Psychophysical Evaluation of Sweetness Functions Across Multiple Sweeteners

Abstract

Sweetness is one of the 5 prototypical tastes and is activated by sugars and non-nutritive sweeteners (NNS). The aim of this study was to investigate measures of sweet taste function [detection threshold (DT), recognition threshold (RT), and suprathreshold intensity ratings] across multiple sweeteners. Sixty participants, 18–52 years of age (mean age in years = 26, SD = ±7.8), were recruited to participate in the study. DT and RT were collected for caloric sweeteners (glucose, fructose, sucrose, erythritol) and NNS (sucralose, rebaudioside A). Sweetness intensity for all sweeteners was measured using a general Labeled Magnitude Scale. There were strong correlations between DT and RT of all 4 caloric sweeteners across people (r = 0.62–0.90, P < 0.001), and moderate correlations between DT and RT for both of the NNS (r = 0.39–0.48, P < 0.05); however, weaker correlations were observed between the DT or RT of the caloric sweeteners and NNS (r = 0.26–0.48, P < 0.05). The DT and RT of glucose and fructose were not correlated with DT or RT of sucralose (P > 0.05). In contrast, there were strong correlations between the sweetness intensity ratings of all sweeteners (r = 0.70–0.96, P < 0.001). This suggests those caloric sweeteners and NNS access at least partially independent mechanisms with respect to DT and RT measures. At suprathreshold level, however, the strong correlation between caloric sweeteners and NNS through weak, moderate, and strong intensity indicates a commonality in sweet taste mechanism for the perceived intensity range.

Associations between sweet taste function, oral complex carbohydrate sensitivity, liking and consumption of ad libitum sweet and non-sweet carbohydrate milkshakes among female adults

“…Hedonic ratings for a range of sweet and complex carbohydrate-based foods were conducted in individual workbenches at our teaching laboratory. The standardising protocols prior to each testing sessions were similar to the ones outlined in Low et al (16,19) . All solutions and prototypical foods were served at room temperature.…”

“…At the start of session 1, participants were trained to use the general Labeled Magnitude Scale (gLMS) to rate taste intensity using the standard protocol outlined by Green et al (21,22) , except the top of the scale was described as the strongest imaginable sensation of any kind (23) . This method has been described in Low et al (14,24) .…”

“…Three concentrations (weak, medium and strong) and a control (blank) solution were prepared to determine perceived ST for glucose and maltodextrin (Table 3) (13,24) . The concentrations for each stimulus ranged from 'weak' to 'strong' on the gLMS.…”

“…To standardise gLMS usage within participants, a modified version of the method used by Delwiche et al (26) was adapted for the present study (see Low et al (14,24) ). There was a significant correlation between the overall mean sweetness ratings for glucose and overall mean heaviness ratings (r 0•38, P < 0•01) indicating that the gLMS ratings were subject to differences in individual scale-use and thus requires standardisation across participants (20,26,27) .…”

The Associations Between Oral Complex Carbohydrate Sensitivity, BMI, Liking, and Consumption of Complex Carbohydrate Based Foods

“…() except the top of the scale was described as the strongest imaginable sensation of any kind (Bartoshuk, ). This method was described in Low, McBride, Lacy, and Keast ().…”