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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Nutrients 2022-01, Vol.14 (2), p.370 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & 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 |