Chem. Senses 28: 527-536,
2003
© Oxford University Press 2003
Understanding Creaminess Perception of Dairy Products Using Free-Choice Profiling and Genetic Responsivity to 6-n-Propylthiouracil
1 Department of Food Science, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 2 International Flavors and Fragrances, Inc., Dayton, NJ, USA
Correspondence to be sent to: Beverly J. Tepper, Rutgers University, Department of Food Science, Cook College, 65 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8520, USA. e-mail: tepper{at}aesop.rutgers.edu
Flavor and texture contribute to the perception of creaminess in dairy
products, but the nature of this interaction is not well understood. Previous
studies on the genetic ability to perceive the bitter compound
6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) reveal the existence of individual
differences in creaminess perception. The objective of the present study was
to use PROP-classified subjects to gain insight into this individual variation
to better understand the cues for creaminess in dairy products, and to
ascertain the contributions of flavor and texture to the integrated perception
of creaminess. Ten nontasters and 10 supertasters of PROP participated in the
study. Subjects evaluated nine commercial dairy products using Free-Choice
Profiling (FCP), a type of descriptive analysis that allows subjects to rate
products on individual lists of descriptors. Generalized Procrustes Analysis
was used to develop separate consensus spaces for nontasters and supertasters.
The models for both groups accounted for 
54% of the variance in the data
and were resolved in two dimensions (a dairy flavor/texture axis and a
sweet–sour continuum). The products were arranged in a similar pattern
along the dimensions in both models. However, nontasters used a limited number
of simple terms (sour, sweet, milky and mouthcoating) to describe the
products, whereas supertasters used a more complex vocabulary (rich, buttery,
creamy, light, grainy, gritty and sandy). The model for nontasters gave equal
weight to the sweet–sour and dairy flavor/texture dimensions (28 and 26%
variance, respectively); whereas, the model for supertasters relied more
heavily on the dairy flavor/texture dimension (34% variance), and less so on
the sweet–sour dimension (20% variance). These data suggest that the
overall impression of creaminess was similar for nontasters and supertasters,
but the cues the two groups used to judge creaminess differed.
Key words: creaminess perception, 6-n-propylthiouracil, Free-choice Profiling
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Lim, L. Urban, and B. G. Green Measures of Individual Differences in Taste and Creaminess Perception Chem Senses, July 1, 2008; 33(6): 493 - 501. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. D. Mattes Effects of linoleic acid on sweet, sour, salty, and bitter taste thresholds and intensity ratings of adults Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol, May 1, 2007; 292(5): G1243 - G1248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. E. Hayes and V. B. Duffy Revisiting Sugar-Fat Mixtures: Sweetness and Creaminess Vary with Phenotypic Markers of Oral Sensation Chem Senses, March 1, 2007; 32(3): 225 - 236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|