Bedoukian   RussellIPM   RussellIPM   Piezoelectric Micro-Sprayer


Home
Animal Taxa
Plant Taxa
Semiochemicals
Floral Compounds
Semiochemical Detail
Semiochemicals & Taxa
Synthesis
Control
Invasive spp.
References

Abstract

Guide

Alphascents
Pherobio
InsectScience
E-Econex
Counterpart-Semiochemicals
Print
Email to a Friend
Kindly Donate for The Pherobase

« Previous AbstractEvolutionary roots of iodine and thyroid hormones in cell-cell signaling    Next AbstractChemical properties and consumer perception of fluid milk from conventional and pasture-based production systems »

PLoS One


Title:Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts
Author(s):Croijmans I; Majid A;
Address:"Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. International Max Planck Research School for Language Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition, and Behaviour, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands"
Journal Title:PLoS One
Year:2016
Volume:20160620
Issue:6
Page Number:e0155845 -
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155845
ISSN/ISBN:1932-6203 (Electronic) 1932-6203 (Linking)
Abstract:"People in Western cultures are poor at naming smells and flavors. However, for wine and coffee experts, describing smells and flavors is part of their daily routine. So are experts better than lay people at conveying smells and flavors in language? If smells and flavors are more easily linguistically expressed by experts, or more 'codable', then experts should be better than novices at describing smells and flavors. If experts are indeed better, we can also ask how general this advantage is: do experts show higher codability only for smells and flavors they are expert in (i.e., wine experts for wine and coffee experts for coffee) or is their linguistic dexterity more general? To address these questions, wine experts, coffee experts, and novices were asked to describe the smell and flavor of wines, coffees, everyday odors, and basic tastes. The resulting descriptions were compared on a number of measures. We found expertise endows a modest advantage in smell and flavor naming. Wine experts showed more consistency in how they described wine smells and flavors than coffee experts, and novices; but coffee experts were not more consistent for coffee descriptions. Neither expert group was any more accurate at identifying everyday smells or tastes. Interestingly, both wine and coffee experts tended to use more source-based terms (e.g., vanilla) in descriptions of their own area of expertise whereas novices tended to use more evaluative terms (e.g., nice). However, the overall linguistic strategies for both groups were en par. To conclude, experts only have a limited, domain-specific advantage when communicating about smells and flavors. The ability to communicate about smells and flavors is a matter not only of perceptual training, but specific linguistic training too"
Keywords:Coffee/*chemistry Flavoring Agents/chemistry/isolation & purification Humans Linguistics Smell/physiology *Taste *Taste Perception Vanilla/chemistry Volatile Organic Compounds/chemistry Wine/*analysis;
Notes:"MedlineCroijmans, Ilja Majid, Asifa eng 2016/06/21 PLoS One. 2016 Jun 20; 11(6):e0155845. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0155845. eCollection 2016"

 
Back to top
 
Citation: El-Sayed AM 2024. The Pherobase: Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. <http://www.pherobase.com>.
© 2003-2024 The Pherobase - Extensive Database of Pheromones and Semiochemicals. Ashraf M. El-Sayed.
Page created on 29-06-2024