Recalling Taste Intensities in Sweetened and Salted Liquids

Abstract

The effect of training on recalling taste intensities over 6 weeks was studied using an ad libitum mixing procedure. Subjects tasted sweet and salty standards labeled as "weak' and "strong' (3 and 8% sucrose in redcurrant juice; 0.4 and 1.2% NaCl in beef broth). They subsequently mixed unsweetened and sweetened juice, and unsalted and salted broth, to produce taste intensities that corresponded to the standards. A minimum training (MT) group (n = 13) produced comparison stimuli by tasting and directly comparing with standards in one session only; an extensive training (ET) group (n = 13) did this in six sessions before producing comparison stimuli based on memory only at 1 h, 1 day, 1 week and 6 weeks. An upward bias (chemically determined concentrations of comparison stimuli exceeding those of standards) occurred at 1 day or 1 week in MT subjects for 'weak' and 'strong' sweetness, and for 'strong' saltiness, and sustained thereafter. The upward tendency was also observed in ET subjects but was significant only for 'strong' sweetness. It is important to recognize memory effects such as the one described, as they affect food perceptions and can be a major source of bias in sensory food research.

A comparison of serial monadic and attribute-by-attribute protocols for simple descriptive analysis with untrained judges

“…For texture judgements, Harker, Gunson, Brookfield, and White (2002) noted how judges were not accurate at comparing the hardness of apples eaten 1 min apart. Taste studies requiring judges to match taste intensities of previously tasted stimuli, by mixing strong and weak components, indicated a tendency to overestimate the intensity of stimuli tasted immediately beforehand (Theunissen, Tuorila, & Ahlströ m, 1993;Tuorila, Theunissen, & Ahlströ m, 1996;. For taste and odor stimuli, Barker and Weaver (1983) required judges to state whether a stimulus was greater, lesser or equal in intensity to stimuli tasted 1 min before; they found a tendency to underestimate the intensity of the previous stimulus.…”

Package images modulate flavors in memory: Incidental learning of fruit juice flavors

“…Baker and Weaver (1983) found that the target taste stimuli were remembered as being weaker. On the other hand, it has been reported that the target taste stimuli was remembered as being stronger (Tuorila et al, 1996;Vanne et al, 1998). Such a difference in the directionality of change for taste memory might be due to differences in participants' first impressions of a taste during encoding.…”

“…In the past, studies of taste and flavor memory (Baker & Weaver, 1983;Tuorila et al, 1996;Vanne et al, 1998) used an intentional memory paradigm where participants consciously attempted to remember stimuli. However, in daily life many memories are of an incidental rather than intentional nature.…”

“…In contrast, Vanne, Laurinen, and Tuorila (1998) reported that participants tended to recall the taste intensities of sucrose solutions as more intense than they had actually been. Similarly, an increase in taste intensity was also found for flavor stimuli (Tuorila, Theunissen, & Ahlstrom, 1996). Thus, although it has been shown that taste in memory can change, there is still disagreement about its direction, and no consideration as yet of the effect of labeling.…”

Creating memorable products: Actual liking and remembered liking

“…We further observed a higher score on actual perceived cheese flavour than on remembered cheese flavour intensity (45 ± 2.4 versus 39 ± 2.4; p < 0.05), whereas saltiness remained the same (38 ± 2.3 versus 38 ± 2.4; p = 0.73). This might suggest that certain attributes gain or loose importance, while others remain invariable in consumer memory (see also Tuorila, Theunissen, & Ahlströ m, 1996).…”