Do you want a description with that wine? The role of wine mental imagery in consumer's desire to drink using the revised Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire (VWIQ-II)

The influence of general wine imagery vividness on consumers' reported desire to drink was investigated. In Study 1, the Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire (VWIQ) was revised and validated so that it included the dimensions of sight, smell, flavor, and mouthfeel. Mouthfeel is an important factor in wine appreciation, both for consumers and wine experts. In Study 2, we demonstrated the usage of VWIQ in a consumer context: participants were asked to indicate their desire to drink a range of wines that differed in familiarity, with half the participants also receiving a multisensory description of the wine in addition to information regarding the wine's geographical origin and grape variety. Without a description, consumers with higher imagery vividness reported higher desire to drink compared with consumers with lower imagery vividness. However, with a description, the desire to drink from the lower imagery vividness group increased, matching the higher imagery vividness group. Practical application: The ability to imagine helps people to plan for the future. In effect, imagery ability can influence how consumers make purchase decisions. Sensory descriptions thus seemed to override differences in people's ability to imagine a wine. In summary, this research demonstrates the value of VWIQ as a tool to tailor advertisements and wine descriptions to specific groups of consumers

Uncovering the language of wine experts

Talking about odors and flavors is difficult for most people, yet experts appear to be able to convey critical information about wines in their reviews. This seems to be a contradiction, and wine expert descriptions are frequently received with criticism. Here, we propose a method for probing the language of wine reviews, and thus offer a means to enhance current vocabularies, and as a by-product question the general assumption that wine reviews are gibberish. By means of two different quantitative analyses-support vector machines for classification and Termhood analysis-on a corpus of online wine reviews, we tested whether wine reviews are written in a consistent manner, and thus may be considered informative; and whether reviews feature domain-specific language. First, a classification paradigm was trained on wine reviews from one set of authors for which the color, grape variety, and origin of a wine were known, and subsequently tested on data from a new author. This analysis revealed that, regardless of individual differences in vocabulary preferences, color and grape variety were predicted with high accuracy. Second, using Termhood as a measure of how words are used in wine reviews in a domain-specific manner compared to other genres in English, a list of 146 wine-specific terms was uncovered. These words were compared to existing lists of wine vocabulary that are currently used to train experts. Some overlap was observed, but there were also gaps revealed in the extant lists, suggesting these lists could be improved by our automatic analysis

What Makes a Better Smeller?

Olfaction is often viewed as difficult, yet the empirical evidence suggests a different picture. A closer look shows people around the world differ in their ability to detect, discriminate, and name odors. This gives rise to the question of what influences our ability to smell. Instead of focusing on olfactory deficiencies, this review presents a positive perspective by focusing on factors that make someone a better smeller. We consider three driving forces in improving olfactory ability: one's biological makeup, one's experience, and the environment. For each factor, we consider aspects proposed to improve odor perception and critically examine the evidence; as well as introducing lesser discussed areas. In terms of biology, there are cases of neurodiversity, such as olfactory synesthesia, that serve to enhance olfactory ability. Our lifetime experience, be it typical development or unique training experience, can also modify the trajectory of olfaction. Finally, our odor environment, in terms of ambient odor or culinary traditions, can influence odor perception too. Rather than highlighting the weaknesses of olfaction, we emphasize routes to harnessing our olfactory potential

Recent smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 among individuals with recent respiratory symptoms

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC=0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4<10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable

More Than Smell—COVID-19 Is Associated With Severe Impairment of Smell, Taste, and Chemesthesis

Correction: Chemical Senses, Volume 46, 2021, bjab050, https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjab050 Published: 08 December 2021Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change +/- 100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 +/- 28.7, mean +/- standard deviation), taste (-69.0 +/- 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 +/- 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis.The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.Peer reviewe

Not all flavor expertise is equal : The language of wine and coffee experts

People in Western cultures are poor at naming smells and flavors. However, for wine and coffee experts, describing smells and flavors is part of their daily routine. So are experts better than lay people at conveying smells and flavors in language? If smells and flavors are more easily linguistically expressed by experts, or more "codable", then experts should be better than novices at describing smells and flavors. If experts are indeed better, we can also ask how general this advantage is: do experts show higher codability only for smells and flavors they are expert in (i.e., wine experts for wine and coffee experts for coffee) or is their linguistic dexterity more general? To address these questions, wine experts, coffee experts, and novices were asked to describe the smell and flavor of wines, coffees, everyday odors, and basic tastes. The resulting descriptions were compared on a number of measures. We found expertise endows a modest advantage in smell and flavor naming. Wine experts showed more consistency in how they described wine smells and flavors than coffee experts, and novices; but coffee experts were not more consistent for coffee descriptions. Neither expert group was any more accurate at identifying everyday smells or tastes. Interestingly, both wine and coffee experts tended to use more source-based terms (e.g., vanilla) in descriptions of their own area of expertise whereas novices tended to use more evaluative terms (e.g., nice). However, the overall linguistic strategies for both groups were en par. To conclude, experts only have a limited, domain-specific advantage when communicating about smells and flavors. The ability to communicate about smells and flavors is a matter not only of perceptual training, but specific linguistic training too

Agreement between experts and novices for wines and coffees.

<p>Wine experts were more consistent with each other in how they described the smell and flavor of wines than novices and coffee experts. In contrast, coffee experts were not more consistent than wine experts and novices for the smells and flavors of coffees. Letters indicate significant differences between groups; error bars represent ± 1 standard error.</p

Word clouds of 20 most frequent descriptors for wine flavors.

<p>Wine experts agreed on two main qualities: <i>fruit</i> and whether the wine contained <i>tannins</i>. In addition, they identified further distinctive qualities in their descriptions. Novices commented on a number of taste qualities (e.g., <i>zuur</i> ‘sour’, <i>droog</i> ‘dry’, <i>wrang</i> ‘tart’, <i>bitter</i> ‘bitter’), and gave evaluative descriptions (e.g., <i>aangenaam</i> ‘pleasant’).</p

Participant characteristics.

<p>Participant characteristics.</p