Effects of repeated exposure on sensory-enhanced satiety

Ingested but not perceived: Response to satiety cues disrupted by perceptual load

“…Ingestive Behaviour laboratory, which investigated the effect of energy content and sensory properties in a beverage on satiety (McCrickerd et al, 2014). We used G*Power to calculate our sample size based on effect sizes obtained by McCrickerd et al, (2014), which used the same preload manipulation as the current experiment, and Yeomans, McCrickerd, Brunstrom & Chambers (2014), which used the same between subjects design as the current experiment. Based on effect sizes of d = .72 (McCrickerd et al, 2014) and d = .65 (Yeomans et al, 2014) for the effect of a preload on appetite ratings, J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f G*Power indicated that a sample size of 25 and 30 would be needed in each condition, respectively.…”

Diseño de alimentos saciantes: estudio de las propiedades físicas, sensoriales y de la capacidad saciante esperada en un postre lácteo sólido tipo tarta de queso

“…Otros autores también han respaldado que en alimentos líquidos o semisólidos como por ejemplo en bebidas lácteas un aumento de la viscosidad, la consistencia o la cremosidad pueden influir positivamente sobre la capacidad saciante percibida: esto a su vez tiene efecto sobre las señales sensoriales y metabólicas involucradas en la producción de las sensaciones de plenitud y saciedad -reales‖ (McCrickerd et al, 2014;Yeomans y Chambers, 2011;Mars et al, 2009).…”

“…There is evidence for this in terms of cognitive effects, oral processing and gastric emptying time, among other factors (Tucker & Mattes, 2013). One explanation is that information present at the time of consumption generates expectations which modulate post-ingestive (actual) satiety processes and that because of the KGM addition, the overall experience of satiety reflects this integration of cognitive, sensory and nutrient-induced cues (Yeomans, McCrickerd, Brunstrom, & Chambers, 2014). As a result, harder, more compact textures that require increased oral activity to chew the product and to form a ready-to-swallow bolus would contribute higher satiating expectations than lighter, softer textures.…”

“…Evidence exists for differences between solids and beverages in terms of cognitive effects, oral processing, or gastric empting time, among other factors (Tucker & Mattes, 2013). One explanation for such differences is that information present at the time of consumption generates expectations that modulate post-ingestive (actual) satiety processes, and the overall experience of satiety reflects this integration of cognitive, sensory and nutrient-induced cues (Yeomans, et al, 2014).…”

“…Since orosensory exposure is a fundamental step for elicitation of pre-absorptive satiating-related signals the in-mouth sensory perception and characterization become an essential point in development of satiating food. According to Yeomans, McCrickerd, Brunstrom, and Chambers (2014) there was stronger evidence of learned satiety when drink's textural (viscosity) rather than flavor cues predicted nutrient content, perhaps because texture is a more consistent predictor of energy: low satiation/satiety response of beverages can be largely attributed to their shorter oral residence time than solid food (De Graaf, 2012).…”