Understanding the Complex Principles of Food Oral Processing

food structure 1 (2014) 91105
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foostr
Review
Food oral processing: Some important

underpinning principles of eating and sensory
perception
Jianshe Chen *
School of Food Science and Bioengineering, Zhejiang Gongshang University, Hangzhou, China
article info
abstract
Article history:
The oral processing of food is a dynamic process which involves a sequence of highly
Received 16 August 2013
coordinated oral actions and gives desirable sensory experience. Even though this process is
Received in revised form
perceived to be routine, its governing principles are highly complicated and are still not fully
17 February 2014
understood. Based on some recent research findings, this paper reviews current under-
Accepted 18 March 2014
standings on some important issues associated with eating and sensory perception. The
Available online 26 March 2014
review begins with a short introduction to the background of eating studies. This is followed
by four sections focusing on different aspects of eating and sensory perception: the
Keywords:
important roles of saliva incorporation and implications; the basic features of oral dynamics
Food oral processing
and what does it mean to sensory perception; the underpinning physical principles of
Sensory perception
instrumental characterisation of food sensory properties; and finally the psychophysical
Saliva
principles of human sensation and perception.

# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Food rheology
Oral tribology
Psychophysics
Contents
1.
2.
3.
Studies of food oral processing, the background . . . .

Principles of saliva incorporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1. Properties of saliva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Enzymatic interactions with food components
2.3. Colloidal interactions with food particles . . . . .
2.4. Roles in bolus formation and swallowing . . . . .
Principles of oral dynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.1. Physiological nature of oral dynamics . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* Tel.: +86 571 28008904; fax: +86 571 28008900.

E-mail addresses: jschen@zjgsu.edu.cn, j.chen@food.leeds.ac.uk.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foostr.2014.03.001
2213-3291/# 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
92
93
93
94
95
96
96
96
92
4.
5.
6.
3.2. The length scale change during oral processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3.3. The dynamic nature of oral sensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Principles underpinning instrumental characterisation of food sensory properties
4.1. Food mechanics and rheology studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2. Oral tribology studies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3. Hind obstacles in using instrumental measurements for sensory prediction
Psychophysical principles of food sensory perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.1. Oral sensors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2. Oral sensation and sensory perception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3. The scaling of sensory perception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The oral processing of food is the first stage of food digestion

where food breaks down to small particles or smaller
molecules as a result of either oral mastication or salivary
enzymatic interactions. Oral processing is also a transportation process in which food particles are moved around inside
the oral cavity and finally propelled (in the form of bolus) out of
the cavity and through the oralpharyngealoesophagus tract
into the stomach for further digestion. Closely associated with
this process is the sensory perception and appreciation of
food. Even though eating is a routine activity to every health
individual, the complexity of the process is far beyond our
understanding (Chen, 2009; Foster et al., 2012). Therefore,
there is a need of an effort to review some major developments
and achievements in this area. This review begins with a short
introduction to the background of the studies of food oral
processing which is then followed by detailed discussion on
few important principles which underpin eating and sensory
perception.
1.
Studies of food oral processing, the
background
The earliest reported study of food oral processing could be
traced back more than a century ago to the eating practice
championed by Horace Fletcher (18491919), a self-taught
nutritionist and a dedicated speaker and trainer on healthy
eating. Fletcher believed that a thorough oral mastication will
increase the amount of strength a person could have while
actually decreasing the amount of food they consumed
(Christen & Christen, 1997). He proposed that people should
eat only when they were good and hungry and should avoid
dining when they were angry or worried and food should be
chewed thirty two times or, about 100 times per minute, before
being swallowed. This practice was later named as Fletcherism and still attracts attention nowadays (Roach, 2013; Smit,
Kemsley, Tapp, & Henry, 2011). The core of this practice is the
recognition of the implications of food oral processing to
health and well-being.
Disappointingly, Fletchers work was not followed by
proper scientific study. Most food studies on eating and
sensory perception in a large part of the 20th century were
conducted with a focus on food materials, i.e. the (sensory)
properties of food and their instrumental characterisation.
One of the most important researches in the 20th century was
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
96
97
97
97
99
99
99
99
101
102
103
103
103
probably the one conducted by Hutchings and Lillford (1988)

on the mechanisms of the oral breakdown of food structure.
The concept of foodbody interactions was raised for the first
time which implies that food should not be studied alone as a
material, but must be in an oral environment. The food
Summit workshop Food texture: measurement and perception organised in November 1999 in Wageningen, The
Netherlands, is a landmark event in establishing food oral
processing as an integrated scientific discipline. A special
issue of the workshop includes three most representative
reviews given by Lucas, Prinz, Agrawal, and Bruce (2002),
Szczesniak (2002), and van Vliet (2002), explaining the physical
and physiological principles of eating and sensory perception.
The study of food oral processing covers areas of food
physics, oral physiology, and sensory psychology. The core is
the interplay of these disciplines (see Fig. 1). Study of food
physics aims to reveal the determining physical, mechanical
and microstructural principles involved in the deformation
and fracturing of food and their implications to eating and
sensory perception (Lillford, 2011). In most of such studies,
food is studied simply as an edible material and methodologies of rheology, tribology, and microstructure imaging are
often applied. Oral physiology study focuses on the oral
behaviour and physiological responses to changing food
properties during an eating process, including saliva secretion,
the extraction and relaxation of orofacial muscles, jaw
movements, tongue activities, oral receptors stimulations,
etc. (Foegeding et al., 2011; van Vliet & Primo-Martn, 2011). On
the other hand, sensory psychology has the main focus on the
techniques of sensory analysis and the psychophysical
Fig. 1 Core disciplines of food oral processing studies.
93
Fig. 2 An integrated map of eating and sensory perception.
principles of sensation and perception (Goldstein, 2010;

Spence, 2011). Nowadays, research activities of sensory
psychology have grown much wider, extending into areas of
neuroscience to examine brain activities and responses to a
sensory stimulus (Rolls, 2011).
During an eating process, human mouth functions as a
highly sophisticated device for multiple purposes. It is first of
all a food processor for size reduction, mixing, cutting,
shearing, and smearing food. Mouth is also a very delicate
sensing system where taste buds detect taste compounds
while mechanoreceptors detect tactile stimuli. Transportation is another important function of the mouth, having
sophisticated capabilities of pumping (propelling), valve
opening and closing for properly controlled bolus flow.
Complicated aspects associated with food oral processing
and sensory perception are described in Fig. 2. The oral
processing of food produces various food stimuli which can
be detected simultaneously via different sensing channels.
Sensory perception and appreciation could be seen as the
output of this process. The sensation of food stimuli occurs
throughout the whole eating process. All these dynamic
processes are closely controlled and coordinated by the brain.
As have been shown by some recent studies, food stimuli will
produce some specific brain activities. However, research
regarding neurology of an eating process is still at its very
early stage and, therefore, will not be included in this review.
For stimulating reading, readers are recommended to seek
recent articles of measuring neuro-activities using techniques such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
(Rolls, 2011; Smeets, Charbonnier, van Meer, van der Laan, &
Spetter, 2012) and electroencephalography technique (EEG)
(Beary & Batterham, 2010).
2.
Principles of saliva incorporation
The presence and incorporation of saliva is inevitable and

essential to an eating process. Saliva functions as a media and
a reservoir for flavour and aroma release (Salles et al., 2011).
For a non-moisture-absorbing solid food (i.e. nuts, fruits,
vegetables, cooked meat, etc.), saliva will wet fractured food
particles and lubricate their moving. For a moisture-absorbing solid food (i.e. bread, biscuit, etc.), saliva will also moisten
food particles and leads to a softened texture. Even for a fluid
food, saliva mixing also naturally occurs during an eating/
drinking process. Biochemical interactions with some food
components as well as colloidal interactions with food
particles occur to most eating process, leading to significant
changes of the microstructure and texture. For bolus
formation and swallowing, saliva is no doubt an essential
ingredient. Despite of these important roles, the importance
of saliva is very often overlooked by food researchers in eating
and sensory studies.
2.1.
Properties of saliva
Human saliva is a secreted oral fluid composed of aqueous

mixture of electrolytes, mucus (mucopolysaccarides, glycoproteins, etc.), enzymes (a-amylase, lysozyme, lingual lipase,
etc.), and antibacterical compounds. Some typical physicochemical properties of human saliva have been well documented (Amado, Witorino, Domingues, Lobo, & Duarte, 2005;
Humphrey & Williamson, 2001). To the context of eating and
sensory perception, saliva plays at least following major roles
(Carpenter, 2012; Salles et al., 2011):
94
As an effective media and buffer for the diffusion and

release of aroma and taste compounds.
As an efficient lubricant for oral surface as well as food
particle movements.
As a biochemical agent for food structure and texture
alteration.
As an essential ingredient for bolus formation and safe
swallowing.
During an eating process, released taste compounds and
aroma molecules will firstly come into contact with the saliva.
These flavour components are then either diffused through
the salivary media to the taste buds to be detected or released
to the air and then detected by the olfactory bulb in the nasal
cavity. Main challenge to food researchers, however, is how to
design food microstructure to achieve optimised flavour
release. For this purpose, extensive studies have been
conducted to reveal the pattern and controlling factors of
oral flavour release, using either in vitro or in vivo investigations
(Friel, Wang, Taylor, & MacRae, 2007; Taylor, 2009). These
studies have greatly improved our understanding on the oral
diffusion of flavouring compounds and the critical role of
saliva. A growing interest now is to establish kinetic models of
oral (as well as nasal) flavour release, so that the exact roles of
oral physiological features and food properties can be properly
established (Salles et al., 2011).
When involving saliva for eating studies, the interindividual variation of saliva secretion and composition is
always a big challenge. Even for same individual, saliva
compositions also vary (dependent on specific situations, e.g.
time of the day, health conditions, etc.) (Engelen, FontijnTekamp, & van der Bilt, 2005). Two different approaches are
normally used in eating studies: to use an artificial saliva by
constituting aqueous solution of salts, mucins and enzymes
(Roger-Leroi, Mishellany-Dutour, Woda, Marchand, & Peyron,
2012) and/or to collect and mix saliva samples from a large
group of health volunteers (Neyraud, Palicki, Schwartz,
Nicklaus, & Feron, 2012). The use of artificial saliva has an
obvious advantage of easy control and good reproducibility
and many formulations have been developed for such
purposes (Bjorklund, Ouwehand, & Forssten, 2011; Leung &
Darvell, 1997). However, the physicochemical properties of
artificial saliva are always no match of that of the real human
saliva. Therefore, results obtained from such an approach
require extra cautions for interpretation. On the other hand,
collecting human saliva involves ethical complications. The
selection criteria of human volunteers and the procedure of
saliva collection have to be carefully thought through.
Generally, saliva collection can be conducted either in the
manner of unstimulated (natural flow) or stimulated flow of
saliva (either by continuous chewing of a food such as a piece
of Parafilm or by acidic stimulation) (Neyraud et al., 2012).
Collected saliva samples need to be centrifuged immediately
to remove suspended particles (oral debris) and then fast
frozen if not for immediate use.
2.2.
Enzymatic interactions with food components
Human saliva contains about 30 enzymes, including amylase,

invertase, maltase, carbonic anhydrase, urease, oxidase,
catalase, proteolytic enzymes, lipase, phosphatise, lysozyme,

hyaluronidase, etc. Most of these enzymes have specific roles
in protecting and maintaining oral health (Salles et al., 2011).
Of all these enzymes, a-amylase and lingual lipases are
probably the two most important ones which can interact with
certain components of food and cause oral degradation/
digestion and significant changes of the structural and
textural properties of the food.
The a-amylase was one of the first enzymes ever to be
recognised present in human saliva. Its presence is highly
significant, leading to instant oral digestion of starchy food. The
enzyme can interact at random locations along the starch chain
and breaks down long-chain carbohydrates, ultimately yielding
maltotriose, maltose, or glucose and other small sugar molecules (Ferry, Hort, Mitchell, Lagarrigue, & Amies, 2004). This
explains why very often some starchy food (rice, potato, etc.)
give a hint of sweet taste, even in the absence of sugar. Prinz,
Janssen, and de Wijk (2007) studied oral breakdown of starchy
food using both in vitro method examining the rheology of food
enzyme mixture and in vivo method examining collected
samples after chewing. They observed that a-amylase interaction to starch components is instant and its effects on food
consistency and texture is also immediately obvious. Recent
researches further proved that the oral digestion of starch
followed a first-order kinetic model (Butterworth, Warren, &
Ellis, 2011). Even though oral degradation of starch components
has been well known, its implication to food design has not been
properly explored. For example, what will be the difference to
oral experience if a polysaccharide-type thickener or a starchtype thickener is used in a food formulation. A starch thickener
will probably have a greater oral thinning due to its enzymatic
degradation than a polysaccharide thickener.
Lingual lipase, secreted mainly from von Ebners glands of
tongue, is another saliva enzyme which attracts a lot of
interests from food scientists. The importance of this enzyme
is its possible interactions with dietary oil/fat, leading to the
hydrolysis of long-chain triglycerides into partial glycerides
and the formation of free fatty acids. Many researchers even
believe that the release of free fatty acids and its detection by
our taste buds is the underlying mechanism of how oil/fat (and
even creaminess) is perceived inside the mouth. Even though
this hypothesis has received supports from a number of
studies (Akhtar Khan & Besnard, 2009; Chale-Rush, Burgess, &
Mattes, 2007; Mattes, 2009, 2011), this mechanism is still
questioned by many other researchers who believe that
lingual lipase can hardly make a noticeable contribution
due to its very low concentration in saliva. A recent study
conducted in authors lab showed that the presence of
purposely added free fatty acids did not increase fattiness/
creaminess sensation of a fluid food of controlled viscosity
(Chen & Eaton, 2012), suggesting that free fatty acids may have
limited role in fatty sensation. Others argue that fatty
sensation is likely detected through oral tactile mechanism
(Rolls, 2011). No doubt that research findings from various
studies were somewhat contradicting and further studies are
needed to clarify the possible influences of lingual lipase on
the oral sensation of oil/fat related sensory features. This is
particularly relevant nowadays, when food manufacturers are
eagerly seeking means to maintain sensory quality of fatreduced food.
95
Fig. 3 Oral destabilisation mechanisms of food emulsions (from Sarkar & Singh, 2012).
2.3.
Colloidal interactions with food particles
It is for sure that food (either in the form of solid, semi-solid or

liquid) engages complicated colloidal interactions once mixed
up with the saliva (Le Reverend, Norton, Cox, & Spyropoulos,
2010; van Vliet, van Aken, de Jongh, & Hamer, 2009). Using food
emulsions as an example category, all forms of emulsion
destabilisation have been proved feasible inside the oral cavity
during an eating process (Sarkar & Singh, 2012). Destabilisation due to such as salt-induced aggregation, depletion
flocculation, bridging flocculation, as well as coalescence
could all occur as a result of emulsionsaliva interactions (see
Fig. 3). In particular, positively charged food emulsion stands
no chance against oral destabilisation. Severe flocculation
(due to bridging of mucin molecules) could even lead to
possible coalescence of oil droplets. Neutral and weakly
negatively charged emulsions have limited electric repulsion
between droplets and may also develop depletion flocculation
or salt-induced aggregation. Only strongly negatively charged
emulsions (with zeta-potential below 50 mV) may remain
stable in an oral environment (Sarkar & Singh, 2012). Even
though oral destabilisation of food emulsion is caused mainly
by weakened repulsion interactions between emulsion droplets, the accompanying oral shearing, pH and temperature
change, as well as the incorporation of air are also important
influencing factors to the oral stability of food emulsions.
The oral destabilisation has no doubt a great influence to
our sensory perception of a food emulsion. Vingerhoeds,
Silletti, de Groot, Schipper, and van Aken (2009) observed that
positively charged lysozyme-stabilised emulsion which had
an irreversible bridging flocculation with saliva was orally
perceived to be more astringent, dry and rough. Oil and protein
retention on the tongue surface after oral processing and
mouth rinsing with water was shown to be high for this
emulsion. In contrast, negatively charged whey protein
emulsions which showed reversible (depletion) flocculation
and little retention in the mouth were perceived to be more
creamy and fatty. The increased emulsion viscosity as a result

of the reversible depletion flocculation would also enhance
perceived thickness. The oral perception of dryness and
roughness for positively charged emulsion was believed to
have some similarity to that caused by polyphenolsaliva
interactions, in which the precipitation/depletion of lubricating salivary proteins and the loss of elastic behaviour of the
saliva leads to perceived astringency, dryness and a rough
mouthfeel. Based on these facts, one may conclude that,
despite that a stable shelf life is essential to the design of an
emulsion product, it has no direct relevance to the sensory
experience of the product. The mixing of emulsion with saliva
may completely alter its microstructure and rheological
properties. This is very important not only for our fundamental understanding but also for new product development. In
designing an emulsion product with desirable sensory
experience, factors such as the type of food emulsifier, the
surface charge, the pH condition must be carefully considered.
The interaction of salivary proteins (in particular mucins) with
polyphenol molecules is another well-recognised oral phenomenon. This interaction is believed to have a direct link to the oral
sensation of astringency, a dry puckering-like sensation commonly perceived when consuming some plant-based products. A
most established mechanism of astringency sensation involves
the interactions of polyphenols such as tannins with specific
salivary proteins, in particular those proline-rich proteins
(Bennick, 2002). These interactions form insoluble aggregates
and cause protein precipitation from the salivary layer (Baxter,
Lilley, Haslam, & Williamson, 1997). There have been many
debates on how protein precipitation or protein depletion from
the salivary layer causes dryness and astringency sensation.
Having examined an extensive range of astringency literatures,
Gibbins and Carpenter (2013) suggested that astringency stimuli
alter the salivary bulk, saliva rheology and saliva pellicle and lead
to an increased friction in the oral cavity (surfaces). A loss of
mucosal lubrication is likely to be fundamental in astringency
development (Gibbins & Carpenter, 2013).
96
2.4.
Roles in bolus formation and swallowing
The critical importance of saliva in bolus formation and

swallowing is certain and not for dispute (Chen, 2012, chap. 7).
When consuming a moist solid food, saliva is needed for the
clustering and lubricating of food particles. With the help of
saliva, masticated food particles tend to stay together due to
initially the capillary force acting up on adjoining particles, to
which fluid surface tension is the main contributor. With an
increased amount of saliva, clustered food particles will be
hold together due to the viscous force and become a proper
bolus (with desirable rheological properties) (Drago et al.,
2011). This viscous force also helps preventing food particles
from sticking to the oral surfaces (such as teeth and other soft
tissues) (Lucas et al., 2002). This is also an extremely important
mechanism in preventing residual food particles in the
pharyngeal region after swallow (residual food particles in
pharyngeal region is a common cause of coughing and
inspiration pneumonia). When consuming dry solid food
(e.g. biscuits, baked products, etc.), saliva will also be needed to
moisten food particles. The extent of saliva absorbing and
influences on food properties have been experimentally
investigated recently by Motoi, Morgenstern, Hedderley,
Wilson, and Balita (2013). Therefore, consuming a dry solid
food, in particular powdery food, will require an extra amount
of saliva secretion. This has been confirmed by a simple
investigation conducted in authors lab, in which subjects
were fed with biscuits of very different mechanical nature and
their chewing behaviour were monitored. Some biscuits were
very fragile and easily fractured as measured by their breakage
function but some were much less so. In theory, fragile and
easily fractured biscuits should required less chews. However,
it was observed that a minimal eight chewing cycles were
needed on average to consume various biscuits however
brittle they were (Chen, 2012, chap. 7). It was therefore
concluded that particle size was no longer a controlling factor
for swallowing biscuit boluses, but the need of a certain
amount of saliva was the key controlling factor.
The role of saliva in consuming and swallowing fluid food
has attracted less attention in literature. This should not be
seen as less relevant of saliva in this case. As a matter of fact,
saliva mixes and dilutes fluid food for some specific needs.
Firstly, this ensures food is thermally equilibrated before
entering the stomach to avoid thermal shock. And secondly,
this helps to maximise the diffusion of taste and aroma
compounds so that food flavour and texture can be fully
appreciated.
Bolus formation and swallowing has attracted growing
interests in recent years, in particular the controlling mechanisms of the process (Alsanei & Chen, 2014; Chen, 2012, chap.
7; Cichero & Halley, 2006). This is largely due to fast growing
populations of elderly and dysphagia patients who suffer from
deteriorated quality of life as a result of much weakened
capability in dealing with food. Specially formulated food is
needed for safe consumption and swallowing by these
consumers. Huge business opportunity has drawn some
major food manufacturers as well as pharmaceutical companies into this area. While food formulation is greatly
important, the scenario of saliva presence and incorporation
must be properly investigated for such products.
3.
Principles of oral dynamics
3.1.
Physiological nature of oral dynamics
Fig. 4 is a recorded jaw trajectory and EMG (electromyography)

activities of the facial closing muscles of a subject consuming a
Brazil nut (van der Bilt, Engelen, Pereira, van der Glas, &
Abbink, 2006), in which the lower jaw was lowered and lifted in
a regular pattern in order to have the mouth open and closed
in a periodic manner. Each open/close corresponds to one
chewing cycle lasting for only about a second or so. Various
oro-facial muscles either burst or rest in order to create
coordinated chewing actions. Bursts of activities in the figure
are those from the masseter muscles, responsible for the
closing (lifting) of the lower jaw and the compression force to
the food material. During the depression phase of the lower
jaw (corresponding to mouth opening), the opening muscles
(mainly the digastrics) become active while the closing
muscles cease their activities. The physiology character of
eating dynamics can be probably summarised by three typical
features: a rhythmic pattern of jaw movement; a regular and
coordinated burst/rest of oro-facial muscles; and of course a
continuous secretion of saliva. Implications of this dynamic
process to our eating and sensory perception are in no doubt
significant (Koc et al., 2014; Rohrle, Waddell, Foster, Saini, &
Pullan, 2009).
3.2.
The length scale change during oral processing
Food alters its properties throughout an eating process. One of

the most important change but least noticed by food
researchers is probably its length scale change. It has been
recently acknowledged that food endured at least two
Fig. 4 Recorded oral activities of a subject consuming

Brazil nut. The top row indicates jaw opening shown in
distance; the middle row is the rate of jaw acceleration
during chewing; the low row is the rectified
electromyographic (EMG) activities of the closing muscles
during chewing. The dashed line indicated the first
breakage of the nut. The breakage is followed by an
unloading reflex in the jaw closing muscles (van der Bilt
et al., 2006).
magnitude changes in length scale during an eating process,

from its initially centimetre (or inch) scale at ingestion to
micrometre scale after swallowing (Chen & Stokes, 2012). This
length scale change has been confirmed by ample experimental evidences (Chen, Khandelwal, Liu, & Funami, 2013;
Jalabert-Malbos, Mishellany-Dutour, Woda, & Peyron, 2007;
Peyron, Mishellany, & Woda, 2004). Even though the changing
(reduced) length scale may be primarily for the purpose of easy
handling, safe swallowing, as well as easy digestion of food, its
implication to sensory perception should never be underestimated. General consensus is that, since oral sensation
begins with bulk phase deformation, rheological properties of
the food play a key role to the sensory experience at the early
stage of an eating process. Towards the later stage of an eating
process, food particles have a much reduced size to submillimetre or micrometre scale and are incorporated with a
large amount of saliva. In this case, bulk phase deformation or
bulk phase properties become less relevant but a thin layer
deformation emerges to be dominating. A thin layer lubrication or friction underpins oral tactile sensation. Based on some
pioneering works conducted by Kokini and his colleagues
(Kokini & Cussler, 1983; Kokini, Kadane, & Cussler, 1977;
Kokini, 1987), a swing of rheology to tribology has been
proposed to explain the gradual transition of the dominating
physical principles of eating and sensory perception during an
eating process (Chen & Stokes, 2012).
3.3.
The dynamic nature of oral sensation
The oral sensation of food is also highly dynamic. Based on

this recognition, two very different approaches have been
developed for sensory analysis: the Time Intensity analysis
(TI) (Cliff & Heymann, 1993) and the Temporal Dominance of
Sensation analysis (TDS) (Pineau et al., 2009). Both TI and TDS
approaches are proposed and conducted based on the fact that
the sensation (as well as the perception) of a sensory feature
varies throughout an eating process. That is, because of the
continuous changing material properties (including the length
scale) of the food, the instant sensation of a particular sensory
feature could be very different from time to time. Therefore,
our brain has to integrate all sensation information over the
whole oral processing period in order to form final sensory
opinion (the sensory perception). This forms the basis of the TI
analysis. On the other hand, the instant dominating sensory
feature could also be different from time to time. For example,
when consuming a biscuit, the first dominating sensation is
often the hardness or the crispness of the product. But after
few chewing cycles, such sensory features will diminish and
become eventually imperceptible. Instead, a tactile sensation
of consistency or smoothness or a taste sensation of
sweetness could turn out to be dominating. This is why the
dominance of sensation varies throughout an eating process.
4.
Principles underpinning instrumental
characterisation of food sensory properties
Establishing instrumental methods for objective characterisation and quantification of food sensory features dominated
food sensory studies in the past few decades. For academic
97
researchers, an instrumental measurement means that a

sensory feature can be replaced or at least expressed by a
physical parameter so that human perception can be
measured and quantified by a reliable and reproducible
physical method. For food industry, the use of instrumental
methods means fast, objective, and no-ambiguity for food
quality control and a reliable prediction of consumers
perception of a food product. The use of an instrumental
method to replace taste panel tests will also avoid ethic
complication of involving human participants and lead to a
great cost-saving.
4.1.
Food mechanics and rheology studies
Almost half century ago, a group of food scientist from General

Food (now Kraft) made the first landmark achievement in food
texture studies. They proposed a double compression test for
quantitative assessment of hardness, springiness, cohesiveness, stickiness, and other textural properties of a food gel
(Friedman, Whitney, & Szczesniak, 1963). The method was
later referred as Texture Profile Analysis (TPA). Even though
the exact meaning of the textural terms obtained from this
method are not as clear as they were claimed to be and some
even raised concerns of the improper use of this method
(Brenner & Nishinari, 2013), the method is still widely applied
by food researchers in academic and in industrial researches
because of its simplicity and practicality. The core importance
of this method is the direct link of mechanical properties to
food texture properties. It assumes that how a food resist
deformation determines its oral behaviour and therefore its
textural sensation.
Since then, mechanical and rheological approaches dominated food texture studies and extensive testing methods have
been reported in the literature. These tests can be roughly
divided into three categories according to Bourne (2002):
fundamental tests, empirical tests, and imitative tests. Fundamental tests normally refer to measurements of well-defined
rheological properties. Such tests were mostly conducted
within a small-deformation to avoid structural damage to the
food material. Empirical tests are designed for practical use in
food industry. Parameters of measurements are not necessarily
clearly defined and often arbitrary. However, such tests have
unique advantage of easy operation, rapid and inexpensive.
Imitative tests imitate oral conditions to which the food
material is exposed and parameters of measurement are often
directly linked to sensory properties. Artificial masticator
(Woda et al., 2010) and artificial human mouth (Benjamin
et al., 2012) are typical devices designed for imitative tests.
Food rheology is nowadays commonly accepted as an
independent research discipline represented by an authentic
textbook by Rao (1999) and some excellent reviews (Foegeding
et al., 2011; Lillford, 2011; van Vliet, 2002). The beauty of food
rheology approach is that it measures scientifically defined
physical parameters which give precise description of the
mechanical nature of a food material. However, a main
problem of rheolgy study for food texture sensation is that
most measured parameters are precise only when in small
deformation and non-destructive manner, whilst food deformation inside the mouth is always in large deformation and
definitely a destructive process.
98
Fig. 5 Representative types of forcedisplacement curves

for food materials.
There are many empirical tests reported in the literature,

including compression, puncturing, stretching, bending, etc.
(Bourne, 2002; Kim et al., 2012). Force (or stress), displacement
distance (or strain), and time are the three fundamental
parameters of such tests. These tests will yield a force
displacement curve to represent the deformation pattern of a
solid or semi-solid food material. Fig. 5 shows the four most
typical scenarios of such deformation. Most materials exhibit
an initial linear relationship between the applied force (stress)
and the displacement distance (strain). The slope and extent
of this linear relationship represent the elastic nature (or
modulus) of the material. Beyond this linearity, permanent
structural damage occurs to the material. Curve (a) is a typical
brittle material which has a catastrophic fracture. Examples of
this category include sugar candy, roasted nuts, biscuits, etc.
Curve (b) represents a scenario of a ductile material which
starts to have a plastic flow after its yield point. Curve (c)
represents a food material which exhibits a gradual microstructural destruction (weakened mechanical strength) but
shows no clear yield point. Curves (b) and (c) represent many
processed food, such as processed meat products, cooked
vegetables, cheese, and food gels. Curve (d) is a J-shaped curve
for a typical strain-hardening material. Such a material is
initially easy to deform but becomes harder at higher strains.
Raw meat is a typical example of this type of materials. By
comparing relative magnitude of measured properties, empirical tests can easily rank and differentiate food materials in
a semi-quantitative manner (Chen & Opara, 2013; Dobraszczyk & Vincent, 1999). Therefore, it should be made clear that
empirical tests are designed only to rank textural properties
against a reference rather than to quantify textural properties.
Most reported empirical tests have no clearly stated
restrictions in the experimental set up. Because of this, many
such methods are often misused beyond their reasonable
range of applications. Take TPA as an example, the preconditions in applying this method are often misinterpreted
by researchers. Since this method is so widely reported in the
literature, it is worth to stress the cautions and conditions
when applying this method.
(1) TPA is most suitable for semi-solid materials and ideal for
gel type food. The method is not applicable to fluid samples
or those which cannot stand against gravity. The method is
also not most suitable to brittle solid food (e.g. biscuits,
sugar candy, nuts, etc.), because parameters such as
springiness, cohesiveness, and adhesiveness have very
little relevance to these food.
(2) The size of the compressing probe must be larger than the
surface area of the sample. This will ensure a uniform
compression of the sample. A small probe against a larger
sample surface will lead to puncture/penetration rather
than compression.
(3) As has been noted in their original work, measurements of
cohesiveness and adhesiveness will often interfere with
each other (Friedman et al., 1963). Therefore, both
parameters probably cannot be quantified in one single
TPA test. To measure the cohesiveness of a stick food, it
was recommended that a layer of talcum powder or nonpenetrating lubricant oil need to be applied on sample
surface to avoid surface adhesion and to allow free surface
expansion. When a material is compressed in its zdirection, it will inevitably expand in the xy plane. Surface
lubrication will minimise surface friction so that the
sample can maintain its initial (cylindrical) geometry,
instead of becoming a bulge-shaped. For a bulge-shaped
sample, the stress distribution will become uneven and the
stressstrain curve will be sample size-dependent (Charalambides, Goh, Wanigasooriya, Williams, & Xiao, 2005).
(4) The target strain is one of the most important experimental set up and yet most puzzling to many researchers. To
mimic large deformation during eating, Bourne (2002)
reported that a high strain (up to 90%) compression should
be applied. However, at such a high strain, most food gels
will fracture and thus cohesiveness cannot be determined.
(5) Many researchers also use TPA to assess the so-called
brittleness of the food, as indicated by the first force drop
recorded during the first compression cycle (Lin, Zeng, Zhu,
& Song, 2012). However, the fact is once a sample fractures
or experiences major structural damage during its first
compression, the force (stress) recording for the second
compression cycle becomes meaningless and not reproducible. In this case, assessment of cohesiveness, springiness, and adhesiveness will be no longer feasible. Based on
this consideration, the target strain in a TPA test should be
better below the point of fracture.
There have been so many reported TPA studies for all sorts
of food. However, results from these studies are hardly
comparable due to very different experimental setting up.
Some very good discussion about TPA test, advantages and
limitations, can be found from a very recent research note
(Brenner & Nishinari, 2013).
Another great success of food texture study is the
assessment of sensory thickness or consistency based on
instrumental viscosity measurements. The first important
breakthrough in linking fluid rheology to the oral sensation is
the well-known master curve developed by Shama, Parkinson,
and Sherman (1973), showing the oral shear stress against the
shear rate for a wide range of fluid materials. According to this
research, fluids of high viscosity will be deformed inside the
mouth by an increased shear stress in order to maintain a

minimal sheared rate (ca. 10 s1), whilst very thin fluids will be
deformed at an increased shear rate under a minimal shear
stress application (ca. 10 Pa). Cutler, Morris, and Taylor (1983)
further proved a positive correlation between the objectively
measured viscosity and the perceived in-mouth viscosity by
panellists. Even though fluid rheology has been commonly
used for oral consistency prediction, question remains on how
fast a fluid food is manipulated inside the mouth. This is
further complicated by the fact that most fluid foods are nonNewtonian and their viscosity varies hugely dependent on the
rate of deformation. Cutler et al. (1983) believed that 10 s1
gave the best match. Akhtar, Stenzel, Murray, and Dickinson
(2005) noticed a shear rate of 50 s1 gave better match than
that measured at 10 s1. More recently, Koliandris et al. (2010)
found that the perceived thickness correlated to the viscosity
measured at a shear rate of 500 s1, even though the saltiness
perception of polysaccharide fluids correlated inversely to the
viscosity measured at 50 s1. Contradictory results reported by
different research groups may be not surprising, but whether
this is caused by different criteria of subject selection and
experimental set up or by the different rheological nature of
fluid food is a question which requires further investigations.
4.2.
Oral tribology studies
The importance of oral tribology to oral tactile sensation has

been recognised decades ago (Kokini & Cussler, 1983; Kokini
et al., 1977; Kokini, 1987). Based on the fact that an eating
process involves all sorts of relative surface movements
concerning food particles and oral surfaces, they believed that
oral friction resistance would have a direct implication to
sensory properties such as smoothness, slipperiness, and even
creaminess. However, systematic studies in this topic only
began in the last decade when a group of Unilever scientists
started investigating the implications of lubrication properties
of polysaccharide solutions to oral sensation (Malone, Appelqvist, & Norton, 2003). Since then, huge interests emerge in oral
lubrication or oral tribology studies, aiming to reveal the
underpinning physics of oral tactile sensation and sensory
perception (Rossetti, Bongaerts, Wantling, Stokes, & Williamson, 2009; Stokes, Macakova, Chojnicka-Paszun, de Kruif, & de
Jongh, 2011; Stokes, 2012; van Aken, 2010).
The physiological basis of oral tribology is probably the
existence of typical papillae on the tongue surface. Out of the
four different types of papillae on tongue surface, three of
them (fungiform papillae, foliate papillae, and circumvilliate
papillae) contain taste buds and function as chemical sensors
for taste detection, but the cone-shaped filiform papillae
contain no such taste buds. It is therefore believed that filiform
papillae, most abundantly distributed across the whole tongue
surface, are solely for the purpose of tactile touching which
helps to prevent food particles from slipping over the tongue
surface. Tactile information will therefore be sensed by the
nerving endings richly arranged underneath the skin surface.
This has been confirmed by Just, Stave, Pau, and Guthoff (2005)
who managed to use confocal laser scanning microscopy to
visualise the epithelial structures of the tongue. Papillae crests
and blood flow were clearly observable according to their
study.
99
Developing a Stribeck curve is a core task of tribology study,

in which friction coefficient is plotted against the film
thickness, a combined factor of fluid viscosity, surface moving
speed, and surface load. However, to determine these values is
a difficult task. So far little is known about the relative moving
speed of the oral surfaces and the surface load. The fluid
viscosity is also highly variable because of its mixing with
saliva and because of the non-Newtonian behaviour during an
eating process. Another challenge to oral tribology studies is
the complicated ethical issues. To access human mouth for
experimental studies is not an easy option. Instead a group of
Dutch scientists managed to set up an in vitro lubrication test
using pigs tongue tissue (Dresselhuis, de Hoog, Stuart, & van
Aken, 2008). Of course, the meaning of these results could be
questionable. This is because firstly the surface of a dead
tissue is very different from a live one and secondly a pigs
tongue is no match of a humans tongue. A direct observation
of the (residual) thin layer at tongue surface could be a useful
complimentary technique to oral lubrication studies. Adams,
Singleton, Juskaitis, and Wilson (2007) used an in vivo video
rate confocal endoscopy apparatus for tongue surface observation. A thin layer of oil droplets was clearly identifiable at
tongue surface 30 s after the consumption of various oily
fluids. No doubt that the existence of a thin oil layer on tongue
surface will alter its surface lubrication behaviour and
therefore the oral sensation.
4.3.
Hind obstacles in using instrumental measurements
for sensory prediction
The use of instrumental measurements is always desirable both
for academic researchers in laboratories and for food quality
control in industry. However, instrumental interpretation of
humans perception has never been straightforward (Chen,
2009). Many currently available instrumental techniques have
various drawbacks and hindered obstacles and, therefore, cares
must be taken when interpreting instrumental results in
relation to humans sensory perception. This is because:
Most instrumental methods are designed for single parameter measurement, but oral sensation is mostly simultaneous multi-modal.
Instrumental methods are often conducted under a controlled condition far different from that a food experienced
during eating.
Instrumental methods can hardly mimic the thermal
history of a food inside the mouth.
The involvement of saliva is inevitable during an eating process
but often excluded from instrumental measurements.
Irregular oral geometry and its continuous changing during
an eating process are difficult to resemble by an instrumental set up.
5.
Psychophysical principles of food sensory
perception
5.1.
Oral sensors
Human mouth is a highly delicate sensing system, capable of

detecting stimuli of very different nature and over a wide
100
Table 1 Types of oral receptors.

Receptor type
Chemoreceptor
Mechanoreceptor
Proprioceptors
Thermoreceptor
Nociceptor
Example of responsible stimuli

Metabolites, tastes, smells
Pressure, touch, vibration,
tension, stretch
Detects the motion or position of
the body or a limb by responding
to stimuli arising within the organism
Sensation of warming and cooling
Pain caused by tissue damage, heat,
crushing, etc.
range of intensity. Oral sensation is achieved via numerous

receptors/sensors designed specifically for different types of
stimuli (see Table 1). Detected signals and stimuli are then
conveyed to the central nerve system for processing and
interpretation (Schmidt, 1986). For example, thermoreceptors
are designed for sensing the temperature (warmth/coldness)
of the food. Proprioceptors are responsible for sensation of the
motion and position of the tongue. Nociceptors are mainly for
self-protection against hurting or damaging to oral tissues. Of
all oral receptors, chemoreceptors and mechanoreceptors are
probably most directly relevant to eating and sensory
perception. Chemoreceptors are abundantly distributed on
tongue surface (in particular tip, side edges, and back) and are
responsible for detecting various tastes (sweet, salty, bitter,
sour, and umami). More dense chemoreceptors are arranged
inside the nasal cavity (olfactory receptors), responsible for
detecting aromatic molecules. The hierarchy of tasting
receptors at the tongue surface is illustrated in Fig. 6.
Mechanoreceptors at oral surfaces are designed for sensing
and detecting any physical/mechanical stimulus exerted on
tissue surface and are directly responsible for food texture
Fig. 6 The hierarchy of taste receptors at the tongue

surface.
sensation. These receptors can be divided into two different

categories according to their nature of responding: slowly
adapting (SA) and rapidly adapting (RA). The two types are
designed specifically for different purposes: the former fires
continuously as long as the pressure is applied, while the latter
fires only at the onset and offset of the stimulation. Therefore,
the rapidly adapting mechanoreceptors are more sensitive to
sudden changes of external stimulation and will probably
dominate sensation in a dynamic environment such as eating
and swallowing. There are four different types of mechanoreceptors and each of them has its own unique mechanisms
in responding to external stimulation (see Fig. 7). Merkel
Fig. 7 Four different types of mechanoreceptors (from Goldstein, 2010).
receptors (SA1) are disk-shaped, slowly adapting, located near

the border between the epidermis and the dermis, responsible
to low frequency stimuli (0.33 Hz). Ruffini cylinder (SA2) is
highly branched fibres inside a roughly cylindrical capsule,
responsible to high frequency stimuli (15400 Hz). Meissner
corpuscle (RA1) is a stack of flattened cells located just below
the epidermis, responsible to stimuli in the frequency range of
340 Hz. Pacinian corpuscle (RA2) is an onion-like capsule
consisting of a body of fluid surrounding a nerve fibre, located
deep in the skin and responsible to relatively high frequency
stimuli (10500 Hz) (Goldstein, 2010).
The exclusive role of mechanoreceptors in sensing textural
properties of food has been confirmed by a recent study. In
examining contributions of proprioception and superficial
sensation to the oral perception of the thickness of semi-solid
foods, Kutter, Hanesch, Rauh, and Delgado (2011) found that
the role of proprioception is almost negligible. However, oral
mechanoreceptors appear to have very different RA and SA
compositions from those located at other parts of the body.
Bukowska, Essick, and Trusson (2010) showed that the
proportion of RA and SA units in most body parts, e.g. face
and vermillion, hairy arm, hairy hand, and labial oral mucosa,
is about 3664 or lower, but on the tongue surface the ratio
becomes 6436. A much higher proportion of RA receptors
indicates that tongue is much more sensitive to on/off
applications of external stimuli. Considering the dynamic
nature of food oral processing and continuously changing
textural properties, one would think that high RA units on
tongue surface will be advantageous for acute texture
sensation.
While oral receptors of different nature have been identified, how specific of these sensors in sensing food stimuli is
still little known. Do these receptors work in isolation or cooperation? As has been mentioned earlier, both chemoreceptors and mechanoreceptors are claimed to be responsible for
oil/fat sensation inside the mouth. It is therefore reasonable to
believe that, while some sensory features are detected directly
by a single sensing channel, some complicated sensory
features could be perceived simultaneously by different
sensing mechanisms.
5.2.
Oral sensation and sensory perception
Sensation and sensory perception are two very different

concepts. But the two terms are often mix-used and the
boundary between the two is often not clear to consumers and
even to food researchers. Sensation is a responsive action of a
sensory receptor to external stimuli (chemoreceptors for taste
and smell stimuli; mechanoreceptors for pressure, tension,
vibration, etc.). Thus sensation is a physiological response that
in theory can be quantified using appropriate analytical
methods. However, perception is usually a processed opinion
by a subject based on received sensation information. The
perception is therefore influenced by physiological, psychological, as well as cultural factors. Psychologists refer sensory
perception as a three-stage process: stimulation receiving,
information processing, and perception. The complexity of
sensation and perception was perfectly highlighted by Lawless
in his latest webseminar on Ten big ideas in sensory science
and product development. He believes that human sensory
101
response is non-linear, non-uniform, time-dependent, and

interactive and combinatorial.1
The non-linear function is specifically reflected by the fact
that we sense percentage change (or the proportion) rather
than absolute change. This concept is hugely important to
humans sensation and perception. For example, we perceive
inflation in percentage rather than absolute figure. The
concept of percentage may also explain why a same length
of time could be perceived very differently to persons of
different ages: many people feel that time gets a faster pace
once getting older. For instance, one year could be perceived
very long to a 10 years old child but quite short to an adult of 50
years old. This could be because for the former one year is
equivalent to 10% of life experience, but one year only
accounts for 2% of life experience for a 50 years old and is
therefore perceived relatively shorter, as has been illustrated
by some similar examples by Gruber, Wagner, and Block
(2000). The percentage concept is also true to our perception to
sensory stimuli, such as light, smell, sound, taste and
pressure. This phenomenon is perfectly described by Webers
law, which states that the perceivable threshold difference of a
sensory property (DI) is always proportional to its own
magnitude (I) and can be expressed as a percentage ratio:
k
DI
;
I
where k is Webers constant (or Webers ratio). This rule shows

that the perceivable difference threshold of a stimulus
increases in proportion with its amplitude. Webers constant
k could be very different for different stimuli but it should
remain the same for the same sensory feature regardless of its
intensity. It was reported that humans are most sensitive to
electric shock and can sense a difference of only 1% change,
but our tasting system has a much higher threshold, with 8%
threshold for salty taste (Goldstein, 2010). In determining
humans sensitivity to pungency stimulus, Orellana-Escobedo
et al. (2012) found that human mouth are much more sensitive
than an instrument in detecting the absolute threshold of
capsaicinoids, the chemical responsible for pungency sensation, (only 0.050 mg/kg compared to 1.512 mg/kg capsaicinoids
from an high performance HPLC test). However, we are relatively dull in detecting its concentration changes, with a
Webers ratio higher than 0.60 for a wide range of capsaicinoids solutions.
While Webers law serves well to stimulus acting alone, it
appears that for many food sensory features Webers ratio
varies due to stimuli interference. In assessing sensory
threshold of sweetness and fattiness of dairy-based emulsions, Hoppert, Zahn, Puschmann, Ullmann, and Rohm (2012)
obtained very different Webers constant for sweetness
perception for emulsions containing different amount of oil/
fat: from as low as 0.57 for high fat content emulsions to an
unbelievably high value of 2.96 for low fat content emulsions.
Even though these results require confirmation from an
independent study, it is reasonable to believe that strong
1
The webseminar was given by Prof. Harry Lawless on the 3rd of
April 2013 at website http://www.foodseminarsinternational.com/.
102
interference from the presence of other sensory stimuli could

distort our sensation of the target sensory feature.
Table 2 Representative exponents of the power functions for various stimuli (Stevens, 1960).
Stimulus
5.3.
The scaling of sensory perception
Establishing a relationship between an instrumental measurement and human perception has been the main focus of
many sensory studies. Technically, there is little difficulty
nowadays to employ an instrument for precise measurements
of many sensory stimuli. However, how to quantify and scale
humans perception is still very puzzling and requires further
researches.
The fundamental psychophysical principles underpinning
humaninstrument correlation was first explained by Fechner
over one and half century ago using the theory of inner
psychophysics and outer psychophysics. He suggested that the
perceived strength S of a physical stimulus with an intensity of
I should be in the scale of just noticeable difference (JND) DI
(Billock & Tsou, 2011; Murray, 1993). It was further suggested
by Fechner that the strength S has a logarithmic relation to
stimulus intensity:
S k log I;
where k is a constant. This equation has been used in psychophysics studies for much of the last century. However, Stevens
spotted a vital error made by Fechner in assuming that the just
noticeable difference (JND), a measure of error, remained a
constant regardless of the intensity. Stevens considered that
the JND varies and its value should increase in proportion to
the intensity of the stimulus as was indicated by Webers law.
Based on this consideration, Stevens demonstrated that the
perceived psychological magnitude of a stimulus S should
have a power law relationship with its physical magnitude I
(Stevens, 1957, 1960):
Loudness
Loudness
Brightness
Brightness
Smell
Smell
Taste
Taste
Taste
Pressure on palm
Heaviness
Force on handgrip
Vocal effort
Electric shock
Power law
index (n)
Conditions
0.6
0.55
0.33
0.5
0.55
0.5
0.8
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.45
1.7
1.1
3.5
Binaural
Monaural
58 target, dark-adapted eye
Point source, dark-adapted eye
Coffee odour
Heptane
Saccharine
Sucrose
Salt
Static force on skin
Lifted weights
Precision hand dynamometer
Sound pressure of vocalisation
60 c.p.s. through fingers
One of the most successful applications of the psychophysical scaling theory in food sensory studies was probably
the one on sensory viscosity conducted by Cutler et al. (1983).
In this well designed study, Cutler and co-workers (Cutler
et al., 1983) studied viscosity of various fluid foods by both
panellists oral sensation and instrumental measurements. By
correlating the perceived viscosity against instrumental
results, they obtained a power law relationship with an index
of only 0.22 (see Fig. 8):
T 49h0:22
N
S kIn ; or
S kI I0 n ;
where T represents oral perceived viscosity by panellists, hN is

the instrumental viscosity (in unit of poise, 1 poise equals to
0.1 Pa s). A very low power index (0.22) seems to suggest that
human mouth is much less sensitive in detecting viscosity
change. Whilst this low power index is waiting for approval
from more independent studies, this research demonstrates
where I0 is a constant value corresponding to the absolute

threshold and n is the power law index. At the threshold
value, there is no perceived stimulation (S = 0, when I = I0).
This relationship has been widely tested and is well-known as
the Stevens law. As a very special case when the power law
index n equals to 1, the perceived strength will have a linear
relationship with the physical magnitude of the stimulus. At
this circumstance, humans perception will have the same
sensitivity as the physical instrument and increases linearly
with the increase of the physical intensity of the stimulus.
However, in most cases, n is either larger or smaller than
unity. A higher n value means increased sensitivity in perceiving that stimulus. To support his theory, Stevens studied
a wide range of sensory stimuli and obtained very different n
values, from as low as only 0.33 for brightness perception to as
high as 3.5 for electric shock (see Table 2). These studies
highlight two very important facts: (1) different sensory
receptors/sensors have very different sensitivities in detecting stimulus; (2) even though the responding and interpretation mechanisms are very different between human
sensation and instrument measuring, the link between the
two exists and can be described by a simple mathematical
model.
Fig. 8 Correlation of the perceived thickness (T) with the

objective viscosity (hN measured in poise), plotted in log
log scale, for a range of Newtonian fluids (golden syrup,
maple syrup, rosehip syrup, fresh milk and various
dilutios of honey) (redrawn from the work of Cutler et al.,
1983).
that human sensation and perception of food texture follows

certain psychophysical rules and can be scaled in relation to
the physical intensity of the stimulus. Surprisingly, this important psychophysical principle has hardly been applied in
food sensory studies. As a matter of fact, the literature in food
sensory psychophysics remains scarce.
6.
Summary
This review is organised largely from a food scientists

perspective and discussion is oriented to food texture studies.
The core message is that eating and sensory perception is a
highly complicated dynamic process governed by principles of
food physics, oral physiology, sensory psychology, and more.
Based on above discussion, we may conclude that:
1. Eating is not simply a physical process of size reduction or

particle movements. The dynamic nature of this process
means that hardly any equilibrium principle is applicable.
The inevitable presence and incorporation of saliva
imposes great influences and complications to the whole
process. Salivary enzymes (e.g. a-amylase and lingual
lipase) could interact with food components and lead to
oral degradation of the food. Colloidal interactions between
salivary proteins and food particles could lead to significant
microstructural changes to the food and therefore textural
variation.
2. During an eating process, food particles experience a length
scale change across at least two magnitudes, from centimetre scale to sub-millimetre scale. This length scale
change is essential for safe swallowing, and has a huge
implication to sensory perception. As a result of this, there
could be a mechanism transition from bulk rheology to thin
layer tribology in oral textural sensation.
3. The oral sensation and perception of food sensory properties are based on and controlled by some very specific
mechanisms that differ hugely from those governing
physical instruments. This is the fundamental cause of
the challenges and difficulties faced by food researchers in
trying to apply instrumental methods for an objective
quantification of food sensory properties. In order to
establish a reliable correlation between instrumental
sensory characterisation and human perception, proper
understanding is greatly needed on the psychophysical
principles of sensory perception.
Acknowledgements
This review was based on the invited talk given at the 16th
world congress of food science and technology held in Iguassu,
Brazil, August 2012. Author would like to express his great
gratitude to Prof. Katsuyoshi Nishinari, Prof. Andy Rao, and
Prof. Malcolm Bourne for stimulating discussion during the
conference.
103
references
Adams, S., Singleton, S., Juskaitis, R., & Wilson, T. (2007). In-vivo
visualisation of mouthmaterial interactions by video rate
endoscopy. Food Hydrocolloids, 21, 986995.
Akhtar, M., Stenzel, J., Murray, B., & Dickinson, E. (2005). Factors
affecting the perception of creaminess of oil-in-water
emulsions. Food Hydrocolloids, 19, 521526.
Akhtar Khan, N., & Besnard, P. (2009). Oro-sensory perception of
dietary lipids: New insights into the fat taste transduction.
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, 1791, 149155.
Alsanei, W. A., & Chen, J. (2014). Studies of the capability of
bolus swallowing: Maximum tongue pressure, bolus size
and bolus consistency. Journal of Texture Studies, 45, 112,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12042.
Amado, F. M. L., Witorino, R. M. P., Domingues, P. M. D. N., Lobo,
M. J. C., & Duarte, J. A. R. (2005). Analysis of the human
saliva proteome. Expert Review of Proteomics, 2, 521539.
Baxter, N. J., Lilley, T. H., Haslam, E., & Williamson, M. P. (1997).
Multiple interactions between polyphenols and a salivary
proline-rich protein repeat result in complexation and
precipitation. Biochemistry, 36, 55665577.
Beary, M. T., & Batterham, R. L. (2010). Gaining new insights into
food reward with functional neuroimaging. In W. Langhans
& N. Geary (Eds.), Frontiers in eating and weight regulation (pp.
152163). Basel, Switzerland: Karger.
Benjamin, O., Silcock, P., Kieser, J. A., Waddell, J. N., Swain, M.
V., & Everett, D. W. (2012). Development of a model mouth
containing an artificial tongue to measure the release of
volatile compounds. Innovative Food Science and Emerging
Technologies, 15, 96103.
Bennick, A. (2002). Interaction of plant polyphenols with
salivary proteins. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology and Medicine,
13, 184196.
Billock, V. A., & Tsou, B. H. (2011). To honor Fechner and obey
Stevens: Relationships between psychophysical and neural
nonlinearities. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 118.
Bjorklund, M., Ouwehand, A. C., & Forssten, S. D. (2011).
Improved artificial saliva for studying the cariogenic effect
of carbohydrates. Current Microbiology, 63, 4649.
Bourne, M. (2002). Food texture and viscosity: Concept and
measurement (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press.
Brenner, T., & Nishinari, K. (2013). A note on instrumental
measures of adhesiveness and their correlation with
sensory perception. Journal of Texture Studies, (in press).
Bukowska, M., Essick, G. K., & Trusson, M. (2010). Functional
properties of low-threshold mechanoreceptive afferents in
the human labial mucosa. Experimental Brain Research, 201,
5964.
Butterworth, P. J., Warren, F. J., & Ellis, P. R. (2011). Human aamylase and starch digestion: An interesting marriage.
Starch, 63, 395405.
Carpenter, G. (2012). Role of saliva in the oral processing of food.
In J. Chen & L. Engelen (Eds.), Food oral processing:
Fundamentals of eating and sensory perception (pp. 4560).
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chale-Rush, A., Burgess, J. R., & Mattes, R. D. (2007). Mutiple
routes of chemosensitivity to free fatty acids in humans.
American Journal of Physiology Gastrointestinal and Liver
Physiology, 292, G1206G1212.
Charalambides, M. N., Goh, S. M., Wanigasooriya, L., Williams, J.
G., & Xiao, W. (2005). Effect of friction on uniaxial
compression of bread dough. Journal of Material Science, 40,
33753381.
Chen, J. (2009). Food oral processing: A review. Food Hydrocolloids,
23, 115.
104
Chen, J. (2012). Bolus formation and swallowing. In J. Chen & L.

Engelen (Eds.), Food oral processing: Fundamentals of eating and
sensory perception (pp. 139156). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chen, J., & Eaton, L. (2012). Multimodal mechanisms of food
creaminess sensation. Food and Function, 3, 12651270.
Chen, L., & Opara, U. L. (2013). Texture measurement
approaches in fresh and processed foods: A review. Food
Research International, 51, 823835.
Chen, J., & Stokes, J. R. (2012). rheology and tribology: Two
distinctive regimes of food texture sensation. Trends in Food
Science and Technology, 25, 412.
Chen, J., Khandelwal, N., Liu, Z., & Funami, T. (2013). Influences
of food hardness on particle size distribution of food
boluses. Archives of Oral Biology, 18, 293298.
Christen, A. G., & Christen, J. A. (1997). Horace Fletcher (1849
1919): The Great Masticator. Journal of the History of
Dentistry, 45, 95100.
Cichero, J., & Halley, P. (2006). Variations of the normal swallow.
In J. Cichero & B. E. Murdoch (Eds.), Dysphagia, foundation,
theory and practice. Oxford: Wiley.
Cliff, M., & Heymann, H. (1993). Development and use of timeintensity: Methodology for sensory evaluation A review.
Food Research International, 25, 375385.
Cutler, A. N., Morris, E. R., & Taylor, L. J. (1983). Oral perception
of viscosity in fluid foods and model systems. Journal of
Texture Studies, 14, 377395.
Dobraszczyk, B. J., & Vincent, J. F. V. (1999). Measurement of
mechanical properties of food materials in relation to
texture: The materials approach. In A. J. Rosenthal (Ed.),
Food texture: Measurement and perception. Gaithersburg, MD:
An Aspen Publication.
Drago, S. R., Panouille, M., Saint-Eve, A., Neyraud, E., Feron, G., &
Souchon, I. (2011). Relationships between saliva and food
bolus properties from model dairy products. Food
Hydrocolloids, 25, 659667.
Dresselhuis, D. M., de Hoog, E. H. A., Stuart, M. A. C., & van
Aken, G. A. (2008). Application of oral tissue in tribological
measurements in an emulsion perception context. Food
Engelen, L., Fontijn-Tekamp, F. A., & van der Bilt, A. (2005). The
influence of product and oral characteristics on swallowing.
Archives of Oral Biology, 50, 739746.
Ferry, A.-L., Hort, J., Mitchell, J. R., Lagarrigue, S., & Amies, B. V.
(2004). Effect of amylase activity on starch paste viscosity
and its implications for flavour perception. Journal of Texture
Studies, 35, 511524.
Foegeding, E. A., Daubert, C. R., Drake, M. A., Essick, M.,
Trulsson, M., Vinyard, C. J., et al. (2011). A comprehensive
approach to understanding textural properties of semi- and
soft-solid foods. Journal of Texture Studies, 42, 103129.
Foster, K. D., Grigor, J. M. V., Cheong, J. N., Yoo, M. J. Y.,
Bronlund, J. E., & Morgenstern, M. P. (2012). The role of oral
processing in dynamic sensory perception. Journal of Food
Science, 76, R49R61.
Friedman, H. H., Whitney, J. E., & Szczesniak, A. S. (1963). The
texturometer A new instrument for objective texture
measurement. Journal of Food Science, 28, 390396.
Friel, E. N., Wang, M., Taylor, A. J., & MacRae, E. A. (2007). In vitro
and in vivo release of aroma compounds from yellowfleshed kiwifruit. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 55,
66646673.
Gibbins, H. L., & Carpenter, G. H. (2013). Alternative mechanisms
of astringencyWhat is the role of saliva? Journal of Texture
Studies, 44, 364375.
Goldstein, E. B. (2010). Sensation and perception (8th ed.). Belmont,
CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Gruber, R. P., Wagner, L. F., & Block, R. A. (2000). Subjective time
versus proper (clock) time. In R. Buccheri, V. Di Gesu`, & M.
Saniga (Eds.), Studies on the structure of time: From physics to
psycho(patho)logy. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum

Publishers.
Hoppert, K., Zahn, S., Puschmann, A., Ullmann, I., & Rohm, H.
(2012). Quantification of sensory difference thresholds for
fat and sweetness in dairy-based emulsions. Food Quality
and Preference, 26, 5257.
Humphrey, S. P., & Williamson, R. T. (2001). A review of saliva:
Normal composition, flow, and function. Journal of Prosthetic
Dentistry, 85, 162169.
Hutchings, J. B., & Lillford, P. J. (1988). The perception of food
texture: The philosophy of the breakdown path. Journal of
Jalabert-Malbos, M. L., Mishellany-Dutour, A., Woda, A., &
Peyron, M. A. (2007). Particle size distribution in the food
bolus after mastication of natural foods. Food Quality and
Preference, 18, 803812.
Just, T., Stave, J., Pau, H. W., & Guthoff, R. (2005). In vivo
observation of papillae of the human tongue using confocal
laser scanning microscopy. ORL Journal for Oto-RhinoLaryngology and Its Related Specialties, 67, 207212.
Kim, E. H. J., Corrigan, V. K., Wilson, A. J., Waters, I. R.,
Hedderley, D. I., & Morgenstern, M. P. (2012). Fundamental
fracture properties associated with sensory hardness of
brittle solid foods. Journal of Texture Studies, 43, 4962.
Koc, H., Cakir, E., Vinyard, C. J., Essick, G., Daubert, C. R., Drake,
M. A., et al. (2014). Adaptation of oral processing to the
fracture properties of soft solids. Journal of Texture Studies,
45, 4761.
Kokini, J. L. (1987). The physical basis of liquid food texture and
texturetaste interactions. Journal of Food Engineering, 6, 51
81.
Kokini, J. L., & Cussler, E. L. (1983). Predicting the texture of
liquid and melting semi-solid foods. Journal of Food Science,
48, 12211225.
Kokini, J. L., Kadane, J., & Cussler, E. L. (1977). Liquid texture
perceived in the mouth. Journal of Texture Studies, 8, 195218.
Koliandris, A.-L., Morris, C., Hewson, L., Hort, J., Taylor, A. J., &
Wolf, B. (2010). Correlation between saltiness perception
and shear flow behaviour for viscous solutions. Food
Kutter, A., Hanesch, C., Rauh, C., & Delgado, A. (2011). Impact of
proprioception and tactile sensations in the mouth on the
perceived thickness of semi-solid foods. Food Quality and
Preference, 22, 193197.
Le Reverend, B. J. D., Norton, I. T., Cox, P. W., & Spyropoulos, F.
(2010). Colloidal aspects of eating. Current Opinion in Colloid
and Interface Science, 15, 8489.
Leung, V. W. H., & Darvell, B. W. (1997). Artificial salivas for
in vitro studies of dental materials. Journal of Dentistry, 25,
475484.
Lillford, P. J. (2011). The importance of food microstructure in
fracture physics and texture perception. Journal of Texture
Studies, 43, 130136.
Lin, W. L., Zeng, Q. X., Zhu, Z. W., & Song, G. S. (2012). Relation
between protein characteristics and TPA texture
characteristics of crisp grass carp and brass carp. Journal of
Lucas, P. W., Prinz, J. F., Agrawal, K. R., & Bruce, I. C. (2002). Food
physics and physiology. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 203
213.
Malone, M. E., Appelqvist, I. A. M., & Norton, I. T. (2003). Oral
behaviour of food hydrocolloids and emulsions: Part 1.
Lubrication and deposition considerations. Food
Mattes, R. D. (2009). Is there a fatty acid taste? Annual Review in
Nutrition, 29, 305327.
Mattes, R. (2011). Oral fatty acid signalling and intestinal lipid
processing: Support and supposition. Physiology and Behavior,
105, 2735.
Motoi, L., Morgenstern, M. P., Hedderley, D. I., Wilson, A. J., &

Balita, S. (2013). Bolus moisture content of solid
foods during mastication. Journal of Texture Studies,
44, 468479.
Murray, D. J. (1993). A perspective for views the history of
psychophysics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 115186.
Neyraud, E., Palicki, O., Schwartz, C., Nicklaus, S., & Feron, G.
(2012). Variability of human saliva composition: Possible
relationships with fat perception and liking. Archives of Oral
Biology, 57, 556566.
Orellana-Escobedo, L., Ornelas-Paz, J. J., Olivas, G. I., GuerreroBeltran, J. A., Jimenez-Castro, J., & Sepulveda, D. R. (2012).
Determination of absolute threshold and just noticeable
difference in the sensory perception of pungency. Journal of
Food Science, 77, S135S139.
Peyron, M. A., Mishellany, A., & Woda, A. (2004). Particle size
distribution of food boluses after mastication of six natural
foods. Journal of Dental Researches, 83, 578582.
Pineau, N., Schlich, Pl, Cordelle, S., Mathonniere, C., Issanchou,
S., Imbert, A., et al. (2009). Temporal dominance of
sensations: Construction of the TDS curves and comparison
with time-intensity. Food quality and Preference, 42, 137156.
Prinz, J. F., Janssen, A. M., & de Wijk, R. A. (2007). In vitro
simulation of the oral processing of semi-solid foods. Food
Rao, M. A. (1999). Rheology of fluid and semisolid foods: Principles and
applications. Gaithersburg: An Aspen Publication.
Roach, M. (2013). Gulp, Adventures on the Alimentary Canal. New
York: W.W. Norton & company.
Roger-Leroi, V., Mishellany-Dutour, A., Woda, A., Marchand, M.,
& Peyron, M. A. (2012). Substantiation of an artificial saliva
formulated for use in a masticatory apparatus. OdontoStomatologie Tropicale, 35, 514.
Rohrle, O., Waddell, J. N., Foster, K. D., Saini, H., & Pullan, A. J.
(2009). Using a motion-capture system to record dynamic
articulation for application in CAD/CAM software. Journal of
Prosthodontics, 18, 703710.
Rolls, E. T. (2011). The neural representation of oral
texture including fat texture. Journal of Texture Studies, 42,
137156.
Rossetti, D., Bongaerts, J. H. H., Wantling, E., Stokes, J. R., &
Williamson, A.-M. (2009). Astringency of tea catechins: More
than an oral lubrication tactile percept. Food Hydrocolloids,
23, 19841992.
Salles, C., Chagnon, M.-C., Feron, G., Guichard, E., Laboure, H.,
Morzel, M., et al. (2011). In-mouth mechanisms leading to
flavour release and perception. Critical Review in Food Science
and Nutrition, 51, 6790.
Sarkar, A., & Singh, H. (2012). Oral behaviour of food emulsions.
In J. Chen & L. Engelen (Eds.), Food oral processing:
Fundamentals of eating and sensory perception (pp. 111138).
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Schmidt, R. F. (1986). Fundamentals of sensory physiology (3rd ed.).
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
105
Shama, F., Parkinson, C., & Sherman, P. (1973). Identification

of stimuli controlling the sensory evaluation of viscosity, I.
Non-oral methods. Journal of Texture Studies, 4, 102110.
Smeets, P. A. M., Charbonnier, L., van Meer, F., van der Laan, L.
N., & Spetter, M. S. (2012). Food-induced brain responses
and eating behaviour. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 71,
511520.
Smit, H. J., Kemsley, E. K., Tapp, H. S., & Henry, C. J. K. (2011).
Does prolonged chewing reduce food intake? Fletcherism
revisited. Appetite, 57, 295298.
Spence, C. (2011). Mouth-watering: The influence of
environmental and cognitive factors on salivation and
gustatory/flavour perception. Journal of Texture Studies, 42,
157171.
Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological
Review, 64, 153181.
Stevens, S. S. (1960). The psychophysics of sensory function.
American Scientist, 48, 226253.
Stokes, J. R. (2012). Oral tribology. In J. Chen & L. Engelen
(Eds.), Food oral processing: Fundamentals of eating and sensory
perception. Oxford: Wiley.
Stokes, J. R., Macakova, L., Chojnicka-Paszun, A., de Kruif, K., &
de Jongh, H. (2011). Lubrication, adsorption and rheology of
aqueous polysaccharide solutions. Langmuir, 27, 34743484.
Szczesniak, A. S. (2002). Texture is a sensory property. Food
Quality and Preference, 13, 215225.
Taylor, A. J. (2009). Measurement and simulation of flavour
release from foods. In D. J. McClements & E. A. Decker (Eds.),
Designing functional foods: Measuring and controlling food
structure breakdown and nutrient absorption (pp. 294313).
Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing.
van Aken, G. A. (2010). Modelling texture perception by soft
epithelial surfaces. Soft Matter, 6, 826834.
van der Bilt, A., Engelen, L., Pereira, L. J., van der Glas, H. W., &
Abbink, J. H. (2006). Oral physiology and mastication.
Physiological Behavior, 89, 2227.
van Vliet, T. (2002). On the relation between texture perception
and fundamental mechanical parameters for liquids and
time dependent solids. Food Quality and Preference, 13, 227236.
van Vliet, T., & Primo-Martn, C. (2011). Interplay between product
characteristics, oral physiology and texture perception of
cellular brittle foods. Journal of Texture Studies, 42, 8294.
van Vliet, T., van Aken, G. A., de Jongh, H. H. J., & Hamer, R. J.
(2009). Colloidal aspects of texture perception. Advances in
Colloid and Interface Sciences, 150, 2740.
Vingerhoeds, M. H., Silletti, E., de Groot, J., Schipper, R. G., & van
Aken, G. A. (2009). Relating the effect of saliva-induced
emulsion flocculation on rheological properties and
retention on the tongue surface with sensory perception.
Food Hydrocolloids, 23, 773785.
Woda, A., Mishellany-Dutour, A., Batier, L., Francois, O.,
Meunier, J. P., Reynaud, B., et al. (2010). Development and
validation of a mastication simulator. Journal of Biomechanics,
43, 16671673.

Understanding the Complex Principles of Food Oral Processing

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Understanding the Complex Principles of Food Oral Processing

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

food structure 1 (2014) 91105

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Food oral processing: Some important

Received 16 August 2013

Received in revised form

Accepted 18 March 2014

Available online 26 March 2014

Food oral processing

instrumental characterisation of food sensory properties; and finally the psychophysical

principles of human sensation and perception.

Studies of food oral processing, the background . . . .

* Tel.: +86 571 28008904; fax: +86 571 28008900.

food structure 1 (2014) 91105

3.2. The length scale change during oral processing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The oral processing of food is the first stage of food digestion

probably the one conducted by Hutchings and Lillford (1988)

Fig. 1 Core disciplines of food oral processing studies.

food structure 1 (2014) 91105

Fig. 2 An integrated map of eating and sensory perception.

principles of sensation and perception (Goldstein, 2010;

Principles of saliva incorporation

The presence and incorporation of saliva is inevitable and

Human saliva is a secreted oral fluid composed of aqueous

food structure 1 (2014) 91105

As an effective media and buffer for the diffusion and

Enzymatic interactions with food components

Human saliva contains about 30 enzymes, including amylase,

catalase, proteolytic enzymes, lipase, phosphatise, lysozyme,

food structure 1 (2014) 91105

Colloidal interactions with food particles

It is for sure that food (either in the form of solid, semi-solid or

creamy and fatty. The increased emulsion viscosity as a result

food structure 1 (2014) 91105

Roles in bolus formation and swallowing

The critical importance of saliva in bolus formation and

Principles of oral dynamics

Physiological nature of oral dynamics

Fig. 4 is a recorded jaw trajectory and EMG (electromyography)

The length scale change during oral processing

Food alters its properties throughout an eating process. One of

Fig. 4 Recorded oral activities of a subject consuming

food structure 1 (2014) 91105

magnitude changes in length scale during an eating process,

The dynamic nature of oral sensation

The oral sensation of food is also highly dynamic. Based on

researchers, an instrumental measurement means that a

Food mechanics and rheology studies

Almost half century ago, a group of food scientist from General

food structure 1 (2014) 91105

Fig. 5 Representative types of forcedisplacement curves

There are many empirical tests reported in the literature,

food structure 1 (2014) 91105

mouth by an increased shear stress in order to maintain a

Oral tribology studies

The importance of oral tribology to oral tactile sensation has

Developing a Stribeck curve is a core task of tribology study,

Human mouth is a highly delicate sensing system, capable of

food structure 1 (2014) 91105

Table 1 Types of oral receptors.

Example of responsible stimuli

range of intensity. Oral sensation is achieved via numerous

Fig. 6 The hierarchy of taste receptors at the tongue