Appetite 53 (2009) 314321

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Appetite
journal homepage: www . elsevier . com/locate/appet

Research report

Effects of olfactory dysfunction on sensory evaluation and preparation of foods

Han-Seok Seo *, Thomas Hummel
Smell & Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Dresden Medical School, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany
different concentrations of green teas and coffees
between three groups: young (n = 30) and elderly (n
AB S TRAC
= 30) with normal olfactory function and elderly (n =
ARTICLE INFO T
30) with olfactory dysfunction. In addition, we
compared the subject groups behavior during
Article history: Aim of this
sensory testing and preparation of green tea or
Received 7 April 2009 study was to
coffee. As expected, elderly subjects with olfactory
Received in revised form 13 July 2009 Accepted 13 July 2009 investigate
dysfunction rated the overall odor intensity less
the impact of
intense than subjects with normal olfactory function.
Keywords: olfactory
Also, elderly subjects with olfactory dysfunction
Behavior dysfunction
rated the intensities of overall flavor and bitter taste
Food preparation on behavior
significantly lower rather than subjects with normal
Olfactory dysfunction during
Sensory evaluation olfactory function in green tea, whereas this result
sensory
Sniffin Sticks test was not obtained in coffee. Compared to young
evaluation
The elderly subjects with normal olfactory function, elderly with
and self-
olfactory dysfunction used more green tea powder to
preparation,
optimize their own green tea. Moreover, olfactory
as well as on
function scores assessed by the Sniffin Sticks test
sensory
were positively related with sniffing frequency for
perception
green tea and with sniffing time for coffee during
and
sensory evaluation. During preparation of the green
pleasantness
tea, compared to elderly subjects, young healthy
of green tea
subjects tried to adjust the green tea more
and coffee.
frequently by adding green tea powder or water.
We
Such behavioral differences were not present during
compared the
coffee preparation. In conclusion, our findings
intensities of
demonstrate that olfactory dysfunction affects odor
overall odor,
perception and sniffing behavior. However, under
flavor, and
the current conditions, it appeared to have no effect
bitter taste,
on hedonic ratings and self-preparation behaviors.
respectively,
and the
2009 Elsevier
pleasantness Ltd. All rights
ratings for reserved.
three
loss years. More recently, basedattention. Patients
was on a survey of 3282suffering from
on olfactory dysfunction
subjects Hummel et al. living and their quality
aver have reported that
Introduction (2007) also reported antheir activities of daily of life were
age
age-related decrease of compromised by their
24.5
It is well established that olfactory function % in olfactory function, most olfactory dysfunction
pronounced in subjects
declines with age ( Cain & Stevens, 1989; Dotya older than 55 years; odor ( Frasnelli &
surve Hummel, 2005; Miwa
sensitivity were found to
et al., 1984; Duffy, Backstrand, & Ferris, 1995;y for 1* Correspondin
et al., 2001). It is of
Hummel, Kobal, Gudziol, & Mackay-Sim, 2007; a decrease more dramatically g author.
with age compared to odor E-mail address: note that the main
Murphy et al., 2002) (but see also the study of total discrimination and hanseok94@gmail.co complaints or
of m (H.-S. Seo). hazardous events
Mackay-Sim, Johnston, Owen, & Burne, 2006).2491 identification performances.
were related to eating
Duffy et al. (1995) reported that 46.3% (of 80subje
female subjects aged 6593 years) showed cts Despite its high or cooking ( Frasnelli
incidence in the elderly, & Hummel, 2005;
olfactory dysfunction. Murphy et al. (2002)aged olfactory dysfunction has Miwa et al., 2001;
demonstrated that the prevalence of olfactory53 received relatively little
97 Santos, Reiter,
DiNardo, & Costanzo, 2004). Several studies et on this issue were not & Massart, 1997; strategy has been
have revealed that olfactory dysfunction induces al., uniform (for critical review Schiffman & questioned. In fact,
2008 Warwick, 1988; recent studies
changes of dietary behavior ( Aschenbrenner et see for Mattes, 2002).
; Schiffman & suggest that flavor
al., 2008; Duffy et al., 1995; Mattes et al., Duffy So far, it has been Warwick, 1993; enhancement does
et assumed that flavor Zandstra not increase food
1990; Mattes & Cowart, 1994), nutritional risks ( enhancement is one of the
al.,
Duffy et al., 1995; Hutton, Baracos, & Wismer,1995 strategies to compensate2& de Graaf, intake ( Koskinen,
for decreased sensitivities 1998). Flavor- Kalviainen,
2007; Mattes et al., 1990; Mattes ),
altho of smell and taste in the enhanced food may 3& Tuorila,
1& Cowart, 1994), weight gain or loss ( ugh
elderly ( de Graaf, Polet, &
also result in higher 2003a; Koskinen,
food intake in elderly Nenonen, &
Aschenbrenner et al., 2008; Mattes & Cowart, all van Staveren, 1994; de
studi people, although the Tuorila, 2005)
Graaf, van Staveren, & success and
1994), or appetite decrement ( Aschenbrenner es of this
Burema, 1996; Greip, Mets,
019 6663/$ see front matter 10.1016/j.appet.2009.0
5- 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi: 7.010
H.-S. Seo, T. Hummel / Appetite 53 (2009) 314321 315

points, were excluded from this study. 2007). Moreover, the subjects gustatory
Groups ONORM and ODYS were not
pleasantness ( Essed, van Staveren, Kok, & de Graaf, function was screened via taste sprays
different from each other in terms of age
that consist of supra-threshold
2007; Koskinen et al., 2003a, 2005; Kremer, Bult, Mojet,(t58 = 1.30, p = 0.20) and MMSE scores concentrations of sweet (sucrose),
& Kroeze, 2007a; Kremer, Bult, Mojet, & Kroeze, 2007b)(t58 = 0.95, p = 0.35) at p < 0.05. The sour (citric acid), salty (sodium
study was approved by the Ethics chloride), and bitter (quinine
nor does it improve nutritional status ( Essed et al.,
Committee of the University of Dresden hydrochloride) ( Vennemann, Hummel, &
2007) of elderly subjects ( Tuorila & Monteleone, 2009).Medical School, and all subjects gave Berger, 2008). Subjects who failed to
their written consent prior to participation
Also, Koskinen et al. (2003a, 2005) reported thatin this study. identify each of the four tastes were
olfactory performance of elderly subjects was not excluded from this study.
connected to pleasantness ratings of foods with
enhanced flavor. Sensory evaluation of green tea and
Olfactory and gustatory function tests coffee
In most studies on perception and/or pleasantness in
relation to flavor enhancement of foods in the elderly, The subjects olfactory function was Sample and preparation
complex food matrices have been used as test sample, assessed using the Sniffin Sticks test
e.g., vegetables, soup, juice, yogurt, yogurt-type snack,(Burghart, Wedel, Germany) that consists To compare sensory perception and
pleasantness on foods between three
custard, or meat ( de Graaf et al., 1994; de Graaf et al.,of three subtests: odor threshold (T), odor groups, YNORM, ONORM, and ODYS,
1996; Essed et al., 2007; Kalviainen, Roininen, & discrimination (D), and odor identification green tea and brewed coffee were used
Tuorila, 2003; Koskinen et al., 2005; Kremer et al.,(I) (for details see Hummel, Sekinger, as test sample. Each sample was
prepared with three different
2007a,b; Schiffman & Warwick, 1988). To ourWolf, Pauli, & Kobal, 1997). Based on a concentrations. For green tea, 0.1, 0.4,
knowledge, coffee or tea was not applied as test sampleTDI score (sum of the three individual and 0.7 g of soluble green tea powder
in those studies. However, considering relatively high subtest scores) olfactory function was (Amorepacific Co., Chungbuk, Korea)
consumption of tea and coffee in elderly people, it is categorized in terms of functional were solved in 120 mL of hot water (85
meaningful to examine flavor enhancement effect onanosmia (TDI score 16), hyposmia (16 < 8C). For coffee, 50 g of roasted ground
those types of foods. TDI score 30.5), and normosmia (TDI coffee beans (Jacobs Meisterrostung,
Moreover, we attempted to investigate the impact ofscore > 30.5) ( Hummel et al., Kraft Foods, Germany) were brewed with
olfactory dysfunction on subjects behavior during 500 mL of water using a commercial
sensory evaluation and self-preparation of food. Several automatic drip coffee maker (Severin
studies have demonstrated that patients with olfactory Elektrogerate GmbH, Germany), and
dysfunction mentioned food-related com-plaints ( Duffy then that was diluted 2- and 4-fold with
hot water (85 8C), for medium and low
et al., 1995; Hummel & Nordin, 2005; Miwa et al., 2001; concentrations, respectively.
Santos et al., 2004). For example, Miwa et al. (2001) One hundred twenty mililiters of each
reported that 53% and 49% of patients with olfactory green tea or coffee sample were
dysfunction complained their impaired activities related presented in a 240 mL porcelain cup
to eating and cooking, respectively. coded with a random three-digit number.
Three differently concentrated green teas
Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the
or coffees were provided at the same
impact of olfactory dysfunction on the perception of
time in a randomized order (from left to
green tea and coffee in three groups: young and elderly
right) via a tray. The samples were
subjects with normal olfactory function, and elderly
served at approximately 70 8C. Spring
subjects with impaired olfactory function. In addition, we
water was also provided ad libitum so
studied the subjects behavior during sensory evalua-tion
that the subjects could rinse their palates
and self-preparation for green tea and coffee to examine
between samples.
the influence of olfactory dysfunction on dietary behavior.

Procedure
Materials and methods
In the first session of sensory
Subjects evaluation, after sniffing all three green
teas one by one from left to right,
subjects were instructed to evaluate the
A total of 90 women participated in this study: 30
overall intensity of odor on an
young adults with normal olfactory function (group
unstructured 15 cm line scale reaching
YNORM, age range 1830, mean SD: 22.6 2.9 years),
from extremely weak to extremely
30 elderly with normal olfactory function (group ONORM,
strong at either end. When the subjects
age range 60-75, mean SD: 66.4 3.7 years), and 30
could not complete evaluation of the
elderly with olfactory dysfunction (group ODYS, age
range 6279, mean SD: 67.8 4.4 years). YNORM and green teas after sniffing them once, they
ONORM subjects were recruited via leaflet. ODYS were allowed to sniff those again, until
subjects were recruited from the Smell & Taste Clinic at they had completed the ratings. In the
the Department of Otorhinolaryngology of the University following subjects rated overall flavor and
of Dresden Medical School. All participants cognitive bitter taste. After this, subjects were
function was screened using the Mini-Mental State asked to rate overall pleasantness for
each sample on the unstructured 15 cm
Examination (MMSE) ( Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, line scale reaching from extremely
1975) and subjects with impaired cognitive function, unplea-sant to extremely pleasant. To
defined at scores of less than 24 from a total of 30
reduce visual effects of the sample on the evaluation To compare sensory evaluation behavior caused by video recording, the
(i.e., masking of color difference between samples), the behaviors between the three groups, trial experimenter informed subjects that this
sensory evaluation was performed under red light in an frequencies of sniffing and tasting were video was for subject identification, and
individual booth. counted from video file that had been the recorder was placed from a distance
recorded using video recorder (Canon (approximately 200 cm).
In the second session, the three differently Inc., Japan) during sensory evaluation.
concentrated coffees were presented under the sameThe times that the subjectsneeded to Self-preparation of green tea and coffee
conditions as green tea. Again, subjects were asked tocomplete rating the overall odor (by
evaluate the intensities of overall odor, flavor, bitter taste,sniffing) and the other three attributes (by Sample and preparation
and overall pleasantness on each coffee sampletasting) were also measured from the To compare the behavior of self-
according to the instruction given above for green tea. Avideo file. Prior to the experiment, in preparation of the foods between three
5 min break separated the two sessions. order to reduce subjects intentional groups, green tea and coffee were also
used as test
316 H.-S. Seo, T. Hummel / Appetite 53 (2009) 314321
individual booth.

In the second session,

sample. For self-preparation of
the subjects were asked
green tea, the subjects were
to sniff and taste the
provided with one cup of green tea
presented coffee only
that was prepared with 0.1 g of
once. Like the first
soluble green tea powder and 100
session, if they were not
mL of hot water (85 8C). Additionally,
satisfied with this coffee,
30 g of soluble green tea powder,
they were free to prepare
100 mL of hot water (85 8C), 100 mL
their own coffee using
of spring water (20 8C), and 2
espresso, water, sugar,
teaspoons for tea powder and
and cream until satisfied.
stirring were provided with the green
During self-
tea.
preparations of green tea
For self-preparation of coffee, 20and coffee, trial frequen-
mL of espresso were diluted with 80 cies of sniffing/tasting and
mL of hot water (85 8C). Subjectsaddition of other
were provided with this cup of coffeeadditional materials Fig. 1. Comparison of olfactory
(100 mL), 40 mL of another function assessed by the
espresso prepared by above Sniffin Sticks test between
machine, 100 mL of hot water (85 three groups: young (YNORM)
and elderly (ONORM) subjects
8C), 100 mL of spring water, 80 g of
with normal olfactory function,
sugar, 50 g of cream, and 3 and elderly subjects with
teaspoons for sugar, cream, and olfactory dysfunction (ODYS).
stirring. Error bars represents SEM. ***
indicates significance at p <
0.001. The ratings with different
scripts within one category are
Procedure significantly different at p <
In the first session of self- 0.05.
preparation, subjects were instructed
to sniff and taste the presented provided were counted. In
green tea only one time. If the addition, the time
subjects preferred this green tea, the necessary to prepare
session was finished. If not, the optimal green tea or
subjects were allowed to prepare coffee was measured.
their own tea by using green tea The trial frequency and
powder and water until they were time were calculated from
satisfied with the green tea. Self- the video file recorded
preparation was performed under using video recorder as
natural light condition in the mentioned above.
Pleasantness
Table 1
Comparisons in mean
intensities ( SEM) of overall
odor, flavor, bitterness, and
pleasantness for three Coffee
different concentrations of Overall odor intensity
green tea and coffee,
respectively, between three
groups: young (YNORM)
and elderly (ONORM)
subjects with normal Overall flavor intensity
olfactory function, and
elderly subjects with
olfactory dysfunction
(ODYS).

Attribute Bitterness intensity

Green tea
Overall odor intensity
Pleasantness

Overall flavor intensity

Means with
different
superscripts within
the same low are
Bitterness intensity significantly
different at p <
0.05.
H.-S. Seo, T. Hummel / Appetite 53 (2009) 314321 317

respectively. interaction between-

Data analysis subject group and sample
Sensory evaluations of concen-tration for sensory
Statistical software, SPSS 12.0green tea and coffee perceptions and
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) for pleasantness was
TM Sensory perception and exhibited, whereas
Windows was used to analyze the pleasantness for green
significant interaction
results. For analysis of the self- tea and coffee
between-subject group
preparation behavior for green tea A subject group and sample concentration
and coffee, the data of subjects who sample sample was obtained in
added other additional materials toconcentration interaction
pleasantness of coffee
the provided beverages were used:for sensory perceptions
(F(4,
for green tea YNORM (n = 24),(i.e., overall odor, flavor,
ONORM (n = 22), and ODYS (n = and bitter taste) and
26); for coffee YNORM (n = 30),pleasantness was not
ONORM (n = 28), and ODYS (n = significant.
30). To examine main effect of
subject group and its interaction As shown in Table 1,
effect with sample and/or sample RM-ANOVAs
concentration on sensory perceptiondemonstrated that ODYS
and pleasantness, repeatedsubjects rated intensities
measures analyses of variance (RM- of overall odor, flavor, and
ANOVA) were conducted withbitter taste in three
subject group as between-subjectsdifferently concentrated
factor and sample and/or samplegreen teas significantly
concentration as within-subjectslower than YNORM and
factors. If there was a significantONORM subjects,
difference between groups,whereas no significant
Duncans multiple range test wasdifference of those ratings
performed to separate the meanswas observed between
using a significance level of alpha = YNORM and ONORM
0.05. Moreover, Levenes test forsubjects. There was no
equality of variances and followed bysignificantly different
t-tests for independent samples wererating of pleasantness for
performed wherever appropriate.green teas between three
Pearson statistics were used forsubject groups. Moreover,
correlation analyses betweenODYS subjects rated the
olfactory function assessed by theodor of three coffee
Sniffin Sticks test and othersamples significantly less
parametric data, e.g., ratings ofintense compared to
intensity, pleasantness, andYNORM and ONORM
behaviors during sensory evaluation
subjects ( Table 1).
and self-preparation. Also, partial
However, there were no
correlation analysis that controlled
significant differences of
for age was used to examine effects
overall flavor, bitter taste,
of olfactory function on the behaviors
and pleasantness
during sensory evaluation and self-
between three subject
preparation.
groups.
When we also
Results analyzed sensory
perceptions depending on
sample concentration
Olfactory function
(low, medium, and high),
ODYS subjects produced
As expected, YNORM subjects
significantly lower
outperformed elderly ones in odor
intensity ratings of the
threshold, odor discrimination, odor
overall odor (at high
identification, and TDI score of the
concentration) and bitter
Sniffin Sticks test ( Fig. 1).taste (at medium
However, there was no significantconcentration) of green
difference between YNORM andtea and the overall odor
ONORM in terms of odor threshold,of coffee (at low and high
discrimination and identification at pconcentrations) compared
to YNORM and ONORM
< 0.05 ( Fig. 1). Based on the TDI
subjects.
score 12 ODYS subjects had
Moreover, in three
functional anosmia and 18 ODYS
differently concentrated
subjects were hyposmic,
green teas, no significant
 and coffee (b) in three subject both green tea and
groups: young (YNORM) and
coffee.
elderly (ONORM) subjects with
normal olfactory function, and
elderly subjects with olfactory Sensory evaluation
dysfunction (ODYS). * indicates behavior
significance at p < 0.05.
As seen in Table 3,
174) = 2.98, p < 0.05) as the elderly groups
seen in Fig. 2. The (ONORM and ODYS)
pleasantness ratings to tasted green tea more
frequently, and they
coffee resembled an
needed longer time of
inverted U shaped
sniffing and tasting to
curve in all subject
complete sensory
groups. Specifically, the
evaluation than the young
ratings of YNORM
subjects.
subjects dramatically
decreased Subjects age was
positively correlated with
betweenmediumandhigh
sniffing time (r90 = 0.34, p
concentrations, whereas < 0.01), tasting frequency
thoseof ONORM and (r90 = 0.39, p < 0.001),
ODYS were relatively and tasting time (r90 =
stable between two 0.53, p < 0.001) in green
concentrations. tea. This age-related
correlation was also
Table 2 shows the observed in coffee:
relationship of olfactory sniffing time (r90 = 0.39, p
function with perceived < 0.001), tasting
intensity of odor or flavor frequency (r90 = 0.24, p <
in green tea and coffee. 0.05), and tasting time
The Pearson correlation (r90 = 0.56, p < 0.001).
When we controlled the
analyses between age effect, the partial
olfactory function correlation analyses
assessed by the Sniffin showed that the TDI
Sticks test and intensity score of the Sniffin
Sticks test positively
of attributes indicate that related with sniffing
subjects with higher TDI frequency for green tea
score (i.e., better olfactory and with sniffing time for
performance) perceive coffee ( Table 4).
Fig. 2. Changes of pleasantness ratings with the odor more intensely in Moreover, hyposmic
three different concentrations of green tea (a)
318 H.-S. Seo, T. Hummel / Appetite 53 (2009) 314321
Table 4 tea and coffee between three
Table 2 Coefficients of partial correlation groups: young (YNORM) and
elderly (ONORM) subjects with
Coefficients of correlation analyses betweenanalyses controlling for age
between olfactory functions normal olfactory function, and
the olfactory function assessed by the
assessed by the Sniffin Sticks elderly subjects with olfactory
Sniffin Sticks test and intensities of overall dysfunction (ODYS).
and behaviors during sensory
odor and flavor for green tea and coffee.
evaluation on green tea and
coffee.
Sensory attribute Olfactory function (n = 90)
Olfactory
function (n =
Threshold Discrimination 90)
Green tea
Overall odor Threshold
***
Low 0.21 0.41 Green tea
*
Medium 0.11 0.25 Frequency
* ***
High 0.24 0.37 Sniffing 0.20
Overall flavor Tasting 0.00
**
Low 0.12 0.35 Time (s)
Medium 0.10 0.10
* Sniffing 0.03
High 0.18 0.24
Tasting 0.09
Coffee Coffee
Overall odor Frequency
*
Low 0.25 0.18
* Sniffing 0.02
Medium 0.08 0.25 Tasting 0.18
*** ***
High 0.39 0.40
Time (s)
Overall flavor
Sniffing 0.10
Low 0.00 0.02
Medium 0.13 0.17 Tasting 0.12
High 0.15 0.19 * Indicate that significance at p < 0.05.
** Indicate that significance at p < 0.01.
*
1* Indicate
Indicate that
that significance
significance at
at pp << 0.05.
a
0.01. TDI score is the sum of
three subset scores: threshold,
discrimination, and
identification.
1** Indicate that significance at p < 0.001.

Table 5
a
TDI score is the sum of three subset Comparisons in mean amounts
scores: threshold, discrimination, and
identification. ( SEM) of additional samples to
optimize subjects own green

subjects sniffed morefunction, and

Additional relationship score of the
elderly subjects with the Sniffin Sticks
frequently (t58 = 2.11, sample
with olfactory
p < 0.05) and longerdysfunction additional test and the
Green tea
(t58 = 2.24, p < 0.05)(ODYS). amount of additional
Green tea espresso,
than subjects with powder (g)
amount of
functional anosmia. water, sugar, green tea
YNORM Water (mL) or cream was powder was
Coffee obtained.
Self-preparation of exhibited at p
Green tea Espresso (mL) Age also < 0.05.
green tea and coffee
Frequency Water (mL)
correlated with
Sugar (g)
Optimization of green Sniffing 6.37 the additional Self-
Tasting 5.63 Cream (g)
tea and coffee amount of preparation
Total 12.00 Means withgreen tea behavior for
As shown in Table Time (s) different
green tea and
superscripts withinpowder (r90 =
5, ODYS subjects Sniffing 70.63 the same low are0.26, p < 0.05), coffee
added a larger amount Tasting 115.80 significantly
whereas that To optimize
of green tea powder to Total 186.43 different at p <was not their own
0.05.
the green tea than significantly green tea,
Coffee
YNORM subjects. Frequency associated YNORM
However, between amounts ofwith the subjects added
Sniffing 5.57
groups there was no espresso, the green tea
Tasting 4.97 additional
significant difference water, sugar, powder or
Total 10.53 amount of
of additional or cream in water into the
Time (s) espresso,
coffee. The presented
Sniffing 58.17 water, sugar,
TDI score of green tea
Table 3 Tasting 99.67 or cream.
the Sniffin
significantly
Comparisons in mean Total 157.83 Sticks testThus, when
frequency and time of apply the more
Means with was negatively
sniffing and tasting ( SEM) different frequently than
during sensory evaluationsuperscripts within
correlated withpartial
two elderly
on three differentthe same low are the additionalcorrelation
amount ofanalysis that groups during
concentrations of green teasignificantly
and coffee, respectively,different at p < green teacontrolled for self-
between three groups:0.05. age non- preparation for
powder (r90 =
young (YNORM) and significant green tea (
elderly (ONORM) subjects
0.23, p < 0.03),
correlation
with normal olfactory whereas non- Table 6). For
between TDI
significant coffee no such
difference was found.and the addition (r72 =disappeared controlled for
There was a positivefrequency of 0.23, p < 0.05),when applying age at p <
correlation betweengreen tea but thisthe partial 0.05.
the TDI score of the powder correla-tion correlation
Sniffin Sticks test analysis that
H.-S. Seo, T. Hummel / Appetite 53 (2009) 314321
is agreement with the
Table 6 previous studies that
Comparisons in mean frequency and timeolfactory dysfunction of
( SEM) of tasting and addition to optimize
the elderly was not
subjects own green tea and coffee between
three groups: young (YNORM) and elderlydirectly related to the
(ONORM) subjects with normal olfactorydecrement in
function, and elderly subjects with olfactory
dysfunction (ODYS). pleasantness of foods (
Koskinen et al., 2003a;
Green tea test YNORM ONORM
Kremer et al., 2007a,b).
There was a significant
Green tea interaction between-
Frequency
subject group and sample
Tasting 4.13 0.22a 3.32
concentration in terms of
Addition 2.50 0.23 1.68
pleasantness to coffee.
Preparation time (s) 82.33 5.36 69.91
Specifically, YNORM
Coffee
Frequency subjects produced the
Tasting 3.60 0.20 lowest
3.71 ratings
Addition 2.80 0.20 pleasantness
2.71 for the
Preparation time (s) 69.17 3.65 65.96 highest concentration of
Means with different superscripts within the coffee compared
same low are significantly different at p < ONORM and ODYS
0.05.
subjects ( Table 1 and
Fig. 2), whereas the
Discussion
mean value of pleasant
ratings to coffee was not
The main purpose of this studyso different at the medium
was to investigate how olfactory
concentration. This result
dysfunction affects behaviors of
suggests that elderly
sensory evaluation and self-
subjects are less
preparation as well as sensory
responsive to variations of
perception and pleasantness of
sample concentration,
foods in the elderly.
compared to young
subjects, which is line
Effect of olfactory dysfunction on the
intensity of sensory attributes with earlier reports (
Koskinen et al., 2003a).
The present findings confirm a
large body of previous research that During self-
young subjects outperform elderlypreparation of green tea,
subjects in olfactory tests ( Cain &ODYS subjects added
significantly more green
Stevens, 1989; Duffy et al., 1995;
tea powder to optimize
Doty et al., 1984; Hummel,their own green tea
Heilmann, & Murphy, 2002;compared to YNORM
Koskinen et al., 2003a; Kremer etsubjects. However, for
self-optimized coffee
al., 2007a,b; Murphy et al., 2002).
there was no difference
However, YNORM and ONORM
with regard to additions of
subjects did not exhibit significant
espresso, water, sugar, or
differences for all aspects of
cream between three
olfactory perception. In other words,
groups. Why not?
this result indicates that elderly
Compared to green tea,
subjects show greater variation of
the hedonic response to
olfactory perfor-mance compared to
coffee may be more
young adults, which is line with
complex. For example,
previous studies ( Koskinen,whereas the
Kalviainen, & Tuorila, 2003b;pleasantness of green tea
is mainly dependent on
Koskinen & Tuorila, 2005).
the concentration of
green tea powder, that of
coffee is affected by
Effect of olfactory dysfunction on the
pleasantness to foods interactions between the
various ingredients, i.e.,
Compared to the impact of
olfactory function on overall odor
intensity, the effect on hedonic
ratings was relatively smaller, which
319
espresso, water, sugar, or
cream. The other
potential reason could be
the degree of familiarity.
For subjects investigated
in this study, the amount
of daily consumption
(mean SD: 0.7 2.0 cups)
and period of regular
consumption (mean SD:
5.7 7.6 years) of green
tea were significantly
lower than those of
coffee: amount: 2.0 1.3
cups; period: 27.3 19.6
years (amount: t173.66 =
7.69, p < 0.001; period:
of
t115.31 = 9.73, p < 0.001).
In other words, compared
to green tea, the higher
to
familiarity with coffee
might have prevented
subjects from changing a
well learned behavior
which may even be
relatively independent of
the actual perception of
flavor. In macaques, the
amplitude of neuronal
response of the perirhinal
cortex related to
recognition memory
gradually increased as
novel visual stimuli
became more and more
familiar ( Rolls, Franco, &
Stringer, 2005). Also,
similar to this study,
Kremer, Mojet, and
Kroeze (2007c) demon-
strated in elderly subjects
that the flavor
enhancement effect on
pleasantness of waffles
was not present for
waffles of traditional type
but for novel-type waffles.
Moreover, apart from
olfactory dysfunction, age
played a role in hedonic
ratings of green tea;
significant correlation of
age with additional
amount of green tea for
optimization. However,
such a significant
relationship was not
observed in coffee. Thus,
these results could be an
example that the effects
of flavor enhancement
and age on food
pleasantness depend on
the type of food
investigated ( Koskinen et
al., 2005; Kremer et al.,
2007a,b; Schiffman & Warwick,2005). In our study, factors including previous
hyposmic subjects sniffed experience, preference,
1988). Therefore, considering this
more frequently and and cognitive function, the
point, further studies with various
longer than subjects with impact of olfactory
types of foods are needed for better
function on cooking
understanding of flavorfunctional anosmia. Doty,
behavior is smaller than
enhancement effect on the food Genow, and Hummel
expected, based on
pleasant-ness. (1998) also reported that
sensory evaluation.
hyposmic patients
Additionally, contrary to
participate in olfactory
the results of sensory
Effect of olfactory dysfunction ontesting more actively than
evaluation obtained under
behaviors of sensory evaluation andanosmic subjects.
self-preparation for foods red light conditions, since
Specifically, with regard to
the subjects could see the
the University of
sample under natural
To determine whether olfactoryPennsylvania Smell
light, during preparation
dysfunction influences dietaryIdentification Test
their visual impression
behaviors or not, we firstly attempted (UPSIT), a scratch and
could compensate for the
to observe the subjects behaviorssniff test, hyposmic
during sensory evaluation and self- subjects exhibited much olfactory loss ( Bult, de
preparation for green tea and coffee.more scratching (in order Wijk, & Hummel, 2007).
This study showed that apart fromto release more odor)
the subjects age, olfactorythan anosmic or Test sample and
performance assessed by the clinicalnormosmic subjects. methodology
test is to some extent related to
subjects sniffing behavior during Compared to the In this study, we
sensory evaluation. Subjects withsensory evaluation, combined approaches
better olfactory function sniff moredifferences in self- from earlier reports in
frequently and longer, which is in linepreparation between the terms of subject group,
with the notion that hyposmia three groups were much sample type, and test
patients complain more about theirsmaller. Because cooking condition. Firstly, whereas
olfactory deficit than anosmicis a complicated task previous studies mainly
compared sensory
subjects ( Frasnelli & Hummel,associated with many perception
320 H.-S. Seo, T. Hummel / Appetite 53 (2009) 314321
had a very strong effect Hummel, T. (1998).
Scratch density
and pleasantness ratings betweenon hedonic ratings. differentiates microsmic
the elderly and the young, in addition In summary, our from normosmic and
anosmic subjects on the
to young healthy subjects we alsofindings demonstrate
University of
studied elderly subjects without andthat olfactory dysfunc- Pennsylvania Smell
with impaired olfactory function,tion affects odor Identification Test.
Perceptual and Motor
especially patient with olfactoryperception and sniffing Skills, 86, 211216.
dysfunction. Because sensorybehavior. However, the Duffy, V. B., Backstrand, J.
perception and dietary behavior are effect of olfactory loss on R., & Ferris, A. M.
flavor, taste, and tasting (1995). Olfactory
influenced by aging ( Morley &behavior was less than dysfunction and related
nutritional risk in free-
Thomas, 1999), it appeared to beexpected. Furthermore, living, elderly women.
Journal of the American
important to compare those between hedonic ratings and self- Dietetic Association, 95,
the same age group. Also, because preparation behavior 879884.
of major differences in olfactorywere not affected by
olfactory dysfunction.
sensitivity between sexes ( Doty et
al., 1984; Hummel et al., 2007), onlyAcknowledgments
women were included. Secondly, to
reduce age-related preference to The authors thank
food samples, we used coffee andMs. Jeong-Hye Seo of
green tea because coffee and teathe Amorepacific
are beverages consumed by all age Research Institute for
groups in daily life in Germany.providing the green tea
Additionally, to provide differentpowder samples. This
familiarity of samples, we chosework was supported by
powder type, less accessible in the Korean Research
German market, instead of teabagFoundation Grant funded
one in green tea. Finally, to examineby the Korean
differences in hedonic ratingsGovernment (MOEHRD)
depending on the concentration of(KRF-2007-357-
the sample, we presented two test C00124).
conditions: (i) three different fixed
concentrations (low, medium, and
high) and (ii) self-optimization of the References
tea or coffee depending on the
subjects preference. The self-Aschenbrenner, K., Hummel,
C., Teszmer, K., Krone, F.,
optimization test can reduce the bias Ishimaru, T., Seo, H.-S., et
that hedonic response for food al. (2008). The influence of
sensory intensity often shows an olfactory loss on dietary
behaviors. Laryngoscope,
inverted U shaped curve ( 118, 135144.
Bult, J. H., de Wijk, R. A., &
Moskowitz, 1981). Hummel, T. (2007).
Investigations on
multimodal sensory
One might argue that hedonic integration: texture, taste,
rating should be asked first prior to and ortho- and retronasal
making any other ratings, e.g., olfactory stimuli in concert.
Neuroscience Letters, 411,
sensory intensity, to reduce potential 610.
biases which might influenceCain, W. S., & Stevens, J. C.
(1989). Uniformity of
hedonic ratings ( Earthy, MacFie, & olfactory loss in aging.
Annals of the New York
Hedderley, 1997). However, the Academy of Sciences,
effect of position of the hedonic 561, 2938.
question (i.e., whether hedonicde Graaf, C., Polet, P., & van
Staveren, W. A. (1994).
ratings were made first or last) was Sensory perception and
pleasantness of food flavors
not very big in their study ( Earthy et in elderly subjects. Journal
al., 1997). Moreover, several studies of Gerontology, 49, P9399.
demonstrated the lack of an effect ofdeGraaf, C., van Staveren,
W., & Burema, J. (1996).
questions regarding intensity of Psychophysical and
sensory attribute on hedonic ratings psychohedonic functions
of four common food
( Popper, Rosenstock, Schraidt, & flavours in elderly
Kroll, 2004; Vickers, Christensen, subjects. Chemical
Senses, 21, 293302.
Fahrenholtz, & Gengler, 1993).Doty, R. L., Shaman, P.,
Popper et al. (2004) reported that Applebaum, S. L.,
Giberson, R., Siksorski, L.,
ratings of the intensity of a sensory & Rosenberg, L. (1984).
attribute influenced the overall Smell identification ability:
changes with age.
hedonic ratings the least, whereas Science, 226, 14411443.
questions of just-about-right scalesDoty, R. L., Genow, A., &
Earthy, P. J., MacFie, H. J. H., & Hedderley, D. and related responses to Dietetic Association, 102,
(1997). Effect of question order on sensoryflavored yogurts in the young 192196.
perception and preference in central location and elderly. Food Quality and Miwa, T., Furukawa, M.,
trials. Journal of Sensory Studies, 12, 215 Preference, 14, 623635. Tsukatani, T., Costanzo, R.
237. Koskinen, S., & Tuorila, H. (2005). M., DiNardo, L. J., & Reiter,
Essed, N. H., van Staveren, W. A., Kok, F. J., & Performance on an odor E. R. (2001). Impact of
de Graaf, C. (2007). No effect of 16 weeks detection and identification test olfactory impairment on
flavor enhancement on dietary intake andas a predictor of ortho- and quality of life and disability.
nutritional status of nursing home elderly.retronasal odor intensity Archives of Otolaryngology-
Appetite, 48, 2936. ratings in the young and Head & Neck Surgery, 127,
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R.elderly. Food Quality and 497503.
(1975). Mini-mental state: a practical methodPreference, 16, 383392. Morley, J. E., & Thomas, D. R.
for grading the cognitive state of patientsKoskinen,
for S., Nenonen, A., & (1999). Anorexia and aging:
the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, Tuorila, H. (2005). Intakes of pathophysiology. Nutrition,
12, 189198. cold cuts in the elderly are 15, 499503.
Frasnelli, J., & Hummel, T. (2005). Olfactory predicted by olfaction and Moskowitz, H. R. (1981).
dysfunction and daily life. European Archives mood, but not by flavor type or Sensory intensity versus
of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 262, 231235. intensity of the products. hedonic functions: classical
Physiology & Behavior, 85, psy-chophysical approaches.
Greip, M. I., Mets, T. F., & Massart, D. L. (1997). Journal of Food Quality, 5,
314323.
Different effects of flavour amplification of 109137.
nutrient dense foods on preference Kremer, and S., Bult, J. H. F., Mojet, J.,
Murphy, C., Schubert, C. R.,
& Kroeze, J. H. A. (2007a).
consumption in young and elderly subjects. Cruickshanks, K. J., Klein, B.
Food perception with age and
Food Quality and Preference, 82, 151156. E., Klein, R., & Nondahl, D.
its relationship to
Hummel, T., Sekinger, B., Wolf, S. R., Pauli, E., & pleasantness. Chemical M. (2002). Prevalence of
Kobal, G. (1997). Sniffin sticks: olfactorySenses, 32, 591602. olfactory impairment in older
performance assessed by the combined Kremer, S., Bult, J. H. F., Mojet, J., adults. Journal of the
testing of odor identification, odor& Kroeze, J. H. A. (2007b). American Medical
discrimination and olfactory threshold. Compensation for age- Association, 288, 2307
Chemical Senses, 22, 3952. associated chemosensory 2312.
Hummel, T., Heilmann, S., & Murphy, C. (2002). Age- losses and its effect on the Popper, R., Rosenstock, W.,
related changes of chemosensory functions. In pleasantness of a custard Schraidt, M., & Kroll, B. J.
C. Rouby, B. Schaal, D. Dubois, R. Gervais, & A. dessert and a tomato drink. (2004). The effect of attribute
Holley (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp.Appetite, 48, 96103. questions on overall liking
441456). New York: Cambridge University Kremer, S., Mojet, J., & Kroeze, J. ratings. Food Quality and
Press. Preference, 15, 853858.
H. A. (2007c). Differences in
Hummel, T., & Nordin, S. (2005). Olfactory perception of sweet and Rolls, E. T., Franco, L., &
disorders and their consequences for qualitysavoury waffles between Stringer, S. M. (2005). The
of life. Acta Oto-Laryngologica, 125, 116elderly and young subjects. perirhinal cortex and
121. Food Quality and Preference, longterm familiarity memory.
Hummel, T., Kobal, G., Gudziol, H., & Mackay- 18, 106116. The Quarterly Journal of
Sim, A. (2007). Normative data for Mackay-Sim, the Experimental Psychology B,
A., Johnston, A. N.
Sniffin Sticks including tests of odorB., Owen, C., & Burne, T. H. J. 58, 234 245.
identification, odor discrimination, and(2006). Olfactory ability in the Santos, D. V., Reiter, E. R.,
olfactory thresholds: an upgrade based on ahealthy population: DiNardo, L. J., & Costanzo,
group of more than 3000 subjects. reassessing presbyosmia. R. M. (2004). Hazardous
European Archives Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, Chemical Senses, 31, 763 events associated with
264, 237243. 771. impaired olfactory function.
Hutton, J. L., Baracos, V. E., & Wismer, W.Mattes, V. Archives of Otolaryngology-
R. D., Cowart, B. J.,
(2007). Chemosensory dysfunction is aSchiavo, M. A., Arnold, C., Head & Neck Surgery, 130,
primary factor in the evolution of decliningGarrison, B., Kare, M. R., et al. 317319.
nutritional status and quality of life in patients (1990). Dietary evaluation of Schiffman, S. S., & Warwick, Z.
with advanced cancer. Journal of Pain and patients with smell and/or taste S. (1988). Flavor
Symptom Management, 33, 156 165. disorders. The American enhancement of foods for the
elderly can reverse anorexia.
Kalviainen, N., Roininen, K., & Tuorila, H. Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
Neurobiology of Aging, 9,
(2003). The relative importance of texture, 51, 233240. 2426.
taste and aroma on a yogurt-type snack food Mattes, R. D., & Cowart, B. J. Schiffman, S. S., & Warwick, Z.
preference in the young and the elderly. Food (1994). Dietary assessment of
S. (1993). Effect of flavor
Quality and Preference, 14, 177186. patients with chemosensory
enhancement of foods for the
Koskinen, S., Kalviainen, N., & Tuorila, H. disorders. Journal of the older on nutritional status:
(2003a). Flavor enhancement as a tool for American Dietetic Association, food intake, biochemical
94, 5056.
increasing pleasantness and intake of a indices, and anthropometric
snack product among the elderly. Appetite, Mattes, R. D. (2002). The chemical
senses and nutrition in aging: measures. Physiology &
41, 8796. Behavior, 53, 395402.
challenging old assumptions.
Koskinen, S., Kalviainen, N., & Tuorila, H. Journal of the American
(2003b). Perception of chemosensory stimuli
 H.-S. Seo, T. Hummel / Appetite 53 (2009) 314321 321

Vickers, Z. M., Christensen, C. old age. Food Quality and

M., Fahrenholtz, S. K., & Preference, 9, 512.
Tuorila, H., & Monteleone, E. (2009). Sensory
Gengler, I. M. (1993). Effect
food science in the changing society:
of questionnaire design and
opportunities, needs, and challenges. Trends
the number of samples tasted
in Food Science & Technology, 20, 54 62.
on hedonic ratings. Journal of
Vennemann, M. M., Hummel, T., & Berger, K. Sensory Studies, 8, 189200.
(2008). The association between smoking and
Zandstra, E. H., & de Graaf, C.
smell and taste impairment in the general
(1998). Sensory perception
population. Journal of Neurology, 255, 1121
and pleasantness of orange
1126.
beverages from childhood to