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

Multidimensional representation of odors in the human olfactory cortex

International audienc

A portable experimental apparatus for human olfactory fMRI experiments

International audienc

Inhibition enzyme immunoassay, application to human apolipoprotein B.

Inhibition enzyme immunoassay was applied to human apolipoprotein B (apo-B) from plasma. The technical conditions of the assay were determined. The detection limits of the assay were 200 ng to 10 microgram/ml. Correlation coefficients obtained between enzymoassay and rocket immunoelectrophoresis on one hand and radial immunodiffusion on the other were respectively 0.84 and 0.80. The inhibition enzymoassay provides a specific and highly sensitive method for the quantitation of apo-B.Journal Articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Enzyme immunoassay for human apolipoprotein B, the major protein moiety in low-density- and very-low-density lipoproteins.

We used enzyme immunoassay to measure apolipoprotein B concentration in human plasma. Pure lipoprotein B was isolated from serum samples of fasting normolipidemic subjects by sequential preparative ultracentrifugation and coated to a polystyrene tube surface by adsorption. Human serum samples and rabbit antiserum to human apolipoprotein B were incubated with the solid-phase lipoprotein B. Soluble antigen competed with solid-phase antigen for binding to antibodies. After washing, peroxidase-labeled sheep antibodies against rabbit immunoglobulins were added, and after further washing the bound label was assayed. This provided a direct measurement of the soluble antigen. The best technical conditions for the assay were determined. The minimum detectable concentration was 1 microgram per assay. The enzyme immunoassay yielded values that compare favorably with those obtained by radial immunodiffusion (r = 0.84) and by rocket immunoelectrophoresis (r = 0.80). The assay offers several advantages over existing techniques: sensitivity, specificity, simplicity, ane non-use of radioisotopes.Comparative StudyJournal Articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Dissociated neural representations induced by complex and simple odorant molecules

International audienc

Grounding language in the neglected senses of touch, taste, and smell

Grounded theories hold sensorimotor activation is critical to language processing. Such theories have focused predominantly on the dominant senses of sight and hearing. Relatively fewer studies have assessed mental simulation within touch, taste, and smell, even though they are critically implicated in communication for important domains, such as health and wellbeing. We review work that sheds light on whether perceptual activation from lesser studied modalities contribute to meaning in language. We critically evaluate data from behavioural, imaging, and cross-cultural studies. We conclude that evidence for sensorimotor simulation in touch, taste, and smell is weak. Comprehending language related to these senses may instead rely on simulation of emotion, as well as crossmodal simulation of the “higher” senses of vision and audition. Overall, the data suggest the need for a refinement of embodiment theories, as not all sensory modalities provide equally strong evidence for mental simulation