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…

IBMP-Polypenol interactions: Impact on volatility and sensory perception in model wine solution

3-Isobutyl-2-methoxypyrazine (IBMP) is one of the key molecules in wine aroma with a bell pepper aroma and a very low threshold in wine, 1-6 ng/L for white wine and 10-16 ng/L in red wine1. The differences in these thresholds are likely due to IBMP-non volatile matrix interactions. It has indeed been shown that polyphenols may influence the volatility of flavor compounds2. In the present study, we focus on IBMP-polyphenols interactions in relation to volatility and sensory perception in model wine solution. Methods: 1. GC-MS Static Headspace Analysis: Samples were analyzed by Static headspace analysis with an Agilent 7890A gas chromatograph coupled to HP 5975C mass spectrometry detector (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA).

Characterization of vine performance using remote sensing tools

Today, a variety of remote sensing tools are used to characterise plant performance. However, the vine is rarely studied, as a major crop specificity is canopy discontinuity. Registered images of the vineyard are anisotropic, therefore difficult to analyse.

Historical zoning in the world

The study of the interaction between vineyards and the environment to establish the grapevines in the appropriate places has been applied in wine science for 5000 years. Advances in the field of the zoning have not been uniform in time, and have occupied a preferential place in the contributions of Roman writers of the 1st Century AC, the contemplations of Tokay (1700) and Porto (1756) and works of the second half of the 20th century. Zoning practices today integrate multidisciplinary methodologies (viticulture, enology, soils, climatology, cartography, statistics, computer science) and require further development for future application.

A lower rate of grape berry transpiration delays ripening and reduces flavonoid content

Exposing berries to solar radiation improves most berry composition traits. Many of these effects have been linked to photomorphogenic mechanisms and berry temperature.

Ecophysiological performance of Vitis rootstocks under water stress

The use of rootstocks tolerant to soil water deficit is an interesting strategy to cope with limited water availability. Currently, several nurseries are breeding new genotypes, but the physiological basis of its responses under water stress are largely unknown. To this end, an ecophysiological assessment of the conventional 110-Richter (110R) and SO4, and the new M1 and M4 rootstocks was carried out in potted ungrafted plants. During one season, these Vitis genotypes were grown under greenhouse conditions and subjected to two water regimes, well-watered and water deficit. Water potentials of plants under water deficit down to < -1.4 MPa, and net photosynthesis (AN) <5 μmol m-2 s-1 did not cause leaf oxidative stress damage compared to well-watered conditions in any of the genotypes. The antioxidant capacity was sufficient to neutralize the mild oxidative stress suffered. Under both treatments, gravimetric differences in daily water use were observed among genotypes, leading to differences in the biomass of root, shoot and leaf. Under well-watered conditions, SO4 and 110R were the most vigorous and M1 and M4 the least. However, under water stress, SO4 exhibited the greatest reduction in biomass while M4 showed the lowest. Remarkably, under these conditions, SO4 reached the least negative stem water potential (Ψstem), while M1 reduced stomatal conductance (gs) and AN the most. In addition, SO4 and M1 genotypes also showed the highest and lowest hydraulic conductance values, respectively. Our results suggest that there are differences in water use regulation among genotypes, not only attributed to differences in stomatal regulation or intrinsic water use efficiency at the leaf level. Therefore, because no differences in canopy-to-root ratio were achieved, it is hypothesized that xylem vessel anatomical differences may be driving the reported differences among rootstocks performance. Results demonstrate that each Vitis rootstock differs in its ecophysiological responses under water stress.