Loading…

Characterizing Individual Differences in Sweet Taste Hedonics: Test Methods, Locations, and Stimuli

Sweetness drives the consumption of added sugars, so understanding how to best measure sweet hedonics is important for developing strategies to lower sugar intake. However, methods to assess hedonic response to sweetness vary, making results across studies difficult to integrate. We compared methods...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Nutrients 2022-01, Vol.14 (2), p.370
Main Authors: Cheung, May M, Kramer, Matthew, Beauchamp, Gary K, Puputti, Sari, Wise, Paul M
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-a7dbb41f640a750b2addb04f85ef1539cb6a799830715d649dde107fc4821f5a3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-a7dbb41f640a750b2addb04f85ef1539cb6a799830715d649dde107fc4821f5a3
container_end_page
container_issue 2
container_start_page 370
container_title Nutrients
container_volume 14
creator Cheung, May M
Kramer, Matthew
Beauchamp, Gary K
Puputti, Sari
Wise, Paul M
description Sweetness drives the consumption of added sugars, so understanding how to best measure sweet hedonics is important for developing strategies to lower sugar intake. However, methods to assess hedonic response to sweetness vary, making results across studies difficult to integrate. We compared methods to measure optimal sucrose concentration in 21 healthy adults (1) using paired-comparison preference tracking vs. ratings of liking, (2) with participants in the laboratory vs. at home, and (3) using aqueous solutions vs. vanilla milk. Tests were replicated on separate days to assess test-retest reliability. Test-retest reliability was similar between laboratory and home testing, but tended to be better for vanilla milk and preference tracking. Optimal sucrose concentration was virtually identical between laboratory and home, slightly lower when estimated via preference tracking, and about 50% lower in vanilla milk. However, optimal sucrose concentration correlated strongly between methods, locations, and stimuli. More than 50% of the variability in optimal sucrose concentration could be attributed to consistent differences among individuals, while much less variability was attributable to differences between methods. These results demonstrate convergent validity between methods, support testing at home, and suggest that aqueous solutions can be useful proxies for some commonly consumed beverages for measuring individual differences.
doi_str_mv 10.3390/nu14020370
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_9951905d1cf34e99983b4c12515bdbfd</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_9951905d1cf34e99983b4c12515bdbfd</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>2621349184</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-a7dbb41f640a750b2addb04f85ef1539cb6a799830715d649dde107fc4821f5a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkk1vEzEQQC0EolXohR-ALHFBqAF_rnc5IKEUaKQgDg1ny2uPE0cbu9jeIvj1bEgpLXPxaPz0NJoZhJ5T8obzjryNIxWEEa7II3TKiGLzphH88b38BJ2VsiOHUEQ1_Ck64ZJIJSU9RXaxNdnYCjn8CnGDl9GFm-BGM-CL4D1kiBYKDhFf_QCoeG1KBXwJLsVgyzu8hlLxF6jb5Mo5XiVrakhxSk10-KqG_TiEZ-iJN0OBs9t3hr59-rheXM5XXz8vFx9WcysUq3OjXN8L6htBjJKkZ8a5ngjfSvBU8s72jVFd13KiqHSN6JwDSpS3omXUS8NnaHn0umR2-jqHvck_dTJB_ymkvNEm12AH0F0naUeko9ZzAd3B2gtLmaSyd713k-v90XU99ntwFmLNZnggffgTw1Zv0o1u1RSCTIJXt4Kcvo_TlPQ-FAvDYCKksWjWMMbappkWMkMv_0N3acxxGtWBolx0tBUT9fpI2ZxKyeDvmqFEH05B_zuFCX5xv_079O_i-W8d_64k</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2621349184</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Characterizing Individual Differences in Sweet Taste Hedonics: Test Methods, Locations, and Stimuli</title><source>PubMed Central Free</source><source>Publicly Available Content Database</source><source>Coronavirus Research Database</source><creator>Cheung, May M ; Kramer, Matthew ; Beauchamp, Gary K ; Puputti, Sari ; Wise, Paul M</creator><creatorcontrib>Cheung, May M ; Kramer, Matthew ; Beauchamp, Gary K ; Puputti, Sari ; Wise, Paul M</creatorcontrib><description>Sweetness drives the consumption of added sugars, so understanding how to best measure sweet hedonics is important for developing strategies to lower sugar intake. However, methods to assess hedonic response to sweetness vary, making results across studies difficult to integrate. We compared methods to measure optimal sucrose concentration in 21 healthy adults (1) using paired-comparison preference tracking vs. ratings of liking, (2) with participants in the laboratory vs. at home, and (3) using aqueous solutions vs. vanilla milk. Tests were replicated on separate days to assess test-retest reliability. Test-retest reliability was similar between laboratory and home testing, but tended to be better for vanilla milk and preference tracking. Optimal sucrose concentration was virtually identical between laboratory and home, slightly lower when estimated via preference tracking, and about 50% lower in vanilla milk. However, optimal sucrose concentration correlated strongly between methods, locations, and stimuli. More than 50% of the variability in optimal sucrose concentration could be attributed to consistent differences among individuals, while much less variability was attributable to differences between methods. These results demonstrate convergent validity between methods, support testing at home, and suggest that aqueous solutions can be useful proxies for some commonly consumed beverages for measuring individual differences.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2072-6643</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2072-6643</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3390/nu14020370</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35057551</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Switzerland: MDPI AG</publisher><subject>Adult ; Animals ; Aqueous solutions ; Beverages ; Chronic illnesses ; Coronaviruses ; COVID-19 ; Diabetes ; Female ; Food ; Food Preferences ; Hedonic response ; hedonics ; Humans ; individual differences ; Individuality ; Laboratories ; Male ; Medical supplies ; methodology ; Middle Aged ; Milk ; Philosophy ; Ratings &amp; rankings ; Reliability analysis ; remote testing ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Design ; Sucrose ; Sucrose - analysis ; Sugar ; Sweet taste ; Sweetening Agents ; Sweetness ; Taste ; Test methods ; Video teleconferencing ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Nutrients, 2022-01, Vol.14 (2), p.370</ispartof><rights>2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2022 by the authors. 2022</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-a7dbb41f640a750b2addb04f85ef1539cb6a799830715d649dde107fc4821f5a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-a7dbb41f640a750b2addb04f85ef1539cb6a799830715d649dde107fc4821f5a3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-4624-0064 ; 0000-0001-5393-9669</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2621349184/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2621349184?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,25753,27924,27925,37012,37013,38516,43895,44590,53791,53793,74412,75126</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35057551$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cheung, May M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kramer, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beauchamp, Gary K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puputti, Sari</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wise, Paul M</creatorcontrib><title>Characterizing Individual Differences in Sweet Taste Hedonics: Test Methods, Locations, and Stimuli</title><title>Nutrients</title><addtitle>Nutrients</addtitle><description>Sweetness drives the consumption of added sugars, so understanding how to best measure sweet hedonics is important for developing strategies to lower sugar intake. However, methods to assess hedonic response to sweetness vary, making results across studies difficult to integrate. We compared methods to measure optimal sucrose concentration in 21 healthy adults (1) using paired-comparison preference tracking vs. ratings of liking, (2) with participants in the laboratory vs. at home, and (3) using aqueous solutions vs. vanilla milk. Tests were replicated on separate days to assess test-retest reliability. Test-retest reliability was similar between laboratory and home testing, but tended to be better for vanilla milk and preference tracking. Optimal sucrose concentration was virtually identical between laboratory and home, slightly lower when estimated via preference tracking, and about 50% lower in vanilla milk. However, optimal sucrose concentration correlated strongly between methods, locations, and stimuli. More than 50% of the variability in optimal sucrose concentration could be attributed to consistent differences among individuals, while much less variability was attributable to differences between methods. These results demonstrate convergent validity between methods, support testing at home, and suggest that aqueous solutions can be useful proxies for some commonly consumed beverages for measuring individual differences.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Aqueous solutions</subject><subject>Beverages</subject><subject>Chronic illnesses</subject><subject>Coronaviruses</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>Diabetes</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Food</subject><subject>Food Preferences</subject><subject>Hedonic response</subject><subject>hedonics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>individual differences</subject><subject>Individuality</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical supplies</subject><subject>methodology</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Milk</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><subject>Ratings &amp; rankings</subject><subject>Reliability analysis</subject><subject>remote testing</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Sucrose</subject><subject>Sucrose - analysis</subject><subject>Sugar</subject><subject>Sweet taste</subject><subject>Sweetening Agents</subject><subject>Sweetness</subject><subject>Taste</subject><subject>Test methods</subject><subject>Video teleconferencing</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>2072-6643</issn><issn>2072-6643</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>COVID</sourceid><sourceid>PIMPY</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkk1vEzEQQC0EolXohR-ALHFBqAF_rnc5IKEUaKQgDg1ny2uPE0cbu9jeIvj1bEgpLXPxaPz0NJoZhJ5T8obzjryNIxWEEa7II3TKiGLzphH88b38BJ2VsiOHUEQ1_Ck64ZJIJSU9RXaxNdnYCjn8CnGDl9GFm-BGM-CL4D1kiBYKDhFf_QCoeG1KBXwJLsVgyzu8hlLxF6jb5Mo5XiVrakhxSk10-KqG_TiEZ-iJN0OBs9t3hr59-rheXM5XXz8vFx9WcysUq3OjXN8L6htBjJKkZ8a5ngjfSvBU8s72jVFd13KiqHSN6JwDSpS3omXUS8NnaHn0umR2-jqHvck_dTJB_ymkvNEm12AH0F0naUeko9ZzAd3B2gtLmaSyd713k-v90XU99ntwFmLNZnggffgTw1Zv0o1u1RSCTIJXt4Kcvo_TlPQ-FAvDYCKksWjWMMbappkWMkMv_0N3acxxGtWBolx0tBUT9fpI2ZxKyeDvmqFEH05B_zuFCX5xv_079O_i-W8d_64k</recordid><startdate>20220115</startdate><enddate>20220115</enddate><creator>Cheung, May M</creator><creator>Kramer, Matthew</creator><creator>Beauchamp, Gary K</creator><creator>Puputti, Sari</creator><creator>Wise, Paul M</creator><general>MDPI AG</general><general>MDPI</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>COVID</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4624-0064</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5393-9669</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220115</creationdate><title>Characterizing Individual Differences in Sweet Taste Hedonics: Test Methods, Locations, and Stimuli</title><author>Cheung, May M ; Kramer, Matthew ; Beauchamp, Gary K ; Puputti, Sari ; Wise, Paul M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-a7dbb41f640a750b2addb04f85ef1539cb6a799830715d649dde107fc4821f5a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Aqueous solutions</topic><topic>Beverages</topic><topic>Chronic illnesses</topic><topic>Coronaviruses</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>Diabetes</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Food</topic><topic>Food Preferences</topic><topic>Hedonic response</topic><topic>hedonics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>individual differences</topic><topic>Individuality</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical supplies</topic><topic>methodology</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Milk</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><topic>Ratings &amp; rankings</topic><topic>Reliability analysis</topic><topic>remote testing</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Sucrose</topic><topic>Sucrose - analysis</topic><topic>Sugar</topic><topic>Sweet taste</topic><topic>Sweetening Agents</topic><topic>Sweetness</topic><topic>Taste</topic><topic>Test methods</topic><topic>Video teleconferencing</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cheung, May M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kramer, Matthew</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beauchamp, Gary K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Puputti, Sari</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wise, Paul M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Coronavirus Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Nutrients</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cheung, May M</au><au>Kramer, Matthew</au><au>Beauchamp, Gary K</au><au>Puputti, Sari</au><au>Wise, Paul M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Characterizing Individual Differences in Sweet Taste Hedonics: Test Methods, Locations, and Stimuli</atitle><jtitle>Nutrients</jtitle><addtitle>Nutrients</addtitle><date>2022-01-15</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>370</spage><pages>370-</pages><issn>2072-6643</issn><eissn>2072-6643</eissn><abstract>Sweetness drives the consumption of added sugars, so understanding how to best measure sweet hedonics is important for developing strategies to lower sugar intake. However, methods to assess hedonic response to sweetness vary, making results across studies difficult to integrate. We compared methods to measure optimal sucrose concentration in 21 healthy adults (1) using paired-comparison preference tracking vs. ratings of liking, (2) with participants in the laboratory vs. at home, and (3) using aqueous solutions vs. vanilla milk. Tests were replicated on separate days to assess test-retest reliability. Test-retest reliability was similar between laboratory and home testing, but tended to be better for vanilla milk and preference tracking. Optimal sucrose concentration was virtually identical between laboratory and home, slightly lower when estimated via preference tracking, and about 50% lower in vanilla milk. However, optimal sucrose concentration correlated strongly between methods, locations, and stimuli. More than 50% of the variability in optimal sucrose concentration could be attributed to consistent differences among individuals, while much less variability was attributable to differences between methods. These results demonstrate convergent validity between methods, support testing at home, and suggest that aqueous solutions can be useful proxies for some commonly consumed beverages for measuring individual differences.</abstract><cop>Switzerland</cop><pub>MDPI AG</pub><pmid>35057551</pmid><doi>10.3390/nu14020370</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4624-0064</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5393-9669</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2072-6643
ispartof Nutrients, 2022-01, Vol.14 (2), p.370
issn 2072-6643
2072-6643
language eng
recordid cdi_doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_9951905d1cf34e99983b4c12515bdbfd
source PubMed Central Free; Publicly Available Content Database; Coronavirus Research Database
subjects Adult
Animals
Aqueous solutions
Beverages
Chronic illnesses
Coronaviruses
COVID-19
Diabetes
Female
Food
Food Preferences
Hedonic response
hedonics
Humans
individual differences
Individuality
Laboratories
Male
Medical supplies
methodology
Middle Aged
Milk
Philosophy
Ratings & rankings
Reliability analysis
remote testing
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design
Sucrose
Sucrose - analysis
Sugar
Sweet taste
Sweetening Agents
Sweetness
Taste
Test methods
Video teleconferencing
Young Adult
title Characterizing Individual Differences in Sweet Taste Hedonics: Test Methods, Locations, and Stimuli
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T06%3A54%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Characterizing%20Individual%20Differences%20in%20Sweet%20Taste%20Hedonics:%20Test%20Methods,%20Locations,%20and%20Stimuli&rft.jtitle=Nutrients&rft.au=Cheung,%20May%20M&rft.date=2022-01-15&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=370&rft.pages=370-&rft.issn=2072-6643&rft.eissn=2072-6643&rft_id=info:doi/10.3390/nu14020370&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_doaj_%3E2621349184%3C/proquest_doaj_%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c472t-a7dbb41f640a750b2addb04f85ef1539cb6a799830715d649dde107fc4821f5a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2621349184&rft_id=info:pmid/35057551&rfr_iscdi=true