um okay do you guys ever wonder why plane food are tasteless?
well, you are about to find out!
Gustation
It is not just taste or smell that influences people's perception of
food. Other important factors such as colour, expectations and even
the sound of ourselves chewing can affect how flavours are
perceived. These are called gustatory cues.
Gustation - anything that is linked to our sense of taste.
Olfaction - refers to our sense of smell.
Gustatory stimuli are chemicals that interact with our taste buds producing the experiences of different tastes, such as sweet, salty and bitter. Interactions between visual and olfactory cues and gustation have been thoroughlyresearched, but researchers have only relatively recently begun to explore interactions between auditory (sound) cues and taste.
Have you ever tried eating chips while wearing headphones?
Research by Zampini and Spence (2004) suggests it probably is not advisable if you want to really enjoy your snack! These researchers artificially increased the volume of the resulting crunch when their participants bit into a potato crisp (chip). Making the sound louder improved the perception of crispness/freshness, while decreasing the volume increased the perception of staleness. This suggests background noise that interferes with our ability to detect auditory
cues, such as crispiness, may affect our perception of the food.
But can sound interfere with our perception of other gustatory cues?
Masuda et al. (2008) found that pretzels were rated as less moist when listening to white noise (continuous sound with no pattern or rhythm, similar to a radio that is between stations). Again, it is thought that the noise may have blocked sounds which help us to make judgements about the gustatory aspects of food. This may be because sound also stimulates neural networks found in areas of the brain more commonly associated with taste perception. Animal research suggests that sounds and smell crossover in this way and stimulation of certain neurons using sound can actually alter the way they respond
to smell (Wesson and Wilson, 2010).
It appears that background noise can also affect gustatory stimuli that are not linked to biting and chewing. For example, participants liked a sweet solution more when exposed to 90 dB background noise, yet the same was not true for a salty solution (Ferber and Cabanac, 1987). The researchers claimed the noise was stressful, thus increasing sugar cravings and liking for sweet stimuli.
Reasons sound may affect taste perception
Some researchers believe that brain structures for processing sensory information are sometimes activated by more than one type of sensory information (Schroeder and Foxe, 2005). For example, research in rats revealed that 19% of the neurons in the olfactory tubercle (an area primarily associated with processing smell) were activated by sound (Wesson and Wilson, 2010).
Another possibility is that the brain uses information from more than one sensory modality when making judgements about intensity – for example, taste intensity was compared with sound intensity, meaning the loud noise made the taste seem 'quieter' (less intense). A final possibility according to Woods et al. (2011) is that the noise distracted attention away from the taste and made it seem less intense.
Woods et al. (2011) - Effect of background noise on taste
Woods et al. (2011) used a laboratory experiment to investigate the effect of auditory background noise on the perception on gustatory food properties (or taste), including reported saltiness, sweetness, food crunchiness and food liking.
IV: background noise.
Conditions: No sound, quiet background white noise and loud background white noise
DV: Ratings that the participants had to give.
In experiment 1 participants had to rate the food they ate in terms of sweetness,saltiness and liking! In experiment 2 participants had to rate the food they ate in terms of overall flavour, crunchiness and liking.
Woods et al. (2011)
● Experiment 1 - 48 students (39 female and nine male) between 19 and 39 years of age (mean = 29 years) from Manchester University participated.
● They volunteered to take part in this experiment in return for either course credits or payment.
● Participants were told that the study involved judging foods on several different characteristics. At the time of the study, 5 smoked and 5 reported mild cold
symptoms.
● None of the participants reported any food allergies.
● All participants gave informed consent.
The participant sat at a table upon which there was a panel
to hide the food from view. The participant wore headphones
which were open backed to minimise the distortion of
chewing sounds. White noise was delivered through these at either at 45-55 dB (quiet) or 75-85 dB (loud). There was also a no white
noise condition to give a baseline measure.
Participants were told at the start of each trial to close their eyes and rest their hands on the table in front of them. The experimenter placed a paper plate containing a food stimulus on the table touching the participant's fingers to indicate to the participant to pick up the
stimulus and eat it. After swallowing, the participant opened their eyes and then rated the stimulus on saltiness, sweetness and liking. Participants were asked totake a sip of water between each trial. There were 25 trials per participant, which took approximately 30 minutes.
Afterwards, all participants were fully debriefed as to the nature of the experiment.
Evaluation
A strength of this study was that the researchers controlled for individual differences in participants' taste perception. For example, a repeated measures design was used, meaning participants tasted all the foods in all three conditions (loud, quiet and no sound) and this removed participant variables as a source of bias.
Also, sweetness and saltiness ratings were made in comparison with a plain biscuit (dummy stimulus) to establish a baseline for each participant. This was an important feature of the study as it ensured that conclusions about the effect of background sound on taste perception were valid.
Another strength was the standardisation of many situational variables that could have affected gustation. For example, details of the exact food brands are given in the original paper, portion size was regulated, water was always sipped between trials to wash away any remnants of the previous food, headphones eliminated any extraneous background noise and foods were tasted with eyes closed so that other cues could not interfere with gustation. These controls are important as they make the study replicable, meaning the reliability of the findings can be checked - for example, whether there really is no difference in the effect of background noise on hard versus soft foods.
Applications to everyday life
A strength of the research in this area is that it can be usefully applied to real-world settings in catering and hospitality. For example, an awareness of the interaction between different senses such as hearing and taste can be exploited to create innovative and memorable dining experiences for consumers. One example is the popularity of ramen noodle,solo-dining restaurants in Japan, where background noise and social interaction are minimised, meaning diners can maximise the
taste of their meal.
Individual and situational explanations
The truly fascinating research in this area clearly demonstrates that, contrary to common sense, taste perception is more than a matter of individual differences, i.e., some people like their food saltier/sweeter than others. Situational factors can also affect the ways in which people experience taste, e.g., background noise,including music.
Further research may help to explain how and why certain genres of music enhance enjoyment (and spending!) for example, relaxing music may moderate the impact of unpredictable noises, e.g., conversations going on around us. It is also likely, however,that there are individual differences in the extent to which such external cues affect our
enjoyment of food, e.g., cultural differences relating to where, when and with whom we typically eat and also conditions such as autism and ADHD in which sensory experiences can be exaggerated, synesthesia (where sensory experiences in one modality can trigger experiences in another) and misophonia, which is an intolerance of certain sounds.
Individual and situational explanations. A weakness of the limited evidence in this area is that it has primarily been conducted under laboratory conditions, meaning the conclusions lack ecological validity.
Tasting individual foods (pretzels or potato chips) and, in some cases, flavoured solutions (sugar or salt) is not the same as eating something you have chosen for yourself as part of a dish made up of multiple ingredients. Furthermore, wearing headphones and tasting with eyes closed creates a very unusual sensory experience that is not the same as the multisensory way that our brains usually process information. This suggests that researchers now need to move into the field, for example, exploring interactions between different sensory
cues in real-world settings, such as restaurants where diners have chosen their own menu and can be observed to see whether they are likely to add (or ask for additional) seasoning, for example, under noisy conditions.
