Astringency and its sub-qualities: A review of astringency mechanisms and methods for measuring saliva lubrication

IF 2.8 4区 心理学 Q1 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES Chemical Senses Pub Date : 2024-04-09 DOI:10.1093/chemse/bjae016
Shaoyang Wang, Heather E Smyth, Sandra M Olarte Mantilla, Jason R Stokes, Paul A Smith
{"title":"Astringency and its sub-qualities: A review of astringency mechanisms and methods for measuring saliva lubrication","authors":"Shaoyang Wang, Heather E Smyth, Sandra M Olarte Mantilla, Jason R Stokes, Paul A Smith","doi":"10.1093/chemse/bjae016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Astringency is an important mouthfeel attribute that influences the sensory experiences of many food and beverage products. While salivary lubricity loss and increased oral friction were previously believed to be the only astringency mechanisms, recent research has demonstrated that non-tactile oral receptors can trigger astringency by responding to astringents without mechanical stimulation. Various human factors have also been identified that affect individual responses to astringents. This article presents a critical review of the key research milestones contributing to the current understanding of astringency mechanisms and the instrumental approaches used to quantify perceived astringency intensity. Although various chemical assays or physical measures mimic in-mouth processes involved in astringent mouthfeel, this review highlights how one chemical or physical approach can only provide a single measure of astringency determined by a specific mechanism. Subsequently, using a single measurement to predict astringency perception is overly idealistic. Astringency has not been quantified beyond the loss of saliva lubrication; therefore, non-tactile receptor-based responses must also be explored. An important question remains about whether astringency is a single perception or involves distinct sub-qualities such as pucker, drying, and roughness. Although these sub-quality lexicons have been frequently cited, most studies currently view astringency as a single perception rather than dividing it into sub-qualities and investigating the potentially independent mechanisms of each. Addressing these knowledge gaps should be an important priority for future research.","PeriodicalId":9771,"journal":{"name":"Chemical Senses","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemical Senses","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjae016","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Astringency is an important mouthfeel attribute that influences the sensory experiences of many food and beverage products. While salivary lubricity loss and increased oral friction were previously believed to be the only astringency mechanisms, recent research has demonstrated that non-tactile oral receptors can trigger astringency by responding to astringents without mechanical stimulation. Various human factors have also been identified that affect individual responses to astringents. This article presents a critical review of the key research milestones contributing to the current understanding of astringency mechanisms and the instrumental approaches used to quantify perceived astringency intensity. Although various chemical assays or physical measures mimic in-mouth processes involved in astringent mouthfeel, this review highlights how one chemical or physical approach can only provide a single measure of astringency determined by a specific mechanism. Subsequently, using a single measurement to predict astringency perception is overly idealistic. Astringency has not been quantified beyond the loss of saliva lubrication; therefore, non-tactile receptor-based responses must also be explored. An important question remains about whether astringency is a single perception or involves distinct sub-qualities such as pucker, drying, and roughness. Although these sub-quality lexicons have been frequently cited, most studies currently view astringency as a single perception rather than dividing it into sub-qualities and investigating the potentially independent mechanisms of each. Addressing these knowledge gaps should be an important priority for future research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
涩味及其子质量:涩味机理和唾液润滑度测量方法综述
涩味是一种重要的口感属性,影响着许多食品和饮料产品的感官体验。以前人们认为唾液润滑性丧失和口腔摩擦力增加是唯一的收敛机制,但最近的研究表明,非触觉口腔感受器可以在没有机械刺激的情况下对收敛剂做出反应,从而引发收敛。此外,还发现了影响个人对收敛剂反应的各种人为因素。本文对目前有助于了解涩味机制的重要研究里程碑以及用于量化感知涩味强度的仪器方法进行了深入评述。虽然各种化学分析或物理测量方法都能模拟涩味口感所涉及的口腔过程,但本综述强调了一种化学或物理方法如何只能提供由特定机制决定的单一涩味测量方法。因此,使用单一测量方法来预测涩味感知过于理想化。除了唾液润滑的损失之外,涩味还没有被量化;因此,还必须探索基于非触觉受体的反应。一个重要的问题是,涩味是一种单一的感知,还是涉及不同的子品质,如起皱、干燥和粗糙。虽然这些子品质词典经常被引用,但目前大多数研究都将涩感视为一种单一的感知,而不是将其分为多个子品质并研究每个子品质的潜在独立机制。解决这些知识空白应该是未来研究的一个重要优先事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Chemical Senses
Chemical Senses 医学-行为科学
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
2.90%
发文量
25
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Chemical Senses publishes original research and review papers on all aspects of chemoreception in both humans and animals. An important part of the journal''s coverage is devoted to techniques and the development and application of new methods for investigating chemoreception and chemosensory structures.
期刊最新文献
Late olfactory bulb involvement in COVID19. Monorhinal and Birhinal Odor Processing in Humans: an fMRI investigation. Taste And Odor Interactions After Metabolic Surgery Novel Gurmarin-like Peptides from Gymnema sylvestre and their Interactions with the Sweet Taste Receptor T1R2/T1R3 How conspecific and allospecific eggs and larvae drive oviposition preference in Drosophila
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1