17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023].

See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Received: 4 July 2022 Revised: 29 November 2022 Accepted: 1 December 2022

DOI: 10.1111/1750-3841.16427

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Advances in Sensory Science: From Perceptions to Consumer Acceptance

Differences in habitual eating speed lead to small

differences in dynamic sensory perception of composite
foods

Karina Gonzalez-Estanol1,2,3 Marieke van Bruinessen3 Franco Biasioli1

Markus Stieger4,3

1 Research and Innovation Centre,

Edmund Mach Foundation, San Michele Abstract
all’Adige (TN), Italy Previous studies demonstrated that variability in oral processing behaviors
2 Centre of Agri-food and Environmental
impacts bolus properties and consequently texture and flavor perception.
Sciences, Trento University, San Michele
All’adige (TN), Italy However, most studies followed a prescribed mastication protocol during the
3 Food Quality and Design, Wageningen products’ sensory evaluations. A better understanding of how variability in habit-
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands ual eating behavior impacts sensory perception of foods is needed. The aim of this
4 Division
of Human Nutrition and study was to investigate the effect of habitual eating speed (slow vs. fast eaters) on
Health, Wageningen University,
dynamic sensory perception of composite foods. Habitual oral processing behav-
Wageningen, The Netherlands
ior of different composite foods was quantified in 105 participants. Participants
Correspondence were divided in fast (n = 53) and slow (n = 52) eaters using a median split. Three
Markus Stieger, Wageningen University &
Research Division of Human Nutrition &
formulations of strawberry jams varying in viscosity and sugar content (High
Food Quality Deisgn, P.O. Box 17, 6700AA Sugar/Low Pectin [Control], High Sugar/High Pectin, Low Sugar/Low Pectin)
Wageningen Stippeneng 4, 6708 WE were used. Composite foods were prepared by spreading jams on breads. Dynam-
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Email: [email protected] ics of dominant sensory attributes of strawberry jams presented with and without
breads were evaluated using Temporal Dominance of Sensations (TDS). Dynamic
sensory perception of jams and jam–bread combinations differed only slightly
for short periods of time between habitual slow and fast eaters. The addition of
breads to jams reduced especially the ability of the fast eaters to discriminate
between jams differing in formulation. Slow eaters discriminated between dif-
ferent formulations of jams better than fast eaters, regardless of whether jams
were presented alone or in combination with breads. We conclude that differ-
ences in habitual eating speed between consumers lead to small differences in
dynamic sensory perception and discrimination ability of composite foods.

KEYWORDS
composite foods, eating speed, oral processing behavior, sensory perception, TDS

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Food Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Institute of Food Technologists.

J. Food Sci. 2022;1–13. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jfds 1

 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . .

1 INTRODUCTION sensory perception of foods. To date, only few studies

addressed this matter. Tarrega et al. (2008) demonstrated
It is well known that sensory perception of foods that the number of chews, chewing work, and chew-
varies greatly across individuals (Bachmanov & Boughter, ing strength correlated positively with flavor intensity of
2012; Hayes & Keast, 2011). Factors contributing to model cheeses, while chewing duration correlated nega-
interindividual variation in sensory perception include tively with flavor intensity (Tarrega et al., 2008). Luckett
age, gender, ethnic origin, and phenotypes such as 6- et al. (2016) and Luckett and Seo (2017) showed that
n-propylthiouracil and thermal taster status (Bajec & the number of chews and chewing rate modulate the
Pickering, 2008; Hirokawa et al., 2006; Lim et al., 2008; temporal dynamics of flavor perception of potato chips
Mojet et al., 2003; Pickering et al., 2010; Yang et al., 2014). (Luckett et al., 2016; Luckett & Seo, 2017). Doyennette et al.
Eating behaviors emerge and stabilize in early life (WHO, (2019) showed that “chewers” consumed ice creams with
2016). Eating speed is defined as the mass of food (g) con- a shorter consumption time and perceived aromas ear-
sumed per time unit (min) and is expressed as eating rate lier and longer compared to “melters,” who consumed
(g/min). Variations in eating speed can already be observed ice creams slower (Doyennette et al., 2019). These studies
at 2–4 weeks postpartum (Agras et al., 1990), are influ- demonstrated that variability in oral processing behav-
enced by parental feeding practices (Fogel et al., 2019), are ior impacts flavor and texture perception of foods. These
generally stable over time at an individual level and tend studies have in common that participants were instructed
to be the same across foods (McCrickerd & Forde, 2017). to follow a prescribed mastication protocol during the
There are many and very diverse factors leading to differ- products’ sensory evaluations. This suggests that in these
ent habitual eating speeds, including genetics (Brunkwall studies, the level of oral structural breakdown of foods
et al., 2013; Dubois et al., 2013), energy requirements and differed during sensory evaluations depending on the
basal metabolic rate (Henry et al., 2018), or lifestyle habits instructed chewing behavior. These differences in oral
and environmental factors (Keski-Rahkonen et al., 2004; structural breakdown and bolus properties induced by the
Wing et al., 2001). Research has shown that variations in different prescribed mastication protocols are likely to be
oral processing behaviors and saliva properties may influ- sensed by the consumer, leading to differences in flavor
ence expected fullness and sensory perception (Ferriday and texture perception.
et al., 2016; Ketel et al., 2019). Furthermore, a faster eat- Even though it has been shown that eating speed is rela-
ing rate has been associated with higher energy intake tively consistent within individuals across different foods
(Robinson et al., 2014), and may also affect glycemic and and meals (McCrickerd & Forde, 2017), little is known
insulin responses and postmeal satiety (Goh et al., 2021; about how differences in habitual eating behavior affect
Ranawana et al., 2011; Vega-López et al., 2007; Zhu et al., sensory perception of foods. To the best of our knowledge,
2013). A broad variety of experimental techniques have only two studies characterized the impact of habitual eat-
been used to quantify oral processing behaviors and eating ing speed on dynamic sensory perception. De Lavergne
speed such as electromyography, electromyography com- et al. (2015) showed that dynamic texture perception of
bined with jaw-tracking, videofluorography, and ultrasonic sausages was similar between habitual slow and fast eaters
echosonography (Boyar & Kilcast, 1986; Casas et al., 2003; during the first half of mastication but differed between
Hennequin et al., 2005; Mioche et al., 2002; Vinyard & groups in the second half of mastication. Differences in
Fiszman, 2016). Video recordings of participants consum- sausage bolus properties were caused by differences in
ing foods followed by post hoc video annotations have eating speed and led to differences in dynamic texture per-
been used frequently to code oral processing behaviors ception (de Lavergne et al., 2015). Aguayo-Mendoza et al.
(Forde, van Kuijk, et al., 2013). In addition, video record- (2020) showed that dynamic texture perception of sausages
ings for tracking jaw movements during food consumption was similar for consumers differing in age, gender, and eth-
have also been used (Aguayo-Mendoza et al., 2020; Forde, nicity at the beginning and end of mastication and strongly
Bolhuis, et al., 2013; Ketel et al., 2019; van Eck et al., 2019). correlated with bolus properties that were mediated by
Skin surface markers are placed on the consumer’s face mastication time. Minor differences in dynamic texture
to track automatically the movement of the chin or other perception between consumer groups were observed only
facial features inferring the movement of the jaw during during the middle stages of mastication with low domi-
mastication (Jin et al., 2022; Wilson et al., 2016). Lastly, self- nance rates. It was concluded that variations in habitual
reporting of eating speed has been used to characterize oral consumption time led to considerable differences in bolus
and eating behaviors (Mochizuki et al., 2014; Petty et al., properties but only small differences in dynamic texture
2013). perception of sausages (Aguayo-Mendoza et al., 2020). In
Differences in eating speed and mastication behav- both studies (Aguayo-Mendoza et al., 2020; de Lavergne
ior can also contribute to interindividual differences in et al., 2015), participants were characterized according to
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . . 3

TA B L E 1 Overview of strawberry jams and composite foods (jam-bread combinations)

PP
PP Jams High sugar/Low High sugar/High Low sugar/Low
PP
Group PPP pectin (Control C) pectin (HP) pectin (LS)
◦
Brix 60 60 45
Viscosity at shear rate 1 s−1 (Pa⋅s) 48 ± 6 78 ± 2 18 ± 3
A-C A-HP A-LS

Jam alone (A) (mean weight: 6.0 ± 0.3 g)

B-C B-HP B-LS

Jam–bread (B) 3 × 3 × 1 cm (Bread: 2.2 ± 0.5 g;

Spread: 6 g)

their habitual eating speed, which decreased when sensory The Low sugar–Low pectin (LS) jam had a sugar con-
evaluations were performed. A better understanding of tent of 45 ◦ Brix and a viscosity of 𝜂1 s−1 = 18 ± 3 Pa⋅s
how variability in naturally occurring mastication behav- (Table 1). Reformulation of the strawberry jams remained
ior impacts sensory perception of foods is needed. The aim within realistic product reformulation boundaries to war-
of this study was to investigate the effect of habitual eating rant close resemblance to reformulated, commercially
speed (slow vs. fast eaters) on dynamic sensory percep- available products. To obtain composite foods, 6.0 g of
tion of composite foods. Composite foods are defined as strawberry jam was spread on a piece of white bread with-
the combination of single foods differing in composition out crust (3 × 3 × 1 cm; 2.2 g; Bruschelle mini, Morato,
and properties (Scholten, 2017). In this study, we first cat- Italy).
egorized consumers based on their habitual eating speed
of two composite foods (jam on bread and wafer filled
with hazelnut-chocolate spread) as slow and fast eaters. 2.2 Participants
Then, we determined (i) how dynamic sensory perception
of foods differs between consumers differing in habitual For this study, 124 participants were recruited. Recruit-
eating speed and (ii) how participants adapt their oral ment was done through posters, social media posts, and
behavior during sensory evaluations. We hypothesized that emails. An online questionnaire was used to exclude
dynamic sensory perception is affected by habitual eating participants with swallowing, mastication, olfactory, and
speed as habitual slow eaters break down the food bolus gustatory disorders. Inclusion criteria included good den-
into more and smaller bolus fragments, which facilitates tal health, nonsmoking, no missing teeth (except wisdom
flavor release from the food, compared to fast eaters. teeth), no piercings or braces in the mouth, no recent den-
tal surgery, not being on a calorie restricted diet, no food
allergy to any of the ingredients present in bread, wafer,
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS and jam, no partial or complete denture, and not being
pregnant or lactating.
2.1 Samples Out of the 124 participants, 105 (age: 24.8 ± 4.73 years,
body mass index [BMI]: 22.8 ± 2.49 kg/m2 , 38% male)
Table 1 provides an overview of all samples used in the completed the study. Using a median split, participants
study. Three strawberry jams varying in sugar content were divided in two groups according to their natural eat-
and viscosity were used (Menz & Gasser, Italy). All jams ing speed (consumption time per bi) of standardized bite
consisted of strawberries, glucose–fructose syrup, sugar, sizes of different composite foods (Section 2.3). A group
pectin, citric acid, and elderberry juice concentrate. The referred to as fast eaters (n = 53, age: 24.5 ± 4.83 years,
strawberry jam used as control (C) had a sugar content BMI: 22.6 ± 2.16 kg/m2 , 43.4% male) and a group referred
of 60 ◦ Brix and a viscosity of 𝜂1 s−1 = 48 ± 6 Pa⋅s and is to as slow eaters (n = 52, age: 25.2 ± 4.65 years, BMI:
categorized as High sugar–Low pectin jam (Table 1). The 23.0 ± 2.80 kg/m2 , 28.8% male) were obtained. No signif-
High sugar–High pectin (HP) strawberry jam had a sugar icant differences were observed for age and BMI between
content of 60 ◦ Brix and a viscosity of 𝜂1 s−1 = 78 ± 2 Pa⋅s. fast and slow eaters according to Welch’s t-test (p > 0.05).
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
4 EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . .

All participants were familiar with the test foods. All eating rate (g/min) was calculated for each sample. The
participants gave written informed consent prior to the habitual eating rate (g/min) of both composite foods (wafer
study and received financial compensation for their par- filled with hazelnut-chocolate spread; cherry jam on white
ticipation. The study did not meet the requirements to bread without crust) was calculated for each participant by
be reviewed by the Medical Research Ethical Committee adding the weights w (g) of the composite foods and divid-
of The Netherlands according to the “Medical Research ing it by the sum of the consumption times t (min) of the
Involving Human Subjects Act” of The Netherlands (WMO composite foods.
in Dutch). The study was conducted in agreement with the Categorization of participants as slow and fast eaters was
ethics regulations laid out in the Declaration of Helsinki based on the median split of the habitual eating rate of the
(2013). wafer filled with hazelnut-chocolate spread and the cherry
jam on white bread combination. Contrary to the cherry
jam served alone, these foods required mastication as they
2.3 Characterization of habitual eating included a solid food component. It was decided to use
speed the habitual eating rate obtained from the consumption of
both composite foods (wafer filled with hazelnut-chocolate
Habitual oral processing behavior of three standardized spread; cherry jam on white bread without crust) instead of
bite sizes of different foods was quantified in 105 partici- averaging the eating rate over both composite foods since
pants using a video camera (Canon IXUS-180) placed on these composite foods were very different in mechanical
a tripod. The first food used to determine habitual eating and texture properties. The two composite foods used to
speed consisted of 6 g of commercial cherry jam (Zwarte determine habitual eating rate (wafer filled with hazelnut-
Kers, Hero, Netherlands) and was served on a spoon; the chocolate spread; cherry jam on white bread without crust)
second food (bite size: 8.2 ± 0.7 g) consisted of 6 g of were different from the foods used in the sensory eval-
cherry jam spread on a piece of white bread without crust uation (strawberry jams differing in sugar content and
(2.8 g; 3.5 × 3.5 × 1.0 cm; Casino Wit, Jumbo, Nether- viscosity served alone and with bread) but belonged to the
lands); and the third food (bite size: 7.6 ± 0.5 g) consisted same product category of sweet spreads.
of a piece of wafer (1.6 g; 1.0 × 4.0 × 2.0 cm) filled with
6 g of hazelnut-chocolate spread (B-ready, Fererro, Italy).
The three samples were presented to the participants in 2.4 Dynamic sensory perception
randomized order. Participants were seated individually
in front of the video camera, and were instructed to put 2.4.1 Attribute list
the whole sample in their mouth and start chewing as
they normally do. Participants were asked to raise their Sensory attributes to describe jam and bread were obtained
hand when they swallowed. Between samples, participants from previous studies (Alves et al., 2008; Kurotobi et al.,
could drink a sip of water. 2018; Oliver et al., 2018; Panouille et al., 2014; van Eck et al.,
To measure oral processing behaviors, stickers were 2019) and validated with a pilot test with consumers (n = 10
placed on the face of participants following the procedure women, age: 21.8 ± 1.3 years) not participating in the main
previously described (Aguayo-Mendoza et al., 2019; Ketel study. A Check-All-That-Apply (CATA) methodology was
et al., 2019; van Eck et al., 2019). Two stickers were placed used. The bread and the control strawberry jam were eval-
5 cm apart on the forehead of participants to calibrate uated individually. Participants of the pilot test were given
the software with the number of pixels that represented two lists of attributes, one for each product. The attributes
5 cm. Two additional stickers were placed on the nose that were most frequently selected were included in the
and chin. The sticker on the nose was used as reference final attribute list used in the main study (Table 2). Eight
point and the one on the chin as mobile point. During the attributes were selected for the evaluation of jam alone and
recording, participants were asked to not block the stick- ten for the jam–bread evaluation. The list of attributes and
ers with their hands and limit their head movements while their definitions are summarized in Table 2.
eating the sample. Videos were analyzed using Kinovea
software (version 0.8.15), a motion analysis software that
tracks changes in the spatial position of specific markers 2.4.2 Temporal Dominance of Sensations
in video recordings. The movement of the nose and chin (TDS)
stickers relative to each other was extracted as X–Y coor-
dinates over time. Consumption time per bite (s) defined Dynamic sensory perception was assessed using Temporal
as average time from putting the sample in the mouth Dominance of Sensations (TDS). Dominance was defined
until swallowing was extracted from video recordings and as the most striking sensation, which catches the attention
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . . 5

TA B L E 2 List of sensory attributes and definitions used for the TDS evaluation of jam and jam–bread combinations
Attribute Definition Jam Jam–bread
Sweet Sweet taste, associated with sugar. × ×
Sour Sour taste, associated with sour ingredients such as lemon. × ×
Strawberry flavor Strawberry flavor associated with strawberries. × ×
Fruity flavor Fruity flavor associated with all fruits except strawberry. × ×
Bread flavor Flavor associated with bread and grain flour. ×
Sticky Feeling of stickiness in the mouth. The jam sticks to the mouth. × ×
Smooth Sensation of smoothness, defined as the feeling of smooth jelly in the mouth. × ×
Melting The speed of the jam mixing with saliva in the mouth. × ×
Soft Sensation of softness described as no or little force required to deform the jam. × ×
Chewy Sensation of chewiness described as resistance to chewing/breakdown. ×

of the assessor at a given moment in time (Pineau et al., methodology. The attribute list was provided, and par-
2009). TDS data collection started the moment partici- ticipants were instructed to familiarize themselves with
pants put the sample in their mouth and pressed the the attributes before starting the evaluation. Each par-
start button and ended 90 s thereafter. An attribute was ticipant was given a tablet on which the test was
dominant until another attribute was chosen. Attributes performed.
could be dominant several times during the evaluation Before the main TDS evaluation, participants performed
and not all attributes had to be selected as dominant. a practice TDS evaluation with a cracker. In this way, par-
Participants were instructed to indicate the moment they ticipants familiarized themselves with the TDS method-
swallowed the sample by clicking on a “Swallow” button. ology and the software used. After the familiarization
After swallowing, participants could continue selecting the phase, they continued with the TDS evaluation of the test
most dominant attributes. When they did not perceive any- samples. For each sample, participants were instructed to
thing anymore, they were instructed to click on “Do not put the whole sample in their mouth, click on the start
perceive anything anymore” button and wait until time button, and start selecting the most dominant attribute
was up. No chewing protocol was prescribed during the during consumption. After each TDS evaluation, partici-
TDS evaluations. Attributes were presented in randomized pants evaluated liking of the sample using a 100-mm visual
order across participants but maintained for each panelist analogue scale (VAS) anchored with the words “extremely
between samples. dislike” to “extremely like.” Participants were instructed
to cleanse their palate with water between samples. Data
were acquired using TimeSens software (Version October
2.4.3 Procedure 2020, ChemoSens, France).

Sensory sessions took place at Centrum voor Smaakon-

derzoek Wageningen (CSO, The Netherlands) and took 2.5 Data analysis
approximately 30 min. Samples were labeled with ran-
dom three-digit codes and served at room temperature. 2.5.1 Characterization of oral processing
The order of samples was counterbalanced, so that half behavior
of the participants evaluated the strawberry jam without
carrier first and the other half started with the strawberry To determine whether habitual oral behavior captured
jam–bread combinations. The order of the different formu- with video recordings differed between slow and fast
lations, control (C), high pectin (HP), and reduced sugar eaters, mean consumption time and eating rates were
(LS), was randomized across participants. When served on calculated and a linear mixed model (LMM) analysis
its own, jam was served on a spoon, while the jam–bread was performed for each parameter individually. Samples
combinations were served on a paper plate. Participants (cherry jam, cherry jam with bread, wafer filled with
were seated individually with 1.5 m distance from each hazelnut-chocolate spread, and both composite foods),
other. They were instructed to not eat, drink, or brush their group (slow/fast), gender, and the interaction between
teeth 2 h prior to the session. samples and group were considered as fixed effects, while
At the beginning of the sensory session, a short intro- participant was treated as random effect. When p < 0.05,
duction was given to explain the principle of the TDS post hoc pairwise comparisons with Tukey’s correction
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
6 EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . .

F I G U R E 1 TDS curves for fast (n = 53) and slow (n = 52) eaters for the strawberry jam served alone (A-C) and jam–bread combination
(B-C). Periods of significant differences (p < 0.05) of dominance rates between slow and fast eaters are indicated by highlighted thick sections.
The vertical dotted line represents the average swallowing moment

were used to determine where differences existed between 2.5.3 Duration analysis
groups.
For each group (slow and fast eaters), an LMM analysis
was performed with mean dominance durations for a spe-
2.5.2 TDS curves cific attribute as response. Samples (n = 6) were set as
fixed factor and participants as random factor. Principal
TDS curves were constructed following the procedure component analysis (PCA) with confidence ellipses of 0.90
described by Pineau et al. (2009). The dominance rate for was performed for each product for slow and fast eaters
each attribute at a given moment (every 0.1 s) was deter- separately to analyze the relationships between sensory
mined as the proportion of participants for which the given attributes within the different formulations and carrier
attribute was selected as dominant sensation. TDS curves addition. Only attributes that were significantly different
were not standardized for time. Chance and significance (p < 0.05) are shown in the PCA.
lines were calculated at α = 0.05 and added to the TDS
curves as described by Pineau et al. (2009). For a bet-
ter visualization, smoothing of TDS curves was performed 2.5.4 Comparison of eating speed between
using the smooth function of the TempR package of R video recordings and TDS
(software version 3.1.1).
TDS curves are presented per. Pairwise comparison To determine differences in eating rate across eating speed
between the dominance rates of the slow and fast eaters groups and between video recordings (habitual eating)
was done using a Fisher’s exact test (Castura et al., 2016), and TDS evaluations, means of eating rate of cherry jam
independent of the significance level of the TDS attribute and cherry jam with bread from the video recordings
curves. Highlighted sections in the TDS curves (bold lines) were compared to the eating rates calculated from the
represent periods during which significant differences consumption time of strawberry jam (A-C) and straw-
between slow and fast eaters were observed (p < 0.05). The berry jam with bread (B-C) during the TDS evaluation.
TDS curves of the control jam alone (A-C) and the con- A LMM was performed with group (slow/fast), gender,
trol jam combined with bread (B-C) are shown in Figure 1, method (video recording/TDS), and their interactions as
whereas the TDS curves of the four other samples (A-HP, fixed effects, while participant was treated as random
B-HP, A-LS, B-LS) are shown in Figures S1 and S2. effect. Pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . . 7

T A B L E 3 Oral processing parameters extracted from video recordings of 105 participants for cherry jam alone (bite size: 6.0 ± 0.2 g),
cherry jam–bread combination (bite size: 8.2 ± 0.7 g), wafer filled with hazelnut-chocolate spread (bite size: 7.6 ± 0.5 g), and both composite
foods (bite size: 15.79 g) and Tukey’s Student t-tests for pairwise comparisons of the interaction effect sample × group (slow/fast eaters) from
LMM
Slow eaters (n = 52) Fast eaters (n = 53) Consumption time Eating rate
Consumption Eating rate Consumption Eating rate
Sample time (s) (g/min) time (s) (g/min) t ratio p t ratio p
Cherry jam alone 11 ± 5 42 ± 25 6±3 71 ± 38 –2.907 0.0771 8.91 <0.0001
Cherry jam with bread 22 ± 7 24 ± 6 12 ± 3 45 ± 11 –7.229 <0.0001 6.449 <0.0001
Wafer with 31 ± 9 16 ± 4 19 ± 4 25 ± 5 –8.129 <0.0001 2.919 0.0717
hazelnut-chocolate spread
Both composite foods 52 ± 15 19 ± 4 30 ± 4 32 ± 5 –15.499 <0.0001 4.038 0.0017
(Jam–bread and wafer
with hazelnut-chocolate
spread)

post hoc tests when significant differences were present fast eaters except for wafer filled with hazelnut-chocolate
(p < 0.05). spread. Fast eaters habitually consumed jam alone, jam
with bread, wafer filled with hazelnut-chocolate spread,
and both composite foods at higher eating rates (69%,
2.5.5 Liking scores 87%, 56%, and 68% higher, respectively) than slow eaters.
This demonstrates that the slow and fast eaters differed
To determine differences in liking between slow and fast considerably in their habitual eating speed of these foods.
eaters, an LMM analysis was performed with liking scores As expected, cherry jam alone was consumed at high-
as response. Samples (n = 6), gender, group (slow/fast), est eating rate by the slow and fast eaters compared to
and the interaction between samples and group were set the composite foods (cherry jam with bread; wafer with
as fixed factors and participants as random factor. When hazelnut-chocolate spread), which contained a solid car-
p < 0.05, post hoc pairwise comparisons with Tukey’s cor- rier (p < 0.05). Cherry jam with bread was consumed
rection were used to determine where differences existed at significantly higher eating rate than the wafer with
between groups. hazelnut-chocolate spread (p < 0.05) by the slow and fast
eaters.
It is well known that food texture and degree of lubri-
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION cation affect eating rate (Bolhuis et al., 2014; Forde, van
Kuijk, et al., 2013; Lasschuijt et al., 2017; McCrickerd et al.,
3.1 Characterization of participants 2017; Zijlstra et al., 2009). Foods that require more chew-
according to their habitual eating speed of ing and lubrication take more time to be orally processed
composite foods and are therefore consumed with lower eating rates. In our
study, it may be that due to its lower moisture content,
The median split that categorized participants as slow or the wafer might have required an increased mastication
fast eaters was based on their habitual eating rate of two time. Overall, our findings are in agreement with previous
composite foods (cherry jam with bread and wafer with studies that demonstrated that toppings assisted saliva in
hazelnut-chocolate spread) (Section 2.3). Consumption bolus formation of different solid foods (bread, crackers,
time (s) and eating rate (g/min) of cherry jam, cherry jam pasta, milk gels), leading to shorter oral processing times
with white bread, wafer with hazelnut-chocolate spread, (Gonzalez-Estanol, Libardi, et al., 2022; van Eck et al.,
and both composite foods combined (used to categorize 2019).
participants as slow and fast eaters based on median split)
are summarized in Table 3. For consumption time and eat-
ing rate, the interaction between samples and group was 3.2 Impact of habitual eating speed on
significant (consumption time F(3,309) = 76.09, p < 0.001; dynamic sensory perception
eating rate F(3,309) = 8.41, p < 0.001). Except for jam alone,
consumption time of all samples differed significantly Figure 1 displays the TDS curves for the control straw-
between slow and fast eaters (p < 0.05). In general, eat- berry jam alone (A-C) and control strawberry jam–bread
ing rate differed significantly (p < 0.05) between slow and combination (B-C) for slow and fast eaters. The vertical
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
8 EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . .

black line represents the average swallowing moment of quantify the impact of product formulation on dynamic
the samples during the TDS evaluations for each group. sensory perception.
It should be noted that the TDS curves were not time As expected, the dynamic sensory perception of the jam
standardized. was strongly affected by the addition of bread (B-C) for
Dynamic sensory perception of the control strawberry slow and fast eaters. In the beginning of mastication, per-
jam without carrier (A-C) was characterized by prolonged ception was dominated by sensations related to the carrier
dominance of strawberry and sweetness sensations with (chewy and bread flavor). Slow eaters perceived these sen-
only minor significant differences for short periods of time sations as dominant for slightly longer periods than fast
between slow and fast eaters. Sweetness was the domi- eaters. At later stages of mastication, sensations related
nant sensation after swallowing for the fast eaters, while to the jams (strawberry and sweetness) were dominant.
it was the dominant sensation before and after swallow- Overall, similar results were obtained for the low-sugar
ing for the slow eaters. Similarly, strawberry flavor was the and high-viscosity jams combined with bread (B-LS and
dominant sensation before and after swallowing for fast B-HP) for slow and fast eaters (Figure S2). In general, our
eaters, while it was only the dominant sensation around findings regarding the temporal sequence of dominant sen-
the swallowing moment for slow eaters. Similar to the sations of composite foods are in agreement with previous
control jam alone (A-C), the TDS curves for the reduced- studies where different solid carriers (bread, wafer, carrots)
sugar (A-LS) and high-viscosity (A-HP) jams alone showed were combined with various toppings (hazelnut-chocolate
only minor differences in dominant sensations for short spread, mayonnaise). At the beginning of consumption,
periods of time between slow and fast eaters (Figure S1). sensations related to the flavor and texture of the car-
Fast eaters perceived texture sensations such as soft and riers were dominant, whereas sensations related to the
sticky as dominant sensation at the beginning of masti- toppings were dominant at later stages of consumption
cation for the reduced sugar (A-LS) and high viscosity (Gonzalez-Estanol, Cliceri, et al., 2022; van Eck et al., 2019).
(A-HP) jams, respectively. Slow eaters perceived sour as To determine differences in eating rate across eating
the dominant sensation for a short period of time after speed groups and between video recordings and TDS eval-
swallowing for the reduced sugar (A-LS) and high viscosity uations, means of eating rate of cherry jam alone and
(A-HP) jams. For both groups, strawberry and sweetness cherry jam with bread from the video recordings were
were the dominant sensations for the rest of the evalu- compared to the eating rates of strawberry jam (A-C) and
ation time. We hypothesized that differences in habitual strawberry jam with bread (B-C) from the TDS evaluation
eating speed between slow and fast eaters lead to differ- (Table 4). For both sets of products, the interaction between
ences in dynamic sensory perception. Overall, we observed group (slow/fast) and method (video recording/TDS) was
only minor differences, that is, differences that were sig- significant (jam with bread F(3,309) = 8.41, p < 0.001; jam
nificant but only for short time periods, typically for less alone F(1,101) = 11.78, p < 0.001). During the video record-
than 4 s, in dynamic sensory perception of jams and jam– ings, habitual eating speed of cherry jam and cherry jam
bread combinations between habitual slow and fast eaters. with bread was significantly different between slow and
This is in general agreement with Aguayo-Mendoza et al. fast eaters (p < 0.05). During the TDS evaluation, slow
(2020) who showed that dynamic texture perception of and fast eaters increased their consumption time, which
sausages was similar for consumers differing in age, gen- implies that their eating rate decreased when performing
der, and ethnicity at the beginning and end of mastication an analytical sensory evaluation compared to their habit-
and only minor differences in dynamic texture percep- ual eating speed. This is in line with previous studies that
tion between consumer groups were observed during the demonstrated that when participants focus on an analyt-
middle stages of mastication with low dominance rates. ical sensory task that they presumably want to perform
We speculate that variations in habitual consumption time well, they extend their consumption time (de Lavergne
might cause considerable differences in bolus properties et al., 2015, 2016). Consequently, differences in eating rate
but do not necessarily lead to considerable difference in of jams alone and jam–bread combinations between slow
dynamic sensory perception. It is important to note that and fast eaters were reduced from 68% and 86% during
sugar reduction and addition of pectin remained within habitual mastication to 37% and 20% during TDS evalua-
realistic product reformulation boundaries and were small. tion, respectively (Table 4). Thus, the differences in eating
This could partly explain why the degree of reformulation rate of jams alone between slow and fast eaters were no
in our study was not sufficient to cause larger differences longer significant (p > 0.05).
in perception of dominant sensations between products. Moreover, there were significant differences in eating
The main objective of the study was to investigate the effect rate of jam alone and jam with bread between video record-
of habitual eating speed (slow vs. fast eaters) on dynamic ings and TDS evaluation for fast eaters (p < 0.05). On
sensory perception of composite foods rather than to the other hand, only the eating rate of the jam alone
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . . 9

T A B L E 4 Summary of eating rate (mean ± SD) obtained from video recordings (habitual consumption) and from TDS evaluations for
jams served alone and jam–bread combinations. Superscript letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between means within each
sample obtained from Tukey’s Student t-tests for pairwise comparisons of the interaction effect group (slow/fast) × method (video
recording/TDS) from LMM
Eating rate (g/min) video recording Eating rate (g/min) TDS
Jam Slow 42 ± 25B 26 ± 10C
Fast 71 ± 38 A
33 ± 14BC
Jam–bread Slow 24 ± 6bc 22 ± 7c
Fast 45 ± 11 a
27 ± 8b
Note: Upper case superscripts represent comparison between jam samples. Lower cases superscripts represent comparison between jam–bread samples.

T A B L E 5 Liking scores (mean ± SD) of all samples for slow and fast eaters and Tukey’s Student t-tests for pairwise comparisons of the
interaction effect samples (A-C, A-LS, A-HP, B-C, B-LS, B-HP) × group (slow/fast) from LMM
Sample Slow eaters (n = 52) Fast eaters (n = 53) t ratio p
A-C 6.0 ± 2.0 6.2 ± 2.2 0.84 0.99
A-LS 6.0 ± 2.1 6.2 ± 2.1 0.47 1
A-HP 5.7 ± 2.2 6.1 ± 2.1 0.92 0.99
B-C 6.9 ± 1.8 5.6 ± 2.1 0.09 1
B-LS 6.0 ± 1.7 5.8 ± 1.9 –0.57 1
B-HP 5.8 ± 1.7 5.8 ± 1.9 –0.33 1

was significantly different between video recordings and overlapping confidence ellipses, while the high-viscosity
TDS evaluation for the slow eaters (p < 0.05), which sug- (A-HP) jam (depicted in pink) was perceived signifi-
gests that fast eaters adapted their habitual eating speed cantly different from A-C and A-LS as indicated by
more during the sensory evaluation than slow eaters. non-overlapping confidence ellipses. However, this dis-
These changes in eating rate differences between habitual crimination between jams was influenced in different ways
slow and fast eaters may explain the limited differences by the addition of bread across groups. Fast eaters’ abil-
in dynamic sensory perception observed between these ity to discriminate between jams differing in formulation
groups. decreased, as the confidence ellipses of B-C, B-LS, and
Liking of all jams and composite foods did not differ sig- B-HP overlap (Figure 2b). This is in line with previous
nificantly between slow and fast eaters (F(5,505.68) = 0.75, studies where perceptual differences between spreads or
p = 0.6) (Table 5). The absence of differences in lik- toppings disappeared upon addition of carriers since sen-
ing between slow and fast eaters is consistent with the sitivity to detect sensory differences between them may
absence of large differences in dynamic sensory perception decrease (Cherdchu & Chambers, 2014; Gonzalez-Estanol,
between the two groups. Cliceri, et al., 2022; Nguyen & Wismer, 2020; van Eck et al.,
2021). In contrast, slow eaters were able to better discrim-
inate between the different jam formulations when the
3.3 Duration analysis jams were combined with breads (Figure 2d). Slow eaters
selected on average one attribute more as dominant sen-
PCA of the mean dominance durations for slow and sation than fast eaters (slow eaters: 8.0 ± 3.2; fast eaters:
fast eaters is shown in Figure 2 to summarize percep- 7.1 ± 4.4), suggesting that habitual slow eaters described
tual differences between samples. The correlation circles the dynamic sensory perception of the samples in more
(Figure 2a,c) visualize the mean dominance durations detail.
of the sensory attributes that were significantly differ- While previous studies with specific chewing protocols
ent (p < 0.05) between samples for the fast and slow demonstrated that eating speed had a strong effect on
eaters. The individual factor maps (Figure 2b,d) show the bolus properties, flavor release, and consequently on tex-
representation of all samples with confidence ellipses of ture and flavor perception (Luckett & Seo, 2017; Tarrega
0.90. et al., 2008), our study shows that large differences in
For both groups, control jam (A-C) was perceived sim- habitual eating speed have limited effect on dynamic sen-
ilar to the low-sugar jam (A-LS) as indicated by the sory perception, which is in line with previous studies
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
10 EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . .

F I G U R E 2 Principal component analysis (PCA) of the durations of dominant sensations from the TDS data with confidence ellipses of
0.90. Biplot showing dimensions 1 and 2 represents the sensory profiles of the jams and jam–bread combinations (A-C, A-LS, A-HP, B-C,
B-LS, B-HP) for fast eaters (a, b) and slow eaters (c, d). Only the attributes that were significantly different (p < 0.05) are shown

that categorized consumers according to their natural con- results and conclusions were very similar to those obtained
sumption time (Aguayo-Mendoza et al., 2020; de Lavergne from the median split. The number of observations for the
et al., 2015). Even though habitual slow eaters showed a median split was 53 per group compared to 26 per group for
better discrimination ability than habitual fast eaters, it the quartile split. Thus, it was decided to use the median
seems that eating speed explains interindividual variabil- split classification for the study.
ity in dynamic sensory perception of foods only to a limited
extent.
As mentioned in Section 2.3, a median split was applied 4 CONCLUSIONS
to categorize participants (n = 105) into slow and fast
eaters. It is worth noting that a quartile split of partici- Previous studies demonstrated that eating speed impacts
pants was performed, too. The lowest and highest quartile bolus properties and consequently texture and flavor per-
consisted of participants with lowest eating rate (n = 26, ception. Investigating the relationships between eating
15.89 ± 3.06 g/min) and highest eating rate (n = 26, speed and sensory perception of foods further may assist
35.91 ± 3.31 g/min), respectively. When TDS curves were in better understanding interindividual differences in sen-
compared for the various foods between the slow and fast sory perception. Without any prescribed eating speed
eaters obtained by quartile split (data not shown), the protocol and based on the habitual consumption time
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . . 11

of participants, we demonstrated that dynamic sensory Alves, L. R., Battochio, J. R., Cardoso, J. M. P., DE MELO, L. L. M. M.,
perception of jams and jam–bread combinations showed Da Silva, V. S., Siqueira, A. C. P., & Bolini, H. M. A. (2008). Time–
only minor differences (significant difference for very intensity profile and internal preference mapping of strawberry
jam. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23(1), 125–135.
short periods of time) in dominant sensations between
Bachmanov, A. A., & Boughter, J. D. (2012). Genetics of taste per-
habitual slow and fast eaters. Slow eaters discriminated
ception. In eLS. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/
better between different formulations of jams, regardless 9780470015902.a0023587
of whether the jam was presented alone or in combination Bajec, M. R., & Pickering, G. J. (2008). Thermal taste, PROP respon-
with bread, than fast eaters. We conclude that differences siveness, and perception of oral sensations. Physiology & Behavior,
in habitual eating speed of consumers have limited effect 95(4), 581–590.
on dynamic sensory perception of composite foods. Bolhuis, D. P., Forde, C. G., Cheng, Y., Xu, H., Martin, N., & de Graaf,
C. (2014). Slow food: Sustained impact of harder foods on the
reduction in energy intake over the course of the day. PLoS ONE,
AU T H O R CO N T R I B U T I O N S
9(4), e93370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093370
Karina Gonzalez-Estanol: Conceptualization; Investiga-
Boyar, M. M., & Kilcast, D. (1986). Electromyography as a novel
tion; Writing – original draft; Methodology; Visualization; method for examining food texture. Journal of Food Science, 51(3),
Writing – review & editing; Formal analysis. Marieke van 859–860.
Bruinessen: Data curation; Formal analysis; Software; Brunkwall, L., Ericson, U., Hellstrand, S., Gullberg, B., Orho-
Investigation. Franco Biasioli: Writing – review & edit- Melander, M., & Sonestedt, E. (2013). Genetic variation in the fat
ing; Supervision. Markus Stieger: Writing – review & mass and obesity-associated gene (FTO) in association with food
editing; Supervision; Formal analysis; Conceptualization; preferences in healthy adults. Food & Nutrition Research, 57(1),
20028.
Methodology; Visualization.
Casas, M. J., Kenny, D. J., & Macmillan, R. E. (2003). Buccal and lin-
gual activity during mastication and swallowing in typical adults.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 30(1), 9–16.
The authors are grateful to Wessel Cramwinckel (Cen- Castura, J. C., Antúnez, L., Giménez, A., & Ares, G. (2016). Tempo-
trum voor Smaakonderzoek, The Netherlands) for his ral Check-All-That-Apply (TCATA): A novel dynamic method for
valuable support for the recruitment of participants and characterizing products. Food Quality and Preference, 47, 79–90.
support during the conduction of the study. Special thanks Cherdchu, P., & Chambers, E., IV (2014). Effect of carriers on descrip-
to Wingkie Siu (Wageningen University) for her support tive sensory characteristics: A case study with soy sauce. Journal
of Sensory Studies, 29(4), 272–284.
during data collection.
de Lavergne, M. D., Derks, J. A. M., Ketel, E. C., de Wijk, R.
A., & Stieger, M. (2015). Eating behaviour explains differences
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
between individuals in dynamic texture perception of sausages.
The authors declare no conflict of interest. Food Quality and Preference, 41, 189–200.
de Lavergne, M. D., Tournier, C., Bertrand, D., Salles, C., van
ORCID de Velde, F., & Stieger, M. (2016). Dynamic texture perception,
Karina Gonzalez-Estanol https://orcid.org/0000-0003- oral processing behaviour and bolus properties of emulsion-filled
2603-886X gels with and without contrasting mechanical properties. Food
Franco Biasioli https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5715-9686 Hydrocolloids, 52, 648–660.
Doyennette, M., Aguayo-Mendoza, M. G., Williamson, A. M.,
Markus Stieger https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8736-6026
Martins, S. I. F. S., & Stieger, M. (2019). Capturing the impact of
oral processing behaviour on consumption time and dynamic sen-
REFERENCES sory perception of ice creams differing in hardness. Food Quality
Agras, W. S., Kraemer, H. C., Berkowitz, R. I., & Hammer, L. D. (1990). and Preference, 78, 103721. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FOODQUAL.
Influence of early feeding style on adiposity at 6 years of age. The 2019.103721
Journal of Pediatrics, 116(5), 805–809. Dubois, L., Diasparra, M., Bédard, B., Kaprio, J., Fontaine-Bisson,
Aguayo-Mendoza, M. G., Ketel, E. C., Van Der Linden, E., Forde, B., Tremblay, R., Boivin, M., & Pérusse, D. (2013). Genetic and
C. G., Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Stieger, M. (2019). Oral processing environmental influences on eating behaviors in 2.5-and 9-year-
behavior of drinkable, spoonable and chewable foods is primar- old children: A longitudinal twin study. International Journal of
ily determined by rheological and mechanical food properties. Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 1–12.
Food Quality and Preference, 71, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Ferriday, D., Bosworth, M. L., Godinot, N., Martin, N., Forde, C.
foodqual.2018.06.006 G., Van Den Heuvel, E., Appleton, S. L., Moss, F. J. M., Rogers,
Aguayo-Mendoza, M. G., Martinez-Almaguer, E. F., Piqueras- P. J., & Brunstrom, J. M. (2016). Variation in the oral process-
Fiszman, B., & Stieger, M. (2020). Differences in oral processing ing of everyday meals is associated with fullness and meal size;
behavior of consumers varying in age, gender and ethnicity lead a potential nudge to reduce energy intake? Nutrients, 8(5), 315.
to changes in bolus properties but only to small differences in https://doi.org/10.3390/nu8050315
dynamic texture perception of sausages. Food & Function, 11(11), Fogel, A., Fries, L. R., McCrickerd, K., Goh, A. T., Chan, M. J., Toh, J.
10022–10032. Y., Chong, Y., Tan, K. H., Yap, F., & Shek, L. P. (2019). Prospective
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
12 EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . .

associations between parental feeding practices and children’s oral mastication patterns in adults of different age groups. Food Quality
processing behaviours. Maternal & Child Nutrition, 15(1), e12635. and Preference, 51, 8–19.
Forde, C. G., Bolhuis, D., Thaler, T., De Graaf, C., & Martin, N. (2013). Luckett, C. R., & Seo, H.-S. (2017). The effects of both chew-
Influence of meal texture on eating rate and food intake. Results ing rate and chewing duration on temporal flavor perception.
from three ad-libitum trials. Appetite, 71, 474. Chemosensory Perception, 10(1), 13–22.
Forde, C. G., van Kuijk, N., Thaler, T., de Graaf, C., & Martin, McCrickerd, K., & Forde, C. G. (2017). Consistency of eating rate, oral
N. (2013). Oral processing characteristics of solid savoury meal processing behaviours and energy intake across meals. Nutrients,
components, and relationship with food composition, sensory 9(8), 891.
attributes and expected satiation. Appetite, 60(1), 208–219. https:// McCrickerd, K., Lim, C. M. H., Leong, C., Chia, E. M., & Forde, C. G.
doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2012.09.015 (2017). Texture-based differences in eating rate reduce the impact
Goh, A. T., Choy, J. Y. M., Chua, X. H., Ponnalagu, S., Khoo, C. M., of increased energy density and large portions on meal size in
Whitton, C., van Dam, R. M., & Forde, C. G. (2021). Increased oral adults. The Journal of Nutrition, 147(6), 1208–1217.
processing and a slower eating rate increase glycaemic, insulin and Mioche, L., Hiiemae, K. M., & Palmer, J. B. (2002). A postero-anterior
satiety responses to a mixed meal tolerance test. European Journal videofluorographic study of the intra-oral management of food in
of Nutrition, 60(5), 2719–2733. man. Archives of Oral Biology, 47(4), 267–280.
Gonzalez-Estanol, K., Cliceri, D., Biasioli, F., & Stieger, M. (2022). Mochizuki, K., Hariya, N., Miyauchi, R., Misaki, Y., Ichikawa, Y., &
Differences in dynamic sensory perception between reformulated Goda, T. (2014). Self-reported faster eating associated with higher
hazelnut chocolate spreads decrease when spreads are consumed ALT activity in middle-aged, apparently healthy Japanese women.
with breads and wafers. Food Quality and Preference, 98, 104532. Nutrition, 30(1), 69–74.
Gonzalez-Estanol, K., Libardi, M., Biasioli, F., & Stieger, M. (2022). Mojet, J., Heidema, J., & Christ-Hazelhof, E. (2003). Taste perception
Oral processing behaviours of liquid, solid and composite foods are with age: Generic or specific losses in supra-threshold intensities
primarily driven by texture, mechanical and lubrication properties of five taste qualities? Chemical Senses, 28(5), 397–413.
rather than by taste intensity. Food & Function, 13(9), 5011–5022. Nguyen, H., & Wismer, W. V. (2020). The influence of companion
Hayes, J. E., & Keast, R. S. J. (2011). Two decades of supertasting: foods on sensory attribute perception and liking of regular and
Where do we stand? Physiology & Behavior, 104(5), 1072–1074. sodium-reduced foods. Journal of Food Science, 85(4), 1274–1284.
Hennequin, M., Allison, P. J., Veyrune, J.-L., Faye, M., & Peyron, Oliver, P., Cicerale, S., Pang, E., & Keast, R. (2018). Developing a
M. (2005). Clinical evaluation of mastication: Validation of video strawberry lexicon to describe cultivars at two maturation stages.
versus electromyography. Clinical Nutrition, 24(2), 314–320. Journal of Sensory Studies, 33(1), e12312.
Henry, C. J., Ponnalagu, S., Bi, X., & Forde, C. (2018). Does basal Panouille, M., Saint-Eve, A., Deleris, I., Le Bleis, F., & Souchon, I.
metabolic rate drive eating rate? Physiology & Behavior, 189, 74–77. (2014). Oral processing and bolus properties drive the dynam-
Hirokawa, K., Yamazawa, K., & Shimizu, H. (2006). An examination ics of salty and texture perceptions of bread. Food Research
of sex and masculinity/femininity as related to the taste sensitivity International, 62, 238–246.
of Japanese students. Sex Roles, 55(5), 429–433. Petty, A. J., Melanson, K. J., & Greene, G. W. (2013). Self-reported eat-
Jin, X., Lin, S., Gao, J., Kim, E. H.-J., Morgenstern, M. P., Wilson, A. ing rate aligns with laboratory measured eating rate but not with
J., Agarwal, D., Wadamori, Y., Wang, Y., & Ying, J. (2022). Ethnic- free-living meals. Appetite, 63, 36–41.
ity impact on oral processing behaviour and glycemic response to Pickering, G. J., Moyes, A., Bajec, M. R., & Decourville, N. (2010).
noodles: Chinese (Asian) vs. New Zealander (Caucasian). Food & Thermal taster status associates with oral sensations elicited
Function, 13(7), 3840–3852. by wine. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 16(2),
Keski-Rahkonen, A., Viken, R. J., Kaprio, J., Rissanen, A., & Rose, 361–367.
R. J. (2004). Genetic and environmental factors in breakfast eating Pineau, N., Schlich, P., Cordelle, S., Mathonnière, C., Issanchou, S.,
patterns. Behavior Genetics, 34(5), 503–514. Imbert, A., Rogeaux, M., Etiévant, P., & Köster, E. (2009). Tem-
Ketel, E. C., Aguayo-Mendoza, M. G., de Wijk, R. A., de Graaf, C., poral dominance of sensations: Construction of the TDS curves
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Stieger, M. (2019). Age, gender, ethnicity and comparison with time–intensity. Food Quality and Preference,
and eating capability influence oral processing behaviour of liquid, 20(6), 450–455.
semi-solid and solid foods differently. Food Research International, Ranawana, V., Clegg, M. E., Shafat, A., & Henry, C. J. (2011). Post-
119, 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.01.048 mastication digestion factors influence glycemic variability in
Kurotobi, T., Hoshino, T., Kazami, Y., Hayakawa, F., & Hagura, humans. Nutrition Research, 31(6), 452–459.
Y. (2018). Relationship between sensory analysis for texture and Robinson, E., Almiron-Roig, E., Rutters, F., de Graaf, C., Forde, C. G.,
instrument measurements in model strawberry jam. Journal of Smith, C. T., Nolan, S. J., & Jebb, S. A. (2014). A systematic review
Texture Studies, 49(4), 359–369. and meta-analysis examining the effect of eating rate on energy
Lasschuijt, M. P., Mars, M., Stieger, M., Miquel-Kergoat, S., De Graaf, intake and hunger. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
C., & Smeets, P. A. M (2017). Comparison of oro-sensory exposure 100(1), 123–151.
duration and intensity manipulations on satiation. Physiology & Scholten, E. (2017). Composite foods: From structure to sensory
Behavior, 176, 76–83. perception. Food & Function, 8(2), 481–497.
Lim, J., Urban, L., & Green, B. G. (2008). Measures of individual Tarrega, A., Yven, C., Semon, E., & Salles, C. (2008). Aroma release
differences in taste and creaminess perception. Chemical Senses, and chewing activity during eating different model cheeses.
33(6), 493–501. International Dairy Journal, 18(8), 849–857.
Luckett, C. R., Meullenet, J.-F., & Seo, H.-S. (2016). Crispness level van Eck, A., Hardeman, N., Karatza, N., Fogliano, V., Scholten,
of potato chips affects temporal dynamics of flavor perception and E., & Stieger, M. (2019). Oral processing behavior and dynamic
 17503841, 0, Downloaded from https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1750-3841.16427 by Fondazione Edmund Mach, Wiley Online Library on [12/01/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
EATING SPEED AND SENSORY PERCEPTION. . . 13

sensory perception of composite foods: Toppings assist saliva in Zhu, Y., Hsu, W. H., & Hollis, J. H. (2013). Increasing the number of
bolus formation. Food Quality and Preference, 71, 497–509. masticatory cycles is associated with reduced appetite and altered
van Eck, A., Pedrotti, M., Brouwer, R., Supapong, A., Fogliano, V., postprandial plasma concentrations of gut hormones, insulin and
Scholten, E., Biasioli, F., & Stieger, M. (2021). In vivo aroma release glucose. British Journal of Nutrition, 110(2), 384–390.
and dynamic sensory perception of composite foods. Journal of Zijlstra, N., de Wijk, R., Mars, M., Stafleu, A., & de Graaf, C. (2009).
Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 69(35), 10260–10271. Effect of bite size and oral processing time of a semisolid food on
Vega-López, S., Ausman, L. M., Griffith, J. L., & Lichtenstein, A. satiation. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 90(2), 269–
H. (2007). Interindividual variability and intra-individual repro- 275.
ducibility of glycemic index values for commercial white bread.
Diabetes Care, 30(6), 1412–1417.
Vinyard, C. J., & Fiszman, S. (2016). Using electromyography as a
research tool in food science. Current Opinion in Food Science, 9, S U P P O RT I N G I N F O R M AT I O N
50–55. Additional supporting information can be found online
Wilson, A., Luck, P., Woods, C., Foegeding, E. A., & Morgenstern, M. in the Supporting Information section at the end of this
(2016). Comparison of jaw tracking by single video camera with 3D article.
electromagnetic system. Journal of Food Engineering, 190, 22–33.
Wing, R. R., Goldstein, M. G., Acton, K. J., Birch, L. L., Jakicic, J.
M., Sallis, J. F., Jr., Smith-West, D., Jeffery, R. W., & Surwit, R. S
(2001). Behavioral science research in diabetes: Lifestyle changes How to cite this article: Gonzalez-Estanol, K.,
related to obesity, eating behavior, and physical activity. Diabetes van Bruinessen, M., Biasioli, F., & Stieger, M.
Care, 24(1), 117–123.
(2022). Differences in habitual eating speed lead to
World Health Organization (WHO). (2016). Report of the commission
on ending childhood obesity. Author.
small differences in dynamic sensory perception of
Yang, Q., Hollowood, T., & Hort, J. (2014). Phenotypic variation in composite foods. Journal of Food Science, 1–13.
oronasal perception and the relative effects of PROP and thermal https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.16427
taster status. Food Quality and Preference, 38, 83–91.