A WINE EXPERT AND A WINE NOVICE: WHAT MAKES THE DIFFERENCE?

Oaky, racy, toasty, thick, corky, fruity, flabby, muddled. Whenever I hear someone in a formal affair starting to blabber about these fancy wine terminologies, I think to myself, does this guy in the black suit really know the difference? And most of all, how does he do it? These terms I have described above are only a few of the wide array of terms wine experts use to recognize and identify wines based on their olfaction. Being a self-proclaimed wine ignorant, I always think to myself, what underlies a wine expert’s ability to identify his favorite bottle of cabernet sauvignon through his nose? Clearly, olfaction is an important process when assessing complex mixtures such as wine where flavor that can be derived mostly from the aroma. The apparent volatility of wine has indeed played a vital role in affecting the judgment of the quality of wine one receives. The nose, with years of wine-tasting experience, can evaluate the wine’s age, condition, and its overall quality. Amazing, right?

In addition to this, I always ask myself, “What makes the difference between wine experts and their novice counterparts in recognizing and identifying wine-relevant smells? Is it their broad knowledge in wine vocabulary or is it their enhanced sensitivity?” The study by Parr et al.(2002) answers exactly what makes the difference. The research sample consists of 11 wine experts and 11 novices and they were asked to participate in tasks measuring odor recognition and odor identification. Results have shown that superior olfactory recognition is present in expert wine judges. However, their olfactory sensitivity, bias, and odor identification were found to be similar to those of novices.  In addition to this, the ability to recognize odors and ability to name odors were not positively associated. This suggests that the cause of superior odor recognition in wine experts was not based on improved recall and linguistic competencies. It was interpreted in the study that the difference happens on the effect of verbal shadowing on novices and experts. When forced to classify the odorants, experts' superior perceptual skills safeguarded them from verbal interference, whereas novices' generated verbal representations of the odors were emphasized at the expense of the odorant itself. Thus, it is the perceptual skill that makes this distinguishable disparity between wine experts and wine novices.

            Wine tasting is an art form and for some, it is seen as occupation. Instead of just trying to figure a way out of an indecipherable wine tasting jargon, I suggest that you do the actual wine tasting itself. Through the years you may be able to figure out the difference between corky and oaky, and you can eventually identify red wine varietals such as merlot, cabarnet franc, shiraz, etc. The most important reminder of all, however, is just make sure you are over 18 to do this.

Parr, W., Heatherbell, D., and White, K. (2002) Demystifying Wine Expertise: Olfactory Threshold, Perceptual Skill and Semantic Memory in Expert and Novice Wine Judges, in Chemical Senses, 27(8): 747-755 

Why do they have to taste so good?

I really love eating. My favorite dish is fried chicken. I love chocolates and I cannot end a meal without having dessert. I remember that before, a half-gallon of ice cream in our house would not last a week because I would have it every after meal and also for my merienda. This love for food might have been the main cause for my weight gain when I was a child, making me a fat kid. I was usually the butt of jokes in my family due to my weight. They would always call my attention whenever a television commercial of hog feeds are showing so that I could watch “my mother’s” advertisement. My cousins who are super thin also call me “Ate Baboy” back then. Although I know that they meant everything as a joke, I still cannot help but feel offended. I became more conscious about my weight. Even now, when some of my friends call me biik, I still feel sensitive about their jokes but I try my best to just brush it all off.

This made me think about how my food preferences might have contributed to my weight. It is a good thing that in 2009, Matsushita and his colleagues had the idea to check what role food preferences play, particularly their taste, on the weight of individuals. They asked about the taste preferences and weight of around 30,000 Japanese men and women. After ten years, they asked them again how much they weigh and checked whether there is a relationship between the two variables. Aside from weight and taste preferences, they also took into consideration other factors such as age, gender, medical history and health-related lifestyle activities.

The results of their study showed that there is a correlation between the preference for rich and heavy tasting food, such as fatty and well-seasoned dishes, with an increase in weight. This resulted to an increase in the BMI of the participants who preferred eating rich and heavy food. It was also observed that preference for fatty and well-seasoned food lead to weight increase in individuals aged around 20 years old. This may be due to the decrease of fat intake in older participants which also lessened their weight gain brought about by consumption of heavy and rich food. Their study also yielded results that show how preference of sweet tastes in women who are around 20 years of age may lead to weight gain. These findings were not observed in their male participants of the same age. Men in the study do not often eat snacks in between main meals which may contribute to their lesser preferences for sweet tastes and thus, a lower increase in weight due to sweet foods. However, the preference of sweet tastes in men increases by their late 30s which may make them gain weight.

After reading the study, I know now what I did that made me a fat kid. I was both into fatty and sweet foods. From now on, I will be more conscious of the food that I eat. Instead of eating fried chicken, I may slowly shift my preferences to grilled chicken which is less fatty. Also, I will also try to make fruits as substitutes for my cravings for sweet food after every meal. That way, I can avoid chocolates and ice cream with not much difficulty. Aside from controlling my diet, I will also see to it that I find time to exercise and engage in other activities that will help me burn calories. That way, it will not be so hard to maintain my current weight.

Matsushita, Y., Mizoue, T., Takahashi, Y., Isogawa, A., Kato, M., Inoue, M., Noda, M. & Tsugane, S. (2009). Taste preferences and body weight change in Japanese adults: the JPHC Study. International Journal of Obesity, 33, 1191-1197.

This Bud's For You

Eating has always been one of the simple joys and pleasures in life that has been there since the dawn of mankind. Beginning from the tough uncooked meat and vegetables our large-jawed ancestors had to chew on every day, we now have such a wide variety of different cuisines and unique food dishes that we can fill our stomachs with. Although we may form preferences for certain tastes or types of food, all the world’s cuisines are an all-you-can-eat buffet that can tickle our taste buds in many different ways. Just so long as you are adventurous enough to try, that is.

Mmmm, exotic food...

Nowadays though, many people take this for granted and choose to deprive themselves of the simple pleasure of eating. In our fast-paced and competitive world, many people choose to forego eating breakfast, which is often said to be the most important meal of the day. Also, in a society that places a major emphasis on one’s body and figure, food is generally viewed as the principal obstacle to overcome to attain their desired weight loss, hourglass figure, and six-pack abs.

It is a common assumption that people who are more sensitive to taste, or supertasters, are more likely to have higher food consumption than regular tasters or non-tasters (“taste blind”). The most likely line of reasoning is that, because the taste sensation they experience is a lot fuller, richer, and more intense, they are more likely to eat a lot more than the typical, non-supertaster individual. But apparently, the way we are able to taste and enjoy the flavor of our food is not a hindrance to the model-esque body we long and desire for.

In a 2007 study conducted by Sitton and Sullivan, they studied the relationship of one’s sensory acuity to their tendency to binge eat. Acuity for the sense of taste was measured in terms of the number of fungiform papillae on each participant’s tongue, while olfactory acuity was measured using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Intensity Test (UPSIT). Values were also obtained for the participants’ body mass index (BMI) and from the Binge Eating Scale.

Just look at the size of those papillae!

Contrary to the belief that having a richer taste experience leads to eat more, they found that those with higher sensitivity for experiencing flavor actually had the lowest BMIs among the participants. It is believed that, because the supertasters are able to experience more intense flavors than non-tasters, they become more quickly satiated. In addition, because their threshold for being able to detect and recognize tastes are lower, supertasters may also be able to observe a high-fat diet that leads to a quicker feeling of satiety. In being distinguish the high-fat food from the low-fat food, the supertasters can ultimately consume less calories than the non-tasters. Although increased sensory acuity should also predict supertasters avoiding certain bitter foods, no difference was found between their food preferences as compared to non-tasters.

High-fat goodness!

Although there is a solid logical link that connects food to higher weight, apparently, this logic isn’t as sound as originally believed to be. Factors such as genetics and amount of physical activity can influence one’s build or body frame, but then, one’s ability to experience flavor may also spell the difference between a beer-belly and a well-defined abdominal area.

This is what some people get from all-hotdog diets.

Life is unfair.

Sitton, S.C., & Sullivan, A.F. (2007). Sensory acuity and binge eating. American Journal of Psychological Research, 3(1), 29-33.

Images from:

http://www.eatsleepgeek.com/

http://www.popularwealth.com/

http://jenruhman.blogspot.com/

http://groundframe.com/

HUG!

I went to an all-boys school for 12 years of my, so far, short 21-year old life. Going to college culture-shocked me in so many ways, not the least of which was having girls as close everyday, non-romantic friends. Saying hi through non-verbal ways used to mean fist bumps, high fives, a punch in the shoulder, and sometimes even a short hug. Now it means tighter hugs, heads on my shoulder and so many more variations of hand touches. But even after four years in college, I can honestly say that I've still never fully felt comfortable with the beso.

I guess there can be sex differences when it comes to how males and females communicate through touch, and when and how they use them. Touch is after all a rich medium for social communication and therefore, that can express anything from status differences, messages such as gratitude and sympathy, as well as emotions. Given its role in our social lives, it's therefore likely that it IS indeed gendered.

In a study conducted by Hertenstein and Keltner (2010), they analyzed 212 undergraduate students. The experiment's unit of analysis was dyadic (which I found really interesting), an emotion encoder-emotion decoder dyad. The procedure consisted of the encoder carrying out a randomized emotion (among these - Disgust, Fear, Envy, Embarrassment, Sadness, Pride, Love, Gratitude, Happiness, Anger, Sympathy) through touch on a part of the bare arm of the decoder (who was across a black curtain), whose task it is to guess the emotion and the sex of the encoder. It was found that anger was more readily communicated through the curtain if a male comprised any of the members of the dyad, sympathy was more readily communicated if there's a female, and the dyad with both females were the only ones able to communicate happiness. The other emotions were statistically significant. 

The author hypothesized the reason for this using evolutionary psychology and engendered social roles- males being the protectorate and territorial, and females being the more care-taking and emotional.

So does this mean that guys are more socially inept at encoding and decoding emotion? It must really suck to be us if that's the case- to mostly perceive and relate non-verbal touch with an emotion as negative as anger for most of the time. But I guess that's the reason there are [verbal and] other non-verbal cues to read from, it would be interesting to find an integrated and comprehensive study of communication and emotion perception using non-verbal cues. The best way I guess for us guys (and girls)  to master the art of proper and accurate encoding and decoding is to interact with people, go out and experience life. :)

Hertenstein, M. & Keltner, D. (2010).Gender and the Communication of Emotion Via Touch. Sex Roles, 64(1-2), 70–80.


Photo sources: 
http://www.spanishdict.com
http://notworkappropriate.blogspot.com

Just One Touch, Now Baby I Believe

How do you know if someone likes you? Not just like you, but like you like you? On the other hand, how can you at least drop a hint that you like someone or find him/her attractive? I have a friend—who is not me—who once shared a method she likes to call “the sabay touch”. Ooooh. Basically it’s when you make a gesture and simultaneously touch an area between the object of your affection’s shoulder to hand. So when he makes a joke, by all means laugh in utmost appreciation (not like a maniac, of course) and place your hand on his shoulder, as if labelling him to be one funny guy. If he is conveying his thoughts, nod intently as you reach out for his hand, assuring that your attention is with him.

Such a method seems more plausible for females applying it on the opposite sex rather than the other way around. I don’t know, but it’s unlikely to see a buff dude reaching out for lady shoulders. Worst case scenario is female taking the touching behaviour of the male as inappropriate, which can lead to suspicion of sexual motivation.

Yes, like so.

Apparently, some scientific evidence shows support for my playful pal’s ploy. A study by Guegen (2010) explored how a woman’s touch can affect men’s behaviour, specifically in the courtship context. 64 single men aged 18-25 were selected randomly in an area of a bar. A female confederate would move to a participant’s table when he would sit on a chair in that area. The confederate would then show difficulty in doing a task with her keys, after which she would stand ask the participant for help.

When the participant completes the task, she would get the keys back, smile openly, and thank him. According to a random distribution, the confederate—while in the middle of thanking—was instructed to slightly touch the forearm of the male participant for one to two seconds. Finally, she would return to her table and look at the street. If the male approached her to initiate a conversation, she would say that she has to leave due to an appointment.

Through a chronometer, an observer was instructed to note if the participant did approach the confederate and have a conversation with her. If no verbal contact took place, the observer would note how many times the participant glanced at the female and for how long. This was accomplished through a metronome with a light vibrator that was set on 60 beats per minute. Apparently, this study had a few wicked gadgets involved.

Now how 'bout some skin food?

Anyway, results showed that a slight tactile contact was associated with a decrease in the male participants’ latency to approach the female confederate. In addition, touch is also associated with an increased number of glances at the confederate, as well as the duration of each glance. In summary of the study, touch seems to contribute to the positive evaluation of and interest with the toucher, and that the concept of touch in the courtship setting  can be a good non-verbal communication factor in regulating male-female relationships.

So let me get back to my friend—who truly is not me—for more tricks up her sleeve. We got mouth for whispering sweet nothings, reciting literature, and singing silly love songs, but you can count on skin once in a while too. Show some, use some. It is the biggest organ, after all.

Source: Gueguen, N. (2010). The effect of a woman’s incidental tactile contact on men’s later behaviour. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(2), 257-266.

Tickle me, please? The science behind why tickling yourself just does not work!

One effective technique to cheer up a worn-out and possibly crabby child or adult is by making a few light strokes on the sole of the foot, the armpits, or other areas of the body that will eventually lead that person to a simpering fit of giggles. It is a fact that some people are more ticklish than others, vary among different places in the body, and depend on the situation at hand. In line with this fact, have you ever tried to tickle yourself just to see if it works the same way as others tickle you? If yes, then do you know why tickling yourself just does not work at all? This question has indeed baffled our minds because we know, that the sensation we produce can never win over or even come close to other people tickling us.

The part of the brain that is responsible for us to perceiving tickle is the S1 or the somatosensory cortex of the brain. A study by Blakemore, Wolpert and Frith (1998) used an fMRI to study the brain activity when stimulus was either internally produced or externally. Their study revealed that more activity was found in the somatosensory cortex when the stimulus was externally produced. In addition, they also found out activity in the cerebellum is the perpetrator behind this difference in stimulus source. The function of the cerebellum is to coordinate movement and to receive both sensory input from the body and motor input from higher cortical areas that command movement. Moreover, when a tactile stimulus is generated, less activity in the cerebellum occurs. Integrating the role of the somatosensory cortex, when the person himself generates tactile stimulus, the cerebellum suppresses the effects of stimulation, and the end result is diminished activity in the somatosensory cortex and with it, diminished perception of the tickle. This cancellation of the sensory consequences of a motor command is a phenomenon known as reafference.

It is evident that not only these brain mechanisms underlying the phenomenon of reafference are responsible. Other factors that need to be considered are the predictability of the stimulus, sexual influences, and the difference from person-to-person subjective experiences. Blindfolded individuals or individuals who have their eyes are closed provide the greatest tickle sensation. Lastly, it was also discovered that the sensation could be greater if tickled by someone of the opposite sex. So if you want to burst into laughter after a crazy day in school or work, do not make attempts to tickle yourself because that just wouldn’t work. If there’s nobody to unexpectedly tickle you, then you might just have to find other ways like a video of a stand-up comedy show or the simplest joys of hearing a kid burst into laughter like this video below. Indeed, this baby tickled you in more ways than one.

Blakemore, S., Wolpert, D., & Frith, C. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation.Nature Neuroscience, 1(7), 635-640. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.

Let's Take it to the Next Level

                First dates are always a little awkward; it’s like testing the waters – a make-or-break situation where it can be a stepping stone to something wonderful, or a horrible and rejecting slap in the face. Phineas Mollod and Jason Tesauro, who call themselves “The Modern Gentlemen”,  say that you’ve got to “…pepper your date with Oxytocin-inducing moments throughout to ensure a fairytale-worthy goodnight kiss later..”. Oxytocin is induced during hugging and intimate touch (which seems rather hard to do across the dinner table, but anyway…), as well as when things get a little more… intense. Of course first kisses are a different story – apparently, they’re supposed to be foot-popping (according to Princess Diaries), butterflies in the stomach, movie ending-worthy, blah blah – you get it. Bottom line is that moment when your lips touch you’re supposed to feel all tingly and nice. I don’t know if the same can be said for my all-time favorite author Sylvia Plath and her husband, Ted Hughes. She recalls that at a literary party back in 1956:

"He kissed me bang smash on the mouth and ripped my hair band off, and when he kissed my neck I bit him long and hard on the cheek, and when we came out of the room, blood was running down his face..."

             Of course we know how this love story ended – divorce and her head stuffed in an oven. 

             Physical contact or touch can mean different things, from “I think I’m in love with you” to “Get out of my way, jerk” or even “Voulez vous coucher avec moi, ces soir” if you’re feeling lucky. When it comes to first dates or any effort that will hopefully result in romance, there seems to be an unspoken rule about how physical intimacy progresses as the relationship itself progresses. Of course there has been research (Andersen, 1985; Guerrero & Andersen, 1991; Mehrabian, 1969; in Guerrero & Andersen, 1994) showing that actively engaging in touch increases closeness and attraction and that adapting these nonverbal behaviors to the partner’s preferred style further enhances intimacy and liking. Usually, this touch behavior becomes more similar as the relationship blooms. This is based on how attitude similarity is important for any relationship, especially one that you want to last. On the other end of the spectrum, we have touch avoidance, which is exactly the opposite.

The highest level in any relationship.

            Touch initiation is a little more inconsistent – some studies say that men are the initiators because it indicates dominance (I don’t know if women nowadays agree) and men feel it’s their responsibility; other studies don’t show any sex differences, or that women are the initiators. Guerrero and Andersen (1994) suggest that social control may be predominant in early relationships while intimacy may be most influential in established relationships. Men are found to initiate touch in the early stages, but the job goes to women afterwards because of the need to express intimacy as the relationship progresses. 

            Based on all these, Guerrero and Andersen (1994) hypothesized that the amount of touch is correlated between male and female romantic partners, which is also correlated more highly in marriages than in casual/serious relationships. They also hypothesized that women report more touch avoidance than men, and as mentioned, that men are the touch initiators in casual dating relationships and women in serious/married relationships.

            The methods involved unobtrusive observation of the touch behavior of couples waiting in line for the movies or the zoo. This lasted for two minutes, after which the couples were approached separately in order to administer the questionnaire. Results show that touch behavior is indeed correlational between romantic partners, correlating most highly for married couples and lowest for casually dating partners. On the other hand, touch avoidance was found to be higher for women. Males initiated touch most in casual dating relationships, and least in married relationships; women initiated touch most when married, and least in casual relationships. It’s important to note that there’s actually a progression, meaning that matching touch behavior between partners increases as a function of the relationship stage. 

But, in addition to these, the researchers found that although matching does increase on the way to marriage, touch display most likely decreases as well. Highest touch frequency is found in serious relationships to “escalate intimacy and display bondedness”. No sex differences were seen in touch initiation for serious relationships.

Although the study does seem rather intriguing, it has a few loopholes that may have compromised the results. Sampling wasn’t very well planned; even if the observers did undergo training, what might seem to be touch behavior may be entirely something else (e.g. touch that isn’t at all sprinkled with romance). There’s also a thin line between touch reciprocity and initiation, and touch itself is very contextual. And what makes a relationship a serious one? Is it the length or something else? Operational definitions would have been a good addition to the study.

           But then again, is the study only telling us something we already know? Or is this hindsight bias, maybe? It’s true what they say, though: getting married takes away all the fun. 

But I guess some people have all the fun.

They just don't care.

 References:

Guerrero, L. & Andersen, P. (1994). Patterns of Matching and Initiation: Touch Behavior and Touch Avoidance Acroos Romantic Relationship Stages. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18(2), 137-151.

http://www.match.com/magazine/article0.aspx?articleid=12220