Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Thermal Tasting and Difference Thresholds for Prototypical Tastes in Wine

  • Published:
Chemosensory Perception

Abstract

Introduction

Thermal tasting—the capacity to experience phantom taste sensations on thermal stimulation of the tongue—has been shown to associate with greater responsiveness to orosensations elicited in aqueous solutions and beverages. Here, we sought to determine if this heightened acuity extends to difference thresholds.

Methods

An ascending two-alternative forced choice method was used to measure difference thresholds for sweetness (sucrose), sourness (tartaric acid), and bitterness (quinine) in a neutral white wine. Individual best-estimate thresholds (BETs) were calculated according to ASTM E-679-04.

Results

Group difference thresholds (g/L) for thermal tasters (TT) and thermal non-tasters (TnT), respectively, were sweetness, 3.52 and 5.24; sourness, 0.23 and 0.70; and bitterness, 0.0058 and 0.0060. There was an overall trend of TTs having lower difference thresholds than TnTs, but this was significant only for sourness (t = 3.95, p = 0.002). Additionally, wine expertise was inversely associated with the difference threshold for sweetness (rho = −0.470, p = 0.029) and was a significant source of variation in the analysis of covariance (t = −2.69, t = 0.016).

Conclusions

These data provide some preliminary evidence that the supra-threshold intensity “advantage” in orosensory perception previously reported for thermal tasters may extend to difference thresholds and complex products such as wine.

Implications

These results add to the evidence that thermal tasting represents a potentially important taste phenotype that may associate with food preference and consumption and should also be considered when populating sensory panels.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Society for Testing and Materials (2004) Designation E-679-04: Standard practice for determination of odor and taste thresholds by forced-choice ascending concentration series method of limits. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

  • Bajec MR, Pickering GJ (2008) Thermal taste, PROP responsiveness, and perception of oral sensations. Physiol and Behav 96:581–690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bajec MR, Pickering GJ (2010) Association of thermal taste and PROP responsiveness with food liking, neophobia, body mass index, and waist circumference. Food Qual Prefer 21:589–601

  • Bajec MR, Pickering GJ, DeCourville N (2012) Influence of stimulus temperature on orosensory perception and variation with taste phenotype. Chemosens Percept 5:243–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker GA, Mrak V, Amerine MA (1958) Errors of the second kind in an acid threshold test. J Food Sci 23(2):150–154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker J, Clarke RJ (2012) Wine flavour chemistry. Blackwell Publishing Co., U.K

  • Bartoshuk LM (2000) Comparing sensory experiences across individuals: recent psychophysical advances illuminate genetic variation in taste perception. Chem Senses 25:447–460

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bering A, Pickering G, Liang P (2014) TAS2R38 single nucleotide polymorphisms are associated with PROP—but not thermal—tasting: a pilot study. Chemosens Percept 7:23–30

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cruz A, Green BG (2000) Thermal stimulation of taste. Nature 403:889–892

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Wijk RA, Dijksterhuis G, Vereijken P, Prinz JF, Weenen H (2007) PROP sensitivity reflects sensory discrimination between custard desserts. Food Qual Prefer 18:597–604

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drewnowski A (1997) Taste preferences and food intake. Annu Rev Nutr 17:237–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy (2007) Variation in oral sensation: implications for diet and health. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 23(2):171–177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Duffy et al (2008) Proc Epid. Stud Taste and Smell Symp, Internat

  • Filipello F (1955) Small panel taste testing of wine. Am J Enol Vitic 6(4):26–32

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Bailo B, Toguri C, Eny KM, El-Sohemy A (2009) Genetic variation in taste and its influence on food selection. Integr Biol 13(1):69–80

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Green BG, George P (2004) Thermal taste predicts higher responsiveness to chemical taste and flavour. Chem Senses 29:617–628

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes John E, Allen Alissa L, Bennett Samantha M (2013) Direct comparison of the generalized visual analog scale (gVAS) and general labeled magnitude scale (gLMS). Food Qual Prefer 28:36–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes JE, Keast RSJ (2011) Two decades of supertasting: where do we stand? Physiol Behav 104(2011):1072–1074

  • Hayes JE, Pickering GJ (2012) Wine expertise predicts taste phenotype. Am J Enol Vitic 63(1):80–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iland P, Bruer N, Edwards G, Weeks S, Wilkes E (2004) Chemical analysis of grapes and wine: techniques and concepts. Patrick Iland, Campelltown

    Google Scholar 

  • Kappes SM, Schmidt SJ, Lee SY (2006) Color halo/horns and halo-attribute dumping effects within descriptive analysis of carbonated beverages. J Food Sci 71(8):S590–S595

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Keast RSJ, Roper J (2007) A complex relationship among chemical concentration, detection threshold, and suprathreshold intensity of bitter compounds. Chem Senses 32:245–253

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly FB, Heymann H (1989) Contrasting the effects of ingestion and expectoration in sensory difference tests. J Sens Stud 3:249–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lanier et al (2005) Sweet and bitter tastes of alcoholic beverages mediate alcohol intake in of-age undergraduates. Physiol Behav 83(5):821–831

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lawless HT (1984) Flavor description of white wine by “expert” and nonexpert wine consumers. J Food Sci 49:120–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linker E, Moore ME, Galanter E (1964) Taste thresholds, detection models, and dispartate results. J Exp Psychol 67(1):59–66

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lockshin L, Spawton A, Macintosh G (1997) Using product, brand, and purchasing involvement for retail segmentation. J Retail Cons Serv 4(3):171–183

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mojet J, Heidema J, Christ-Hazelhof EC (2003) Taste perception with age: generic or specific losses in supra-threshold intensities of five taste qualities? Chem Senses 28:397–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller S, Francis L, and Lockshin L (2008) The relationship between wine liking, subjective and objective wine knowledge: does it matter who is in your ‘consumer’ sample? Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research, Siena, Italy, July 17–19, 2008 (CD)

  • Nasser JA, Kissileff HR, Boozer CN, Chou CJ, and Pi-Sunyer FX (2001) PROP taster status and oral fatty acid perception. Eat. Behav 237–245

  • Ott DB, Palmer SJ (1990) Ingestion and expectoration sampling methods of four tastes in a model system using time-intensity evaluations. J Sens Stud 13:53–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pangborn RM, Ough CS, Chrisp RB (1964) Taste interrelationship of sucrose, tartaric acid, and caffeine in white table wine. Am J Enol Vitic 15(3):154–161

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pfaffman C, Schlosberg H, Cornsweet J (1954) Variables affecting difference tests. Food Accept. Test. Methodol, (Oct.): 4–17

  • Pickering GJ, Cullen CW (2008) The influence of taste sensitivity and adventurousness on generation Y’s liking scores for sparkling wine. Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference of the Academy of Wine Business Research, Siena, Italy, July 17–19, 2008 (CD)

  • Pickering, Robert (2006) Perception of mouthfeel sensations elicited by red wine are associated with sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil. J Sens Stud 21:249–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering GJ, Moyes A, Bajec MR, Decourville N (2010a) Thermal taster status associates with oral sensations elicited by wine. Aust J Grape Wine R 16:361–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering GJ, Bartolini A, Bajec MR (2010b) Perception of beer flavour associates with thermal taster status. Int. J. Brew. 116:239– 244

  • Pickering GJ, Jain Arun K, Ram B (2014) Segmentation and drivers of wine liking and consumption in US wine consumers. Int J Wine Res 6:9–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prescott J, Soo J, Campbell H, Roberts C (2004) Responses of PROP taster groups to variations in sensory qualities within foods and beverages. Physiol Behav 82:459–469

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Talavera K, Yasumatsu K, Voets T, Droogmans G, Shigemura N, Ninomiya Y, Margolskee RF, Nilius B (2005) Heat activation of TRPM5 underlies thermal sensitivity of sweet taste. Nature 438:1022–1025

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper BJ (2008) Nutritional implications of genetic taste variation: the role of PROP sensitivity and other taste phenotypes. Annu Rev Nutr 28:367–388

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tepper BJ, Nurse RJ (1997) Fat perception is related to PROP taster status. Physiol Behav 61(6):949–954

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yang et al (2014) Phenotypic variation in oronasal perception and the relative effects of PROP and Thermal Taster Status. Food Qual Pref 38:83–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu P, Pickering GJ (2008) Ethanol difference thresholds in wine and the influence of mode of evaluation and wine style. Am J Enol Vitic 59(2):146–52

  • Zhang Y, Hoon M, Chandrashekar J, Mueller L, Cook B, Wu D, Zuker C, Ryba NJP (2003) Coding of sweet, bitter and umami taste: different receptor cells sharing similar signaling pathways. Cell Press 112:293–301

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through a Discovery grant to GP. Dr Jeff Stuart, Dr Andreea Botezatu, Lynda Van Zuiden, Gail Higenell, Jennifer Roberts, and Hannah Pickering are thanked for their technical, editorial, and/or advisory support. Finally, we thank all participants who gave generously of their time to take part in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada

    Gary J. Pickering & Rachel Kvas

  2. Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada

    Gary J. Pickering

  3. Cool Climate Oenology and Viticulture Institute, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada

    Gary J. Pickering

  4. Charles Sturt University, Locked Bag 588, Wagga Wagga, NSW, 2678, Australia

    Gary J. Pickering

Authors
  1. Gary J. Pickering
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rachel Kvas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gary J. Pickering.

Ethics declarations

Funding

The study was funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada through a Discovery Grant to the lead author.

Conflict of Interest

Author Pickering declares that he has no conflict of interest. Author Kvas declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pickering, G.J., Kvas, R. Thermal Tasting and Difference Thresholds for Prototypical Tastes in Wine. Chem. Percept. 9, 37–46 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-016-9203-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-016-9203-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation