Cited by 83Olfactory and Sensory Function StudiesMultisensory perception and integrationBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques

The role of congruency in taste-odor interactions

Lim, Juyun, Fujimaru, Tomomi, Linscott, Tyler D.·2014·Food Quality and Preference

Abstract

The present study investigated the role that congruency between tastes and odors plays in two types of taste–odor interactions: retronasal odor enhancement by taste and retronasal odor referral to the mouth. In the first experiment, subjects rated (1) the intensities of sweetness, sourness, bitterness, and specific odor of aqueous samples of 3 tastants (sucrose, citric acid, caffeine) and 2 odorants (citral, coffee odor), both alone and in taste–odor mixtures, and (2) the degree of congruency of all possible taste–odor pairs. The results showed that only sucrose significantly enhanced the perceived intensities of citrus and coffee odors (Tukey’s test, p<0.05), while citric acid and caffeine failed to enhance or even suppressed the odors. In the second experiment, the returning subjects were asked (1) to report the perceived locations of the odors after inhaling 3 odorants (citral, “sweet” and “bitter” coffee odors) through the mouth alone or in the presence of either water or various tastes in the mouth, and (2) to rate the degree of congruency between tastes and odors. The data showed that a highly congruent taste or taste mixture significantly increased localization of odors to the mouth (χ2, p<0.05). These findings suggest that taste–odor congruency is a necessary but not sufficient condition for retronasal odor enhancement. In contrast, taste–odor congruency is a critical component for retronasal odor referral, and the degree of congruency modulates the degree of odor referral to the mouth. The results and implications of the study findings are discussed in terms of cognitive and perceptual factors of flavor perception.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodqual.2013.12.002

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Further studies with solid gelatine disks and more ecologically valid stimulus combinations revealed that oral referral is enhanced proportional to the degree of self-reported smell-taste congruency.

    “Further studies conducted with solid gelatine disks instead of liquid solutions [191], and with more ecologically valid stimulus combinations (citral aroma with sweet or sour tastants, co ee aroma with sweet or bitter tastants) revealed similar results where oral referral was enhanced proportional to the degree of self-reported smell-taste congruency [192].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lim, J., Fujimaru, T., & Linscott, T. D.
Affiliations
Oregon State University (US)
Corresponding author
Lim, Juyun
Venue
Food Quality and Preference
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-06
Volume
34
Pages
5-13
ISSN
0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036343797
Cited by
83
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6
FWCI
2.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Food and Agriculture
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Biochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Keywords
taste-odor interaction, odor localization, flavor perception, sucrose, citric acid, caffeine, citral

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review