The Relationships Between Common Measurements of Taste Function

Webb, Jordannah; Bolhuis, Dieuwerke P.; Cicerale, Sara; Hayes, John E.; Keast, Russell

doi:10.1007/s12078-015-9183-x

Cited by 161 publications

(164 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

134

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These findings refute the notion of generalized hypergeusia (Hayes and Keast 2011; Webb et al 2015), and suggest there is a great deal of inter-individual variation both across and within measures of a quality. Of particular note, no participant was more sensitive or less sensitive to all taste qualities across all taste measures.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 44%

“…These concentrations were derived through informal bench-top testing (ascending taste intensity) and were similar to the concentrations outlined by Webb et al (2015). The concentrations for each prototypical stimulus ranged from “weak” to “strong” on the gLMS.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such individual variation may be due to differences in human physiology [e.g., variation in the human TAS1R2 gene (Kim et al 2006)] or cognitive functioning when perceiving a sweet stimulus (Webb et al 2015). Most human psychophysical studies investigating sweet taste, however, have employed only one measure of taste function to measure sweet taste.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Psychophysical Evaluation of Sweetness Functions Across Multiple Sweeteners

Low

McBride

Lacy

2016

CHEMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sweetness is one of the 5 prototypical tastes and is activated by sugars and non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS). The aim of this study was to investigate measures of sweet taste function [detection threshold (DT), recognition threshold (RT), and suprathreshold intensity ratings] across multiple sweeteners. Sixty participants, 18–52 years of age (mean age in years = 26, SD = ±7.8), were recruited to participate in the study. DT and RT were collected for caloric sweeteners (glucose, fructose, sucrose, erythritol) and NNS (sucralose, rebaudioside A). Sweetness intensity for all sweeteners was measured using a general Labeled Magnitude Scale. There were strong correlations between DT and RT of all 4 caloric sweeteners across people (r = 0.62–0.90, P < 0.001), and moderate correlations between DT and RT for both of the NNS (r = 0.39–0.48, P < 0.05); however, weaker correlations were observed between the DT or RT of the caloric sweeteners and NNS (r = 0.26–0.48, P < 0.05). The DT and RT of glucose and fructose were not correlated with DT or RT of sucralose (P > 0.05). In contrast, there were strong correlations between the sweetness intensity ratings of all sweeteners (r = 0.70–0.96, P < 0.001). This suggests those caloric sweeteners and NNS access at least partially independent mechanisms with respect to DT and RT measures. At suprathreshold level, however, the strong correlation between caloric sweeteners and NNS through weak, moderate, and strong intensity indicates a commonality in sweet taste mechanism for the perceived intensity range.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 44%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Psychophysical Evaluation of Sweetness Functions Across Multiple Sweeteners

Low

McBride

Lacy

2016

CHEMSE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our observation of a CD36 gene effect on the attribute ratings but not on threshold discrimination is not surprising since threshold acuity may not be strongly related to suprathreshold (that is, above threshold) taste intensity (Bartoshuk, 1978; Webb, Bolhuis, Cicerale, Hayes, & Keast, ). However, prior studies on CD36 genotypes and fat perception have not compared these two measures of perceptual ability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Effects of CD36 Genotype on Oral Perception of Oleic Acid Supplemented Safflower Oil Emulsions in Two Ethnic Groups: A Preliminary Study

Burgess

Melis

Scoular

et al. 2018

Journal of Food Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies demonstrate humans can detect fatty acids via specialized sensors on the tongue, such as the CD36 receptor. Genetic variation at the common single nucleotide polymorphism rs1761667 of CD36 has been shown to differentially impact the perception of fatty acids, but comparative data among different ethnic groups are lacking. In a small cohort of Caucasian and East Asian young adults, we investigated if: (1) participants could detect oleic acid (C18:1) added to safflower oil emulsions at a constant ratio of 3% (w/v); (2) supplementation of oleic acid to safflower oil emulsions enhanced perception of fattiness and creaminess; and (3) variation at rs1761667 influenced oleic acid detection and fat taste perception. In a 3‐alternate forced choice test, 62% of participants detected 2.9 ± 0.7 mM oleic acid (or 0.08% w/v) in a 2.8% safflower oil emulsion. Supplementation of oleic acid did not enhance fattiness and creaminess perception for the cohort as a whole, though East Asians carrying the GG genotype perceived more overall fattiness and creaminess than their AA genotype counterparts (P < 0.001). No differences were observed for the Caucasians. These preliminary findings indicate that free oleic acid can be detected in an oil‐in‐water emulsion at concentrations found in commercial oils, but it does not increase fattiness or creaminess perception. Additionally, variation at rs1761667 may have ethnic‐specific effects on fat taste perception.

show abstract

“…To compare across scales, systematic transformations have been applied in a number of contexts for both intensity and hedonic ratings (Green et al, 1993;Lim, Wood, & Green, 2009;Schutz & Cardello, 2001). Normalizing individual ratings to a cross-modal standard (e.g., the brightness of the sun, the intensity of a tone, or the heaviness of jars of sand) has also been used to compare scales (Duffy, Peterson, & Bartoshuk, 2004;Hayes et al, 2013;Webb, Bolhuis, Cicerale, Hayes, & Keast, 2015). In addition, a greater understanding of how scale elements (i.e., anchors, label presence and spacing, etc.)…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Data approximation strategies between generalized line scales and the influence of labels and spacing

Kershaw

Running

2019

Journal of Sensory Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing sensory data gathered using different line scales is challenging. We tested whether adding internal labels to a generalized visual analog scale (gVAS) would improve comparability to a typical generalized labeled magnitude scale (gLMS). Untrained participants evaluated cheeses using one of four randomly assigned scales. Normalization to a cross‐modal standard and/or two gLMS transformations were applied to the data. Response means and distributions were lower for the gLMS than the gVAS, but no difference in resolving power was detected. The presence of labels, with or without line markings, caused categorical‐like lumping of responses. Closer low‐end label spacing for gLMS increased influenced participants to mark near higher intensity labels when they were evaluating low‐intensity samples. Although normalization reduced differences between scales, neither transformation nor normalization was supported as appropriate gLMS/gVAS approximation strategies. This study supports previous observations that neither scale offers a systematic advantage and that participant usage differences limit direct scale comparisons. Practical applications Practitioners should exercise caution when comparing between gVAS and gLMS data, as neither normalization nor transformations make these equivalent. The value of qualitative information from internal labels generalized labeled magnitude scale (gLMS) and the expected intensity of samples should be considered when choosing a scale (generalized visual analog scale may be better for lower intensity samples, gLMS for high intensity). While all scales in this study provide valid information regarding sample intensity, the impact of scale on statistical assumptions, most notably the non‐normal distribution of residuals from gLMS data, should also be considered and corrected when necessary.

show abstract

The Relationships Between Common Measurements of Taste Function

Cited by 161 publications

References 36 publications

Psychophysical Evaluation of Sweetness Functions Across Multiple Sweeteners

Psychophysical Evaluation of Sweetness Functions Across Multiple Sweeteners

Effects of CD36 Genotype on Oral Perception of Oleic Acid Supplemented Safflower Oil Emulsions in Two Ethnic Groups: A Preliminary Study

Data approximation strategies between generalized line scales and the influence of labels and spacing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About