4.7 Article

Perception of quality and complexity in wine and their links to varietal typicality: An investigation involving Pinot noir wine and professional tasters

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109423

关键词

Pinot noir; Quality; Complexity; Varietal typicality; Sensory; Colour

资金

  1. New Zealand's Bragato Research Institute, New Zealand Winegrowers
  2. New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment (MBIE)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Quality and complexity are abstract terms employed frequently to describe a wine's overall attributes. In the present study, we investigated: (i) attributes driving wine professionals' judgments of quality and complexity in Pinot noir wines; (ii) the relation between these two abstract concepts; and (iii) association of each concept with varietal typicality. Twenty-two wine professionals evaluated 18 New Zealand Pinot noir wines in both clear and opaque glassware via two sensory tasks, a descriptive rating task and an 8-attribute, perceived complexity questionnaire. Sensory data were associated with wine UV-spectrophotometry colour measures to aid interpretation of the influence of tasting-glass colour. Results demonstrated the key drivers of perceived quality were descriptors varietal typicality, expressiveness, overall structure, and attractive fruit aromatics, along with complexity questionnaire attributes of harmony, balance and number of identifiable flavours. Reductive notes drove low-quality judgments. Data show that quality and complexity were positively associated concepts and that both were linked positively with varietal typicality. Visual influence was not a major driver of wine professionals' judgments but being able to see a wine's colour influenced tasters' judgments to wines at each end of the price/quality spectrum. We discuss the results in terms of cognitive phenomena associated with judgments by those with domain-specific expertise.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据