Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Chemosensory vocabulary in wine, perfume and food product reviews: Insights from language modeling
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Perception and psychophysics.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0897-8911
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Perception and psychophysics. RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, Sweden.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7020-8275
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Psychology, Perception and psychophysics.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0856-0569
Number of Authors: 32025 (English)In: Food Quality and Preference, ISSN 0950-3293, E-ISSN 1873-6343, Vol. 124, article id 105357Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Chemosensory sensations are often hard to describe and quantify. Language models may facilitate a systematic understanding of sensory descriptions. We accessed consumer and expert reviews of wine, perfume, and food products (English language; about 68 million words in total) and analyzed their sensory descriptions. Using a novel data-driven method based on natural language data, we compared the three chemosensory vocabularies (wine, perfume, food) with respect to their vocabulary overlap and semantic properties, and explored their semantic spaces. The three vocabularies primarily differ with respect to domain specificity, concreteness, descriptor type preference and degree of gustatory vs. olfactory association. Wine vocabulary primarily distinguishes between white wine and red wine flavors and qualities. Food vocabulary separates drinkable and edible food products and ingredients, on the one hand, and savory and non-savory products, on the other. A salient distinction in all three vocabularies is between concrete and abstract/evaluative terms. Valence also plays a role in the semantic spaces of all three vocabularies, but valence is less prominent here than in general olfactory vocabulary. Our method allows a systematic comparison of sensory descriptors in the three product domains and provides a data-driven approach to derive sensory lexicons that can be applied by sensory scientists.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2025. Vol. 124, article id 105357
Keywords [en]
consumer reviews, cross-domain comparison, machine learning, natural language processing, semantic analysis, sensory vocabulary
National Category
Comparative Language Studies and Linguistics Food Science
Research subject
Psychology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-241541DOI: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2024.105357ISI: 001354909000001Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-85208399146OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-241541DiVA, id: diva2:1949044
Available from: 2025-04-01 Created: 2025-04-01 Last updated: 2026-01-13Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records

Hörberg, ThomasKurfali, MurathanOlofsson, Jonas K.

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Hörberg, ThomasKurfali, MurathanOlofsson, Jonas K.
By organisation
Perception and psychophysics
In the same journal
Food Quality and Preference
Comparative Language Studies and LinguisticsFood Science

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 138 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf