OENO IVAS 2019 banner
IVES 9 IVES Conference Series 9 Does wine expertise influence semantic categorization of wine odors?

Does wine expertise influence semantic categorization of wine odors?

Abstract

Aromatic characterization is a key issue to enhance wines knowledge. While several studies argue the importance of wine expertise in the ability of performing odor-related sensory tasks, there is still little attention paid to the influence of expertise on the semantic representation of wine odors. Theis study aims at exploring the influence of subject’s expertise on the semantic space of wine’s odor. 

156 subjects were recruited (72 % consumers of wine and 28 % professionals from viticulture sector). Subject’ level of expertise was measured by means of a questionnaire encompassing three criteria: product experience, subjective knowledge and objective knowledge. Four groups of subjects were identified using Rasch model corresponding to four levels of expertise: novices, intermediates, connoisseurs and experts. Thereafter, subjects performed a sorting task on 96 labels of odors and add a title to the groups. To investigate the influence of subject’s expertise on the semantic space of wine’s odor, the four groups’ clusters were compared on several criteria: number and size of odor groups from the sorting task and agreement between the subjects within each cluster. Dissimilarity matrices were also compared to highlight differences between clustering. Finally, to represent the semantic odor space, additive similarity trees were performed on sorting data. 

Results show that number and size of odor groups are likely to be the same between the four clusters (between 26 and 31 groups in average and 3 odors per group in average for the four clusters) and no differences of agreement within each cluster can be highlighted. Additive trees performed on clusters show that most of the branches are the same between the two clusters: fruity, floral, woody, vegetal, spicy, etc. Overall, semantic representation of odors is consensual regardless the level of expertise. But, some differences may be underscored. These latter ones are mostly between expert’s cluster and the three other clusters. 

This work highlights that subjects, professionals or not, have the same structuration of wine odor attributes: they categorize odors according to the odorant source. However, some attributes do not have the same meaning for experts and non-experts which lead to a different categorization. This study is the first step toward a sensory tool for wine characterization aiming at simplifying and standardizing the process of describing wine odors, from generic to more specific attributes.

DOI:

Publication date: June 19, 2020

Issue: OENO IVAS 2019

Type: Article

Authors

Léa Koening (1), Cécile Coulon-Leroy (1), Ronan Symoneaux (1), Véronique Cariou (2), Evelyne Vigneau (2)

1) USC 1422 GRAPPE, INRA, Ecole Supérieure d’Agricultures, Univ. Bretagne Loire, SFR 4207 QUASAV, 55 rue Rabelais 49100 Angers, France
2) StatSC, ONIRIS, INRA, 44322 Nantes, France

Contact the author

Keywords

expertise, odor categorization, free sorting, additive tree 

Tags

IVES Conference Series | OENO IVAS 2019

Citation

Related articles…

The valorization of wine lees as a source of mannoproteins for food and wine applications

AIM. Wine yeast lees constitute a winemaking by-product that, unlike grape skins and seeds, are not sufficiently exploited to add value to the winemaking sector, as their treatment and disposal generally represents a cost for wineries [1].

Pure wine vs natural wine

S’il n’existe pas de réglementation officielle, la démarche des vins naturels prône un retour aux pratiques dites ancestrales préconisant notamment un mode d’élaboration des vins utilisant le moins d’intrants possible. Le seul autorisé reste l’anhydride sulfureux (SO2) à des doses quatre à cinq fois moins importantes que pour les vins dits conventionnels. Ce désir de renouer avec

Novel protocols for variable rate vineyard management

The advent of precision viticulture (PV) has allowed to address problems related to spatial and temporal variability at the within-field scale. Nowadays, several remote and proximal sensing solutions allow description of the existing variability at different temporal and ground resolution through extremely robust soil, vigor, yield, and grape quality maps. In parallel, numerous studies have described grapevine performances within the homogeneous zones and identified soil as main driver of variability. There is a broad consensus that different vigor zones within the same plot may show differential canopy growth, yield and fruit composition, depicting diverse enological potentials and cultural needs.

Unraveling grapevine resilience to water and nutrient limitations

Water and nutrient availability significantly impact crop yield, thus the application of sustainable strategies towards efficient water use and nutrient absorption by plants is needed.

Evolution of the crown procyanidins during wine making and aging in bottle

Condensed tannins are widely distributed in plant‐derived foods and beverages like grape, red wine, nuts, tea, apples and chocolate in which they contribute to multiple sensorial properties such as flavor, color, and taste (astringency and bitterness). During the wine making process,