The use of language by trained and untrained experienced wine tasters

A comparison was made between a highly experienced and a highly experienced and formally trained group of wine tasters in their ability to effectively communicate about wine. The ability to match a wine to a description was used to assess the description's communicative value. Both groups matched three Chardonnay wines to peer generated descriptions. The untrained group also matched wines to consensus descriptions produced by experienced enologists. Both groups were able to match wines to descriptions well above that expected by chance with the performance of the trained group being better in this regard. The best matching performance was attained by the untrained group matching to the expert consensus descriptions. Descriptions correctly matched by the trained group contained a significantly higher number of concrete tactile and palate intensity terms while the use of terms describing the complex dimensions of wine by the untrained mitigated against information transfer. Untrained panelists used concrete terms as cues for identification, while trained panelists relied more on vague and abstract terms. The results also suggest that descriptions are interpreted by both trained and untrained experienced tasters in a synthetic rather than analytic fashion.

[1]  A. Lehrer.  Talking About Wine. , 1975 .

[2]  J. Piggott,et al.  FLAVOUR CHARACTERIZATION BY TRAINED AND UNTRAINED ASSESSORS , 1979 .

[3]  W S Cain,et al.  To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. , 1979, Science.

[4]  Armand V. Cardello,et al.  Perception of Texture by Trained and Consumer Panelists , 1982 .

[5]  H. Lawless.  Flavor Description of White Wine by “Expert” and Nonexpert Wine Consumers , 1984 .

[6]  Harry T. Lawless,et al.  THE IMPORTANCE OF LANGUAGE IN DESCRIBING PERCEPTIONS , 1986 .

[7]  J. C. Stevens,et al.  Smelling via the mouth: Effect of aging , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  A. C. Noble,et al.  Modification of a Standardized System of Wine Aroma Terminology , 1987, American Journal of Enology and Viticulture.

[9]  R. Mcbride,et al.  PERCEPTION OF TASTE MIXTURES BY EXPERIENCED AND NOVICE ASSESSORS1 , 1989 .

[10]  C. Murphy,et al.  Aging is associated with increased Weber ratios , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  J. Richardson,et al.  Cognition and olfaction: a review. , 1989, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  G. Solomon.  Psychology of novice and expert wine talk , 1990 .

[13]  Michael O'Mahony,et al.  Use of Multiple Standards to Define Sensory Characteristics for Descriptive Analysis: Aspects of Concept Formation , 1991 .

[14]  E. Chambers,et al.  EFFECTS OF TESTING EXPERIENCE ON PERFORMANCE OF TRAINED SENSORY PANELISTS , 1993 .

[15]  C. J. Wolters,et al.  Effect of training procedure on the performance of descriptive panels , 1994 .

[16]  Michael E. J. Masson,et al.  Comprehension of legal contracts by non‐experts: Effectiveness of plain language redrafting , 1994 .

[17]  Zata M Vickers,et al.  A COMPARISON OF TRAINED AND UNTRAINED JUDGES’ EVALUATION OF SENSORY ATTRIBUTE INTENSITIES AND LIKING OF CHEDDAR CHEESES , 1994 .

[18]  R. Ahlström,et al.  Recalling taste intensities in sweetened and salted liquids. , 1996, Chemical senses.

[19]  D. G. Laing,et al.  Influence of training and experience on the perception of multicomponent odor mixtures. , 1996, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  W S Cain,et al.  Switch and bait: probing the discriminative basis of odor identification via recognition memory. , 1996, Chemical senses.

[21]  Rosires Deliza,et al.  THE GENERATION OF SENSORY EXPECTATION BY EXTERNAL CUES AND ITS EFFECT ON SENSORY PERCEPTION AND HEDONIC RATINGS: A REVIEW , 1996 .

[22]  H P Boshuizen,et al.  The influence of medical expertise, case typicality, and illness script component on case processing and disease probability estimates , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[23]  Howard R. Moskowitz,et al.  EXPERTS VERSUS CONSUMERS: A COMPARISON , 1996 .