TEXT D A Polish proverb claims
that fish, to taste right, should swim three times—in water, in butter and in
wine. The early efforts of the basic scientists in the food industry were
directed at improving preparation, preservation, and distribution of safe and
nutritious food. Our memories of certain foodstuffs eaten during the World War
II suggest that, although these might have been safe and nutritious, they
certainly did not taste right. Nor were they particularly appetizing in
appearance or smell. This neglect of the sensory appeal of foods is happily
becoming a thing of the past. Now, in the book Principles of Sensory Evaluation
of Food, the authors hope that it will be useful to food technologists in
industry and also to others engaged in research into problem of sensory
evaluation of foods. An attempt has clearly been made to collect every possible
piece of in formation that might be useful, more than one thousand five hundred
references being quoted. As a result, the book seems at first sight to be an
exhaustive and critically useful review of the literature. This it certainly is,
but this by no means is its only achievement, for there are many suggestions for
further lines of research, and the discursive passages are crisply provocative
of new ideas and new ways of looking at established
findings①. Of particular interest is the weight given
to the psychological aspects of perception, both objectively and subjectively.
The relation between stimuli and perception is well covered, and includes a
valuable discussion of the uses and disadvantages of the Weber fraction in
evaluation of differences. It is interesting to find that in spite of many
attempts to separate and define the modalities of tastes, nothing better has
been achieved that the familiar classification into sweet, sour and bitter. Nor
is there as yet any clear-cut evidence of the physiological nature of the taste
stimulus. With regard to smell, systems of classification are of little value
because of the extraordinary sensitivity of the nose and because the response to
the stimulus is so subjective. The authors suggested that a classification based
on the size, shape and electronic status of the molecule bear the merit for
further investigation, as does the theoretical proposition that weak physical
binding of the stimulant molecule to the receptor site is a necessary part of
the mechanism of stimulation②. Apart from taste and
smell, there are many other components of perception of the sensations from food
in the mouth. The basic modalities of pain, cold, warmth and touch, together
with vibration sense, discrimination and localization may all play a part, as of
course, does auditory reception of bone-conducted vibratory stimuli from the
teeth when eating crisp or crunchy foods. In this connection the authors rightly
point out that this type of stimulus requires much more investigation,
suggesting that a start might be made by using subjects afflicted with various
forms of deafness. It is well known that extraneous noise may alter
discrimination, and the attention of the authors is directed to the work of Prof
H.J. Eysenck on the "stimulus hunger" of extroverts and the "stimulus avoidance"
of introverts. Which of the following statements concerning the system of classification in taste is TRUE
A.The writer feels upset that there is no better system of classification than the familiar one of sweet, sour, bitter salty. B.Psychological perception of the taste is objective because no subject judgment is involved. C.It is extremely difficult to classify smell, as it’s hard to make objective judgment on the stimulus. D.The classification is subjective, for there is no relation between the perception and the stimulus.