Tag Archives: wine tasting

Book Review: Divine Vintage: Following the Wine Trail From Genesis to Modern Age by Randall Heskett and Joel Butler

Posted on January 8, 2013 by Becca| Leave a comment

 

Divine Vintage: Following the Wine Trail From Genesis to Modern Age by Randall Heskett and Joel Butler is a fascinating account of the history of viticulture from the biblical age to modern times.  The authors stressed in the beginning that they were not treating the Bible as if it were a book one would reference in history class, since some of the books are more figurative and metaphorical.

Image Source: http://www.tatteredcover.com/files/tatteredcover/9780230112438.jpg

Image Source: http://www.tatteredcover.com/files/tatteredcover/9780230112438.jpg

In their own words, “we will argue…that wine consumption not only linked God’s covenant with Israel, continuing with the rites of Judaism today, but is also linked to the very core of Christian theology.  The book is written in such a way that one never feels as though they were being converted to any religion or another, but in such a way that simply illustrated the role wine played in Biblical times based on the words of those who wrote the books contained therein.

The book is split up into two parts:  Part I delves into the details of the history of viticulture as described in the Bible, while Part II takes the reader on a tour of the modern vineyards and wineries along the route of the Apostle Paul’s (one of the Bible’s many authors) third missionary journey during 52-57 CE.

Part I was the slower reading portion of the book for me, as it was heavy with biblical information and knowledge that can be dry and complex at times.  However, it is crammed full of very fascinating descriptions of how wine was portrayed in Biblical times, and creates a colorful image in one’s mind regarding the state of wine in the minds of popular Biblical characters and times.

After learning all about the history of wine in the Bible, Part II of Divine Vintage: Following the Wine Trail From Genesis to Modern Age by Randall Heskett and Joel Butler describes in great detail the current state of viticulture and viniculture on the “Modern Divine Wine Trail” in countries including Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, and Greece.  The authors personally visited each and every winery listed in the book, and not only provided interesting history of each winery and vineyard, but also tasting notes of the authors’ favorite wines from each winery.

By Dave Bullock from Derby, UK (Bible Original) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

By Dave Bullock from Derby, UK (Bible Original) [CC-BY-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

The final chapter is the one that I found most interesting and begs the question: “What Would Jesus Drink”? WWJD??  Based on what is known about the wines that may have been available during Jesus’ time, and on the knowledge that Jesus was likely a “foodie” and quite possibly a big fan of wine, the authors determined which wine(s) in the current industry Jesus may have enjoyed on his journey throughout his life and travels.

So, what would Jesus drink?  I can’t tell you—you’ll have to read the book for yourself to find out ;) .

I recommend this book for anyone interested in the history of wine, history of religion, and history of human culture.

To purchase Divine Vintage: Following the Wine Trail From Genesis to Modern Age by Randall Heskett and Joel Butler, please Click here to purchase from Amazon.

 

 

Posted in Literature

Tagged , , , , , , ,

Do Self-Reports on Drinking Motives Reflect Actual Alcohol Consumption in Real-Life Scenarios?

Posted on December 12, 2012 by Becca| Leave a comment

 

What motivates someone to drink has been linked to the amount of alcohol one typically consumes.  Previously on The Academic Wino, a study was presented that showed people consuming alcohol for “positive” reasons (such as the taste or the health benefits of the wine) did not typically express problem drinking behaviors, whereas people consuming alcohol for “negative” reasons (such as reducing anxiety, coping with stress, or peer pressure) are much more likely to experience problem drinking behavior.

Some studies have shown that those that are motivated by internal factors, such as drinking to have fun or drinking to forget personal problems, are much more likely to drink more heavily than those that are motivated by external factors, such as drinking to be socialor drinking to fit in with the group.  The thinking is that those that are influenced by internal factors will tend to drink not only when

Philippe Mercier (circa 1689(1689)-1760) [Public domain or Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

they are with other people, but also when they are all alone, whereas those that are influence by external factors will only tend to drink when in the company of a group of people.  To generalize, those influenced by external factors tend to be more moderate drinkers overall than heavy drinkers.

To date, nearly all of the studies focused on motivation for drinking have relied upon self-reporting by the participants themselves, a method by which is known to suffer from bias.  To be more specific, there could be errors in the self-reporting data due to forgetfulness of past events, as well as guilt or embarrassment by the participant in regards to how much they actually drink on a regular basis.

To combat this issue of bias in self-reporting, the study presented today combined self-reporting with a wine tasting experiment, in order to determine if drinking motives as reported by participants were able to predict the amount of alcohol consumed during the tasting sessions some time later or if the answers supplied by participants inaccurately represented their drinking habits in actual drinking situations.

Methods

Participants were recruited in the fall of 2010 from Lausanne University in Switzerland and were required to be between the ages of 18 and 25, have no significant health problems or history of substance abuse.

Participants filled out a 10 minute questionnaire that asked questions related to sociodemographics as well as alcohol consumption behavior questions.

A total of 123 subjects participated in all experiments during the study.

As an incentive to participate, subjects were entered into a drawing to win the equivalent of $600 USD, were given money to cover the cost of public transportation to the sessions, and were given a snack after each session.

There were a total of 3 data collection sessions: 1) the questionnaire; 2) a first wine tasting session; and 3) a second wine tasting session. There was a total of 1 month in between each session.

Participants were told that the wine tasting experiments were to determine the influence of human interactions on sensory experiences during the tasting.

Wine tasting sessions were held in an area designed to look like a comfortable bar.  Participants were asked to refrain from drinking any alcoholic beverages within 12 hours before each wine tasting session.

At the start of each tasting, a research assistant went over standard wine tasting protocol with participants.  Participants were each given a spit bucket as well as water.  Participants were told that they were not required to swallow the wines they tasted.

During the tasting sessions, participants were given 4 glasses with 110g of red wine.  The alcohol level of the wine was 13.5%, which translates to about 12g of alcohol per glass of wine.  Each tasting session lasted 25 minutes.

To determine the influence of social context on amount of alcohol consumed, the two tasting sessions were arranged so that either the participants were separated from one another to prevent any interaction or visual contact or they were arranged in groups of 4-8 participants with the ability to interact and be social.  In the group setting, discussions were moderated by the research assistant.  For each tasting session, men and women were kept separately from one another.  Each participant was randomly assigned to a tasting group; in order to (as the authors explained) avoid close friends participating in the same group together.

After the tasting sessions, the amount of wine remaining in the glass for each individual was measured, as well as how much wine was found in the spit buckets for each individual.  The amount of wine left in the glasses and in the spit buckets was subtracted from the original amount of wine presented to the participants, and converted to grams of pure alcohol.  This value represented the total amount of alcohol consumed per tasting session per individual participant.

By CDC [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Drinking motives, alcohol use, and problem drinking behavior was analyzed and determined using participants’ responses on a questionnaire.

Drinking motive categories included: 1) enhancement (i.e. drinking to have fun); 2) coping (i.e. drinking to forget personal problems); 3) social (i.e. drinking to be social among peers); and 4) conformity (i.e. drinking to fit in with the group).

 

 

 

 

 

Results

  • 45.5% of participants were male, and 54.5% were female.
  • The mean age of participants was 21.9 years.
  • 17.1% of participants were found to be socially motivated.
    • 52.4% of the socially motivated participants were male and 47.6% were female.
  • 16.3% of participants were found to be enhancement motivated.
    • 55.0% of the enhancement motivated participants were male, and 45% were female.
  • 70.6% of the conformity motive participants were female, while 29.4% were male.
  • 54.5% of participants claimed they drank two or more times per week.
  • 60.2% of participants claimed they drank three or more drinks during a day that they are drinking.
  • 35.0% of participants claimed they had 6 or more drinks during a day that they are drinking.
  • Participants reporting high quantities of drinking or binge drinking tended to be motivated more by enhancement motives than those drinking for any other motive.
  • During the first wine tasting session, an average of 15.6g of alcohol per participant was consumed.
  • During the second wine tasting session, an average of 18.8g of alcohol per participant was consumed.
    • The tendency to drink more during the second session was most notable among participants drinking for coping reasons.
  • Drinking greater amounts of alcohol was associated with high levels of social motivation, as well as a low level of coping or conformity motivation.
  • Men reported drinking more frequently and binge drinking more often than women.
  • For both tasting sessions, men consumed 22.5g more alcohol than women (on average).
    • Men consumed 11g more alcohol than women during the first tasting session, and 11.4g more alcohol during the second tasting session.
    • Looking at each tasting session separately, there were no significant differences between the sexes in regards to alcohol consumption (though it was close).  Taking both tasting sessions together, men consumed significantly more alcohol than women.
  • Those participants starting in the group setting during the tasting sessions consumed 7.9g more alcohol than participants starting in the individual setting.
  • Those participants self-reporting as being motivated by enhancement reasons consumed significantly more alcohol than participants reporting other motivations for drinking.
  •  Those participants self-reporting as being motivated by conformity reasons consumed significantly less alcohol than participants reporting other motivations for drinking.
  • The self-reported motivation for drinking could not predict the amount of alcohol consumed during each tasting session individually, however, self-reported motivation for drinking could predict the total amount of alcohol consumed after both tasting sessions.
  • From the first tasting session to the second tasting session, coping motivated drinkers significantly increased their alcohol consumption.
  • From the first tasting session to the second tasting session, socially motivated drinkers significantly decreased their alcohol consumption.

Conclusions

According to the authors of this study, when taking the amounts of alcohol consumed from both tasting sessions together, the actual amounts of alcohol consumed was very highly correlated with the amounts of alcohol reported by the participants in the questionnaire.  In other words, according to these results, motives for drinking allow one to predict the amount of alcohol consumed by an individual in a particular setting.

The authors also stated that those than are motivated by internal reasons (i.e. drinking for enhancement or coping purposes) tend to take advantage of a drinking situation where alcohol is readily available and free.  The authors claim that this may be a result of their desire to attain the psychoactive effects of the alcohol itself in order to “maximize pleasurable sensations” or perhaps more readily forget their personal problems.  To explain the results of externally motivated participants, the authors surmised that they likely drank lower amounts of alcohol because they tend to be inconsistent in their drinking patterns, and perhaps since they did not know the other people in their tasting groups, they were less likely to drink more.

When looking at the tasting sessions individually, the authors noted that drinking motive could not predict the amount of alcohol consumed per session (particularly the first session).  They reason this result to be potentially due to the nature of the experimental design itself.  Perhaps since participants were not familiar with the tasting procedure they were asked to do, the location they were performing the tastings in, or the other participants they were paired up to taste with, they were uncomfortable with the situation and less likely to consume the

By che (che) [CC-BY-SA-2.5 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5)], via Wikimedia Commons

same levels of alcohol they would have consumed if they were in a more comfortable and familiar environment.  This may explain why alcohol consumption increased during the tasting session, since at this point, the participants had a chance to get used to the situation and became more comfortable and familiar with the whole thing.

The authors noted some limitations with the study, including the sample size and the way participants actually felt about the wines they were drinking.  The study only included only 123 college students between the ages of 19 and 24, which is certainly not representative of the general population. Would older participants when placed in the same situations yield similar results? Or would there be significant differences in drinking motivation and alcohol consumption behavior across generations?

In regards to not testing how the participants felt about the wine they were consuming, I feel as though this could potentially have significant consequences on the overall results (or not…I’m not completely certain).  What if a significant proportion of participants don’t drink wine to begin with?  They then may not be consuming the amount of alcohol they normally would be under a given situation due to simply not liking beverage used in the study.  Perhaps they would drink even more if they had been handed fruity mixed drinks instead of red wine.  After all, studied do show that younger individuals drink more of these types of beverages than wine (in general) when compared to their older counterparts.

Overall, the results of this study confirm that self-reported drinking behavior is correlated with the actual amount of alcohol consumed during a wine tasting session.  I would be hesitant to say this with complete confidence, mainly based on the limitations I just discussed in the previous two paragraphs.  I think the results are interesting and certainly a good start, however, I think these limitations would need to be addressed before I am completely convinced these results to be accurate and reflective upon the general population.

What did you all think of this study? What would you like to have seen differently? Maybe I’m being too harsh regarding the limitations: do you think these limitations are insignificant to the results? Please feel free to comment!

Source: Kuntsche, E., and Kuendig, H. 2012. Beyond Self Reports: Drinking Motives Predict Grams of Consumed Alcohol in Wine-Tasting Sessions. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology 20(4): 318-324.

Posted in Psychology

Tagged , , , , ,

Wine Experts and Foodies: Are They Super Tasters? Or Are They Faking It?

Posted on December 3, 2012 by Becca| 6 Comments

 

I think it’s blatantly obvious that people have different taste preferences:  from food and wine to coffee and cake; if you grab someone off the street and ask them their taste preferences they will say something different than if you grabbed someone else and asked them the same question.

OK, but why is it that we have such variability in our taste preferences?  Is it a result of what our mothers or fathers shoved down our gullets when we were young and developing our tastes (or disdain) for certain things?  Or are we genetically predisposed to enjoying certain things over others?

Turns out, it’s probably a little bit of both, however, recent studies over the past 3 or 4 years have found that genetic variation in oral sensory abilities might very well have the greatest influence on food and beverage preferences.  From a

By William Lawrence (originally posted to Flickr as Geeks Love Wine) [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

marketing standpoint, this finding is very important, as different strategies should be developed for the different genotypes/phenotypes of individuals, since focusing on only one or two strategies may only end up alienating a large subset of the population which would lead to a large underutilized market.

As an aside: Tim Hanni, MW, structured his work around similar concepts, creating the New Wine Fundamentals and Vinotypes, which “allow you to discover your true taste preferences and confidently explore a new world of wines” (quote from myVinotype.com).  I highly recommend you visit his site and explore this fascinating world of discovering your unique wine preferences!

Research on the genetic variation of taste preferences has often focused on how individuals respond to the bitter compound 6-n-propylthiouracil, also known as “PROP”.  This responsiveness places individuals in the different “PROP taster status” categories (a.k.a. phenotypes) of 1) PROP non-tasters; 2) PROP medium-tasters; and 3) PROP super-tasters.  Those in the non-tasters group notice very little to no bitterness; the medium-tasters notice a mild bitterness; and the super-tasters notice an intense bitterness.  Genetic research has found that this variation is due to variations in the TAS2R38 gene, though variations in this gene alone may not explain all variation in taste sensation and preferences.

Those that are PROP super-tasters are often characterized as having greater sensitivity to sour, salt, sweety, and creamy, and also display greater sensitivity to astringency, bitterness, and sourness in alcoholic beverages.  Some say that being a PROP super-taster also predisposes them to being more “acute tasters”, allowing them to pick up more subtle or less obvious tonal nuances in the food or beverage they are tasting.  Depending upon which PROP category / phenotype of which one expresses, the “liking” or preference of particular foods or beverages will change.  Interestingly, PROP categories / phenotypes have been linked in some research studies to diet-related diseases, including obesity and alcoholism.

Though it hasn’t been supported nor disproved in the research literature, it is believed that “foodies” (i.e. those that have “a high liking of food, significant time spent preparing food and choosing ingredients, and a high knowledge of

By Alpha from Melbourne, Australia [CC-BY-SA-2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons

and interest in new preparation methods, ingredients and flavours” Pickering et al, 2013) are more likely to be PROP super-tasters than “non-foodies”.  The theory is that those that seek out food as a hobby or as a career have more sensitive palates and abilities to distinguish subtle flavors from one another, ultimately resulting in the expression of the PROP super-taster phenotype.  To date, there has been no actual research to confirm this idea, and remains just a theory that is perpetuated throughout the food and beverage industry.

In regards to wine expertise, research has shown that PROP phenotype varies depending upon one’s level of wine expertise, with wine experts experiencing greater PROP sensitivity (i.e. super-tasters) and wine novices experiences less PROP sensitivity (non-tasters or medium-tasters).  In theory, one may expect that foodies and wine experts do not differ in their PROP sensitivity,

One very recent study aimed to address these questions regarding foodies and wine experts and their propensity towards exhibiting a particular PROP phenotype and examined whether or not foodies and wine experts differ from other people in regards to their PROP sensitivity, and whether the PROP sensitivity of the two are similar or unrelated.

Methods

A mail survey/questionnaire was utilized in this study.  5000 surveys were mailed out, 1,011 were returned, and 954 were complete enough for use in statistical analysis (100% complete).  To encourage completion of surveys, cash prizes were awarded (between $20 and $500 USD).

Surveys were mailed to random wine consumers that were on the mailing list of a large wine retailing group in the Northeast of the United States.

The surveys asked participants to rate their “liking” of 64 food items and 14 non-food items.  The food items selected represented a wide range of nutritional groups and values.  Non-food items were randomly placed throughout the food items on the surveys.

Participants were asked to rate their level of wine expertise as novice or beginner, intermediate, high, or expert/very high.  Demographic information was also collected.

PROP phenotypes were determined using filter paper disks that were previously treated with 50mmol/L of PROP.  These disks were included with the surveys that were mailed to participants.  After the surveys were completed, participants were asked to use the PROP disk and rate their experience.

The instructions for using the PROP disks were to “take a sip of water and swish it around your mouth to clean it.  Take the paper disc and place it on the tip of your tongue for 30 seconds or until it is fully wet.  Rate the intensity of the taste of the paper disc by drawing a mark on the scale for your answer”. (Pickering et al, 2013).  Participants were shown a scale with marked degrees of “likeness” and were asked to pick where on the scale their liking of the disk fell.  See Figure 1 for this scale.  Participants were also supplied a picture representation of the instructions for greater ease of use.

Figure 1 from Pickering et al, 2013

Participants were classified as non-tasters if their liking fell in the less than 9mm portion of the scale; medium-tasters if their liking fell between the 9 and 50mm portion of the scale; and super-tasters if their liking fell in the greater than 50mm portion of the scale.  Again, see Figure 1.

Results

  • Gender analysis found that women rated PROP bitterness as more intense than men, indicating women were more likely to be super-tasters than men.
    • Women ranked PROP bitterness 35% higher than men.
  • Age analysis found that there was a small decline in PROP bitterness intensity with age.
    • This may be due to the decline in olfactory function as one ages.
  • In regards to foodies, the authors assumed that foodies would give higher score to food items than non-food items compared to non-foodies; however, results found that there was no such association found between foodies and PROP bitterness intensity.
  • Foodies tended to be older than non-foodies:
    • 51% of foodies were over the age of 61.
    • 29% of non-foodies were over the age of 61.
      • Foodies were also found have more individuals retired, and more with larger incomes, both the researchers attributed to the age factor mentioned just previously.
  • Non-foodies were more likely to be female.
  • In regards to wine expertise, there were many significant findings.
    • Wine experts rated PROP bitterness higher than wine novices.
    • Women ranked PROP bitterness higher than men.
    • PROP bitterness intensity decreased with age.

Conclusions

Several important results can be pulled out of this study. First, it appears as though there is no evidence to support the theory that foodies have increased PROP bitterness intensity or exhibit super-tasting capabilities.  The authors mention several limitations to this study in regards to this result suggest that perhaps the criteria for labeling someone as a foodie in this study was too general, resulting in non-foodies being mistakenly identified as foodies in this analysis.

In the future, the authors suggest further increasing the criteria to be categorized as a foodie to include “time spent preparing food and choosing ingredients; knowledge of food, preparation methods and ingredients; and enjoyment at learning about new foods and food preparation methods.” (Pickering et al 2013).  Also, adding in more “refined” or “complex” foods to the food item list of the survey may help distinguish foodies from non-foodies.

The authors noted that there could have been difficulties distinguishing differences between foodies and non-foodies in regards to the PROP sensitivities, since the sample used to collect data from was bias.  If you recall, the sample was collected from a mailing list at a wine retailer, so customers were already more interested in wine than the average person, which could have biased the entire sample toward having somewhat more intense PROP scores in general than someone who rarely drinks wine.  The people on the wine retailer’s mailing list may have been already more likely to be foodies due to their status as wine lovers than someone else who didn’t voluntarily sign up for the mailing list.  The study should be repeated capturing a greater number and variety of individuals to determine if these results are repeatable, or if they are only applicable to this smaller group of relative bias.

Another result the authors made sure to note was the fact that wine experts tended to be super-tasters compared to less experienced wine drinkers that were either medium-tasters or non-tasters.  They hypothesized that because of this propensity and genetic predisposition to be super-tasters, individuals may be drawn to careers in the wine or food industry.  It would be interesting to see a long-term study where they measured the PROP bitterness intensity scores of

By Agne27 (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

children as they grew up, and correlate those results with the career path they ended up choosing as adults.  How much do PROP scores change as one grows and develops? Do those children with perpetually high PROP scores end up in fields where they are able to utilize these abilities, such as the wine or food industries?

I would also like to see future research investigating the gender result further.  You may recall, this study found that women scored higher PROP intensity scores than men.  What does this mean?  Are women better tasters than men?  There has been some research to suggest this may be the case, but of course, this has been met with some controversy.  They authors didn’t mention much about this in the conclusions, though since it wasn’t their primary focus, I’m not surprised.  I would love to see this result studied further.  In the meantime, please read a guest post by Marlene Rossman on The Academic Wino regarding this very topic:  Women Smell Better!.

Finally, the authors brought up a very fascinating question regarding the use of wine experts’ recommendations to encourage the purchase of particular wines.  It has been shown that people do find expert opinions important when choosing a wine, as it takes some of the “guess work” out of figuring out if the bottle is “good” or not.  The problem with that, the authors raise, is that the differences in PROP bitterness intensity scores of experts versus novices is that experts are inherently going to like and enjoy a certain type of wine, while novices are more likely to enjoy a different type of wine.  This isn’t always going to be the case, but since PROP intensity scores dictate taste preferences, it is fair to assume that the wine the experts deem “quality” and “good tasting” will end up being less enjoyable to the wine novice who prefers a different tasting wine.  This calls into question the usefulness on solely relying on expert opinions to sell wine, and to encourage the use of other marketing strategies to capture those on all ends of the wine preference spectrum.

I’d love to hear what you all think about this topic!  Please feel free to leave your comments and join in the discussion!

Source: Pickering, G.J., Jain, A.K., Bezawada, R. 2013. Super-tasting gastronomes? Taste phenotype characterization of foodies and wine experts. Food Quality and Preference 28: 85-91.

Posted in Neuroscience

Tagged , , , , , ,

The Neuroscience of Wine Tasting: Dissecting the Intricacies of the Minds’ Eye

Posted on August 27, 2012 by Becca| 17 Comments

“Like” The Academic Wino on Facebook by clicking here!

Follow The Academic Wino on Twitter by clicking here! (@TheAcademicWino)

Last week, I attended the annual Wine Bloggers Conference in Portland, Oregon, which you may read all about in my two part summary series here: Part I and Part II.  I wanted to take one particular experience from the conference and elaborate a little more.  Specifically, I’d like to present to you the fascinating research by Tim Gaiser on the Neuroscience of Wine Tasting and some of the interesting findings that have come out the study.

What is the purpose of this research?

http://www.anselmovineyards.com/
wp-content/uploads/wine-tasting-classes.jpg

The most important implication for this research is in the art of teaching tasting.  According to Gaiser, the challenge of teaching wine tasting to individuals is complex: 1) we have to try and present to students our own vocabulary and experiences for wine, which may or may not resonate with each individual mind; 2) each individual student has a different neurology from everyone else, as well as different memories and experiences; and 3) we have to come up with a way to find the common denominator for tasting, so that each student may more easily learn using their own personal experiences instead of using other people’s experiences that have been impressed upon them. Thus, the overall goal of the research is to improve upon the way we teach wine tasting so that the students learn in a shorter period of time and learn to utilize their own memories and experiences.

How did he do it?

In order to find this common denominator, Gaiser set out to examine the strategies/neurological connections of some of the best wine tasters around the world.  What were the individual strategies of these professional wine tasters?  How are their neurologies connected to allow them to pick out intimate details about the wine?  How can we use this information obtained from the experts to teach others how to taste?

2009 Film Session Results

In recorded tasting sessions with Tim Gaiser in 2009, with the help of Behavioral Scientist, Tim Hallbom, it was found that eye positions and patterns are critical to experienced tasters, and olfactory cues (smells) trigger a specific image memory connection to the tasters which allow them to identify a particular smell or taste from the wine. 

http://www.visualphotos.com/photo/2×3798802/
man_smelling_glass_of_red_wine_in_
off-licence_side_3043.jpg


After the film session results, Gaiser set out to repeat the 2009 Film Session experiment with several wine experts. What he found is that these positions and images are unique for every single individual taster, which means finding the common denominator for teaching purposes even more difficult.  In order to find this commonality, each experience needed to be broken down in a sort of sequence, in order to perhaps create a teachable sequence for new and training tasters.  Specifically, the experience was broken down into the following categories: language usage and patterns, eye movements and patterns, olfactory images, internal image maps, and visual constructs for calibrating the structure of the tasting experience.

What were the findings?

One interesting outcome of these tasting sessions was that not only to do individuals make different connections and have different experiences during tasting, but they also taste differently depending upon the reason for tasting.  Were they tasting for pleasure? As a buyer? As a wine reviewer? For teaching purposes?  Depending upon the reason for tasting, the individual strategies of each taster was slightly modified.

One of the first things each taster would notice prior to tasting the wine was the color.  This visual cue gives hints as to how old the wine is, possible grape varieties, and possibly the style of winemaking used.  The tasters were able to identify these characteristics by referencing internal color swatches in their memories from previously experienced/tasted wines.  Often, an internal auditory prompt (such as “what color is this?”) would initiate the image recollection process for identifying certain characteristics elicited from the wine.

Moving on to smelling the wine, Gaiser noted that all of the tasters used an extremely consistent starting eye position or pattern when smelling the wine.  Most tasters had a sort of forward and down eye position while smelling the wine, while one taster appeared to have a darting around-type eye movement position.  This starting position is the place of focus and concentration, and the position which elicits the olfactory image recollection connections in the brain.  Similar to the color, nearly all tasters experienced an auditory prompt in addition to the eye positions to get the tasting started (i.e. “what does this smell like?”).

EXERCISE
How about you?  Where is your starting eye position? 
Take a glass of wine (in a standard wine glass).  Now, simply go about your usual method for smelling the wine.  Where do you notice your eyes are? This position is imprinted in your neurology and wherever you notice your eyes are positioned is the position that elicits the olfactory connections in your brain.  For me, this position was down and slightly centered in front.  You are allowed to close your eyes if that is more comfortable, but note your eyes are still in a particular position.
Once you find this position, keep smelling the wine while moving your eyes in a different position.  Do you notice any change in the aroma?  For me, I noticed that the smell almost went away completely when I changed the position of my eyes.  What did you experience?

Eye Assessing Cues

This study of eye patterns is not new to the study of neurology, as many books and scholarly articles have presented results showing relationships between eye movements and internal memories/representations.  During the 1970s and 80s, several collaborating researchers found that eye pattern movements were associated with the activation of different parts of the brain.  These patterns are near consistent across many individuals, however, for left-handed individuals (such as myself), these patterns can be reversed.  Even if an individual recalls visual cues in a different pattern, this pattern is at the very least consistent and repeatable.  Read this article by Robert Dilts for a more detailed analysis on this research by clicking here.

Courtesy: Robert Dilts (see link above)

Olfactory Image Connections

Another interesting finding from Gaisers’ research is that all tasters represent specific aromas and flavors of the wine with internal images or words, or a combination of the two.  These images were both still or moving, depending upon the individual taster.  Also, these images varied in size, location, color and brightness.  Gaiser also found that there was a relationship between the intensity of the aroma and the structure of the image.  These images are presented in a particular sequence for each individual taster, which combine to be what is referred to as an “image map”, which was found to be unique and vary dramatically from individual to individual.

EXERCISE:
After finding your eye position, go ahead and smell the wine.  What do images do you see?  What sort of pattern do you see these images?  How about the size of the images?  Does the main characteristic of the wine present itself as a very large image? Or perhaps not large but maybe very brightly colored?  What do you see in your minds’ eye? 
For me, I only saw words, which was relatively frustrating since nearly all of the others in the room saw bright and vivid images.  I wonder if my experience was so different because I’m left-handed, or maybe I haven’t had the experiences necessary to elicit the appropriate image for the aroma of that particular wine.
Now, try changing these images.  If you see the image as large and up close, try shrinking the image by moving it further into the background.  What happens to the aroma?  Does it change?  Does the aroma become less pronounced and harder to smell?  Is the image in color?  What happens when you change this image to black and white?  How did the aroma change?

Altering Images

Interestingly, this research found that changing the images in one’s mind changed the tasters’ experience of the wine.  Related to the palate versus the nose, a stronger intensity on the palate versus the nose resulted in the image increasing in size, brightness or location.  As one would expect, a lower intensity on the palate versus the nose resulted in the image decreasing in size, brightness or location.

Structure of Wine

The structure of the wine also elicited image recollection for each individual taster.  For some tasters, a sort of ruler or other calibrating image was presented in the mind, and depending upon the structure of the wine, the focal point of the image would change.  For example, for acidity, one taster saw a 12-inch ruler with marks on it for low, medium, and high. After tasting the wine, the taster was able to focus on and point to a particular point on the ruler in order to identify the acidity of the wine.  Similar mechanisms were found for alcohol content, tannin, and finish.

Example of an image elicited for structural identification in wine tasting

How do these results help us teach others about tasting wine?

According to Gaiser, the results of this study indicate that we should teach students to identify color and age in wine using color spectrums and swatches.  We should also help students become aware of the aroma-to-image connections they already have in their mind, and to utilize these images to identify aromas and flavors in the wine.  The students should be presented with images in order to create new memories in their psyche, particularly if they’ve never experienced a particular aroma or flavor on their own.  Finally, Gaiser claims we should teach students how to taste without wine, as well as teach students to calibrate the structural elements of wine by using internal visual scales.

What are your thoughts?

What do you all think of this research?  Of course, it was not a controlled experiment, thereby the results have to be taken with a grain of salt, but regardless, I found the results very fascinating and worthy of future experimentation and research.   I think it’s a great idea to teach students to utilize their own memories and experiences when tasting the wines, and when these memories and experiences do not exists (say, if they’ve never had a fig before and the main flavor component of the wine they are tasting happens to be fig), they should be given the opportunity to create new image maps in the mind by tasting these elements outside of the wine format.

I did leave slightly frustrated, however, in that I never saw images when smelling the wine.  Gaiser noted later in a question-and-answer session that these images are moving at an extremely fast pace, so perhaps I have not yet learned to slow down these images to a point where I can see them.  I did, however, see words pop up instead of images, which perhaps may be the way my neurological connections function in this type of olfactory recollection.  He mentioned left-handers may experience things differently than right-handers, so perhaps this is another reason why I wasn’t seeing what most others were seeing.  A controlled experiment may get at these types of questions.

I am very interested in hearing what you all think of this research.  Please leave your comments below!

References

“The Neuroscience of Wine Tasting: Unlocking the Tasting Strategies of Genius”. Tim Gaiser, MS. Presentation at the Wine Bloggers Conference August 18th, 2012, Portland, Oregon.

“Eye Movements and NLP” by Robert Dilts: http://www.nlpu.com/Articles/artic14.htm Accessed August 26, 2012.


 I am not a health professional, nor do I pretend to be. Please consult your doctor before altering your alcohol consumption habits. Do not consume alcohol if you are under the age of 21. Do not drink and drive. Enjoy responsibly!

Posted in Neuroscience

Tagged , , , , ,