of a model carbonated beverage. Analysis provided novel evidence of the influence of multimodal interactions from gustatory, olfactory and trigeminal origin on sensory perception and highlighted the differential effects of two monosaccharides on key sensory attributes.

Effects of Carbonated Liquids on Oropharyngeal Swallowing Measures in People with Neurogenic Dysphagia

“…It is theorized that chemesthetic stimuli such as carbonation excite peripheral sensory receptors and activate sensory fibers in the NTS of the brainstem, which is the main structure responsible for swallow initiation [16,17,19,[45][46][47][48][49][50][51]. Although in the present study CTL did not elicit a faster swallowing response, it did significantly decrease penetration and aspiration compared to NCTL.…”

Modification of perceived beer bitterness intensity, character and temporal profile by hop aroma extract

“…This could be due to further perceptual interactions between bitterness and trigeminal sensations in the oral cavity associated with the hop aroma, since the perceived increased bitterness intensity at this level cannot be due to olfaction. Taste-trigeminal interactions have been re-ported previously in beverages (Hewson et al, 2009). …”

“…The role of congruency on the observed level of taste-aroma interactions is inconsistent; some researchers only observed additivity in congruent taste-aroma pairs (Dalton et al, 2000;Labbe, Damevin, Vaccher, Morgenegg, & Martin, 2006), while others have reported additivity in taste-aroma pair irrespective of congruency (Delwiche & Heffelfinger, 2005). Although both taste and trigeminal sensations are sensed by distinct sensory systems, interactions exist between them which can also affect the perception of flavour in foods (Hewson, Hollowood, Chandra, & Hort, 2009). Trigeminal sensations involve the perception of texture, pungency and temperature within the oral cavity, nasal cavity or on the tongue (Cullen & Leopold, 1999).…”

Effects of Ethanol, Carbonation and Hop Acids on Volatile Delivery in a Model Beer System

“…Samples were made up to 1 L with water and left to solubilise on a roller bed for >6 h and then chilled at 6˚C. The CO 2 containing samples were carbonated to ~3.6 volumes following a method previously described by Hewson 7 . For samples containing hop acids, 100 µL of the hop acid stock was added directly to empty 40 mL sample vials (Fisher Scientific, Loughborough, UK) to create a final sample concentration of 480 µL/L Tetrahop and 120 µL/L Redihop, resulting in 600 µL/L total hop acid concentration (IBU ~80).…”