ArticlePDF Available

Measuring the multisensory imagery of wine: The Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire

Authors:

Abstract

When we imagine objects or events, we often engage in multisensory mental imagery. Yet, investigations of mental imagery have typically focused on only one sensory modality—vision. One reason for this is that the most common tool for the measurement of imagery, the questionnaire, has been restricted to unimodal ratings of the object. We present a new mental imagery questionnaire that measures multisensory imagery. Specifically, the newly developed Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire (VWIQ) measures mental imagery of wine in the visual, olfactory, and gustatory modalities. Wine is an ideal domain to explore multisensory imagery because wine drinking is a multisensory experience, it involves the neglected chemical senses (smell and taste), and provides the opportunity to explore the effect of experience and expertise on imagery (from wine novices to experts). The VWIQ questionnaire showed high internal consistency and reliability, and correlated with other validated measures of imagery. Overall, the VWIQ may serve as a useful tool to explore mental imagery, for researchers, as well as individuals in the wine industry during sommelier training and evaluation of wine professionals.
Measuring Multisensory Imagery of Wine: The Vividness of Wine
Imagery Questionnaire
Ilja Croijmans, Laura J. Speed, Artin Arshamianand Asifa Majid


!"##$% &'# 
()'! *+,+'-
()'.#+'/0+'-
(,!#$% &'#

12.+,.# &'# 
3+4#3+*
$5/67)%/0
Abstract
8-'#%&-##'''#93#
''#)':9;
''''''#<%'#
%&98)-''#<'''#9)
-)=8,'#>?=8,>@'''#-
#'98'2)''#%
-+#'2)#'?'@
)))2)2)2)'#?'-
2)@9=8,><-#%-
''#9;=8,>'2)''#
--#''#
-A)9
Keywords
1'#-#2)
5)
-')%9BC'D9'&E+99+
1. Introduction
1'#%F'#G'
%)'?'067.0@9,'#%#
  2)' ) ) 2) '
?'//@9,)))#
#) ?H## et al9 //7 * ')H
//@% +)# '')
#?*'50071+!00@9
 ) 2)   '# '+  # 
91C)9C)<%)
'''#'#?9#91+0@
 ?9#94) /7 8   //@ ?9#9 H% et al9
006@  '' ?, 1+  $ 06@9 ; #  
'##'I ?9#9* et al900@?9#94)
 J 000@   ? et al9 //@ '#   %9 
# ##   ) - #   ))9 
/9
2)'%-%'#)'
-2 ' ?9#9 !C"'  K% //7 'I+  
//0@9,')C))%-%)
%+?9#9K'et al9/7(&&et al9//74)/@
'##'?9#9 !et al.//7(&&et al.//7et al./7@9
-+ #)- 93)  '
'#  )  #    ' ## 
'<'#92')#-G
< ?9#9  0/07  0@   .'  ,'#
> ?K et al. /@ 2)' '#   ' 
 '#' %'##)
#')'9''
 '#     ')%   '9  2')
###'?9#9'#%#
'9K'"/7Ket al./@
%-   )     )   
'9''-)-''#<
'#  '') ' #-
'D=8,'#>?=8,>@9
8-'''#9
2)-'D-)
---%#)-
-%2)#-GC9-%''
'#'')-+)#9,
-##')))'
/9
FG?FG@-'%')2)#
#2#'?'/7)
/@9)))<-#%%
%2)-')%+
))%?99@2)9
-+#2)C#'
#')%#'''
?9)1&/@9<)))'
'#'--%9))
2)--:')''2'):
'-''#-))))
2)#9-<%+
)'2)#''#91))
'%%#''9+''
-'#%-#')#
''#-9#'#-#%+
-92')%'#
<)##)'-'#%
+9
, - )   - ) =8,>9 8 
))')+#<9 2
-')=8,>-%<
''#D==,'#>?==,>71+0@
=;,'#>?=;,>7H%et al.006@.'
 ,'# > ?.,C>7 K et al. /@9 8   
/9
< % ')#    =8,> - -C ' ?-
+-#+-#  #)) -')@9, -')
-'#'-)'
')  ' ' 
'?9#9Ket al./7K'"/7*et al.//@9
2. Methods
=8,>%)9--)#
<9<-
'')'%#::-
'98D'98
<FG-<FG98
2)-%%2)+)
')<)#?9#9'C@9
''-+-#&###-
9H)'---22)
?9#9The tasting starts with a French white winea Sauvignon Blanc@)'
)%9-#--'
%'<--#-L
%9(%))'2
#-)#<9
2.1 The Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire
/9
8#)#-==,>?1+0@=;,>?H%
et al.006@-)'-9
B-C#)-%'
'-?%2')7<%
K))2@92-
#D%2##'--#9
82'-'#'
?@#6'9'2
L'L#-C#)9
-#==,>=;,>-C)##'M1 — no
image at alljust knowing that I’m thinking about the objectNM5 — perfectly clear and as
vivid as the real situationN ? @9''''
?-@'2''/?#@9
<'''6'2''0/9
2.2. The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ)
==,>?1+0@'%#?9#9MThe sun is
rising above the horizon into a hazy skyN@9.)'#
-''##'C)
=8,>9.)')<-7-
)-9#-9
'''==,>?#@'2''6/?-
@9
/9
2.3. The Vividness of Olfactory Imagery Questionnaire (VOIQ)
=;,>?H% et al9 006@ '%# ?9#9
MThe smell of your shirt or blouse when you remove itN@9.)'#
-''##'C)
=8,>9'''=;,>?#@'2''
6/?-@9
2.4. The Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire (PSI-Q).
.,C>?Ket al9/@''#'D
'%#9B'
'MImagine the appearance of a bonfireN9.)
''#C)'/?Mno image at allN@/?Mas vivid as real
lifeN@9B''''/'2''/9
2.5. Wine measures
8 ' 8*-# ?8*7  !&' 1&
/@-%<%4#+?//@9'
<4#+?//@-)##K-
2) - ) - ')% < '   ?) -@
< ' 1   ?00@  " ?06@9 ; 
</ '+#% ) #))'
#-+-#?9#9MWhich wine is made with Flor yeast?N@-'%
/9
-2)?MHow often do you drink wine?N MHow much have you read about wine?N@9
<#'/?<@?<
@9<%))'29
2.6. Participants
,//))-#K'IG
1+?))'2@9,//))
-9-2?MO(@9-')
<-<))-#
)#<9;<+))+)
Mclear and reasonably vividN  +Mwhat is the color of red winePN9
)) - 2 '   #   <9   6
))?M#Q/96(Q96'@. .)-)R9/')
-'-)%+)-C)
-%R9))')-C)9
2.7. Procedure
> -  # >  ?> .  K@9
.) #  '  % +# F)G  I 29
.)')<-#D=8,>==,>=;,>.,C
>8*9
2.8. Analysis
/9
.)#=8,>-#'9
#-'##'
=8,>-#'?'@.)!')
- ' #.=9 ;%<
?;%'-Q/@-'2'I%-')9
?-'''#@
1(G '# -  )  ' -  ' ? '
'(#/7./@9
'##9;'#-$?$!
'/@#)+#userfriendlyscience?./@9
L%'))')=8,>
- - I9 L % - )I # )  ?
 %- -  @  # ' ' ?- #
 2 %-  -  @    %- - 
?L@9
,  ')  =8,>   % ' '# <
-%-=8,>%)
 <9 8  )'  %-  =8,> % 
#  ) 8*-2 =8,> 
2)--9-K ;=K')
'=8,>9
3. Results
/9
)%''I%9
3.1. Principal Components Analysis
')#<#')I?*1;Q/966@-C
'#    # /9/L/90/09  )) ')  ?.!K@
##')%')#?S/9/
')@))9K')#
& 9/?9/@ %- ))%)9 ')
2)696T9!')2)69T-#
#'''9!')2)9T
-#'  '9 !')2) 9T  
-##''9!')# C
)%9
3.2. Internal Consistency and Reliability
, % -# ?%@- '###
'/966?=8,>C@/90?=8,>C@9 L#
%--L-##
%##L%9
3.3. Correlations
/9
,        =8,> % -  
%-%=8,>%''#<
%-  %   =8,>   '  - +-#9  =8,>
%#-<%?%@9
8+-#-#   =8,> -'
%?%@9+#=8,>-%?'@
)%9
3.4. Comparing across Modalities
K)C'K ;=K###
' F?@Q90 p U/9// V) Q/998C%&
-#'#-# #    '
')' F?6@Q9pU/9//V)Q/9F?6@Q96pQ
/9/V)Q/9/#')'F?6@Q096pQ/9//V)Q
/9/?#9@9
3.5. Summary
 =8,> < '# ' '#  -   ' -
9))')-')
##    '    9 K 
<'#%#-'#
--+-#9$#'#-#
'-%'9
/9
4. Discussion
8-<'''#'-9
,<'?9#9-%#
)#@-'2)-9K#
 =8,> ' #
''# -' 9 <'#
%#-'
'#?==,>=;,>.,C>@9
  8*  -      =8,>  -
' %))#  <98 
--')-=8,>9+%
))  - # ')%?'#
-')-+-9BQ/9@9#-#))#
')%-+#'?99'@
)9
# .!K -    ')  #   =8,>9
'-##'
?@9##)#%-#
''<)'#'#
%)''#'29
-''#'C)?9#9*//@9
='#--#'-%
')##-' '# ?K et al./7
K'" /@9 ## # #W2)
/9
-'')')-2)#%
  '   '#9 K  ' '   )%  
''--+'+#''
'#9-G2)--
)''-'#9
 #     -     % 
8))#?9#9"1&/7=%#06@9,
-))#'#''#
%&?9#9!007;H/@94-###
?1& et al./6@92')C#
'#')''?1&/71&
*)/671&et al./6@9'%''-%
-%%-2)?!&'1&/@9))%
%-'-'#'2-2)
'')'-9-
'# ?1>&
0@9
B2)#'''#'-
'#'#'##+#-''#')
'9  < )''
'#-'2)%&?99.,C> 
''#'@9''-)
%'2)''#98
2) % -  % %  '#    - ?!&'  1&
/@%''%#-?.et al9////@')9,
/9
 - %  2) ')   ' '#   
'?9#9et al./7et al9/7@9,+
2)--')-2)G%'#-9
<)')%2)
'''# -72')% '#<
)'2)--91'
'#)''-#-?9#9-#''
))2))#-@9#
#''''#(#
1'''#%!1''? @9
4-  -    %  2) ' - -  ' 
'''#2)-9=8,>)%#
#-9
,   - + )) %  FG  -    )
') '+ )FG '? 2- '@9
1 ' ' ) 
?H-00@9;-2)'
')))-?9#9H-007H-et al9///@
))#?H1II00@9
 =8,>     #    - 2) )'  #
')  ' 2)    )  C# ' 
''#-2)9
8)-<')#
''#   9 ,    )  '#  %
#''#?99-C#'#@9
/9
)+-''#
' '# )9 K  )     - C)
<' # - %C'## '   1$,9  
)#))9
,' -) - < '  '
'#  - '    '  '  9 
<2)2)'#
)%'9<
'%'-2)-
9
Acknowledgements
-+-))% ;#$? 8;@=
#F4'##%#G?.&'%
C/C/@-K919--))%K''* K8K-9K9K9
-%)#'-$!?=$
/C///@9
Notes
,=;,>==,>DM1 – perfectly clear and as vivid as the real
situationNM5 – no image at alljust knowing that I’m thinking about the objectN9
/9
)DXX---9'''9#XXC#C#X
References
K59159()!9#9C59HH9?/@9K#
''#D.','#>Br. J. Psychol.105
L9
K'K9"19?/@9''%D
'#Front. Psychol.59D/960X)#9/9///
K'K9859"19?/@9;-)
''J. Cogn. Psychol.23/L9
19% 9*$919?//@94C))'2
#'#''#))J. Neurophysiol.98L
9
19K95.9.59.I%+"9$%!9Y'9
?/@9B2))'Z)%''#
''#D'9AEuropean Journal of
NeuroscienceA45?@C9
19'9.59.I%+"9$%!9?/@9;
#''#D'%2)')
''#DMultisensory Imagery,9"$9"-?B@
))9L09)# -3+ 3K9
H949?0/0@9The distribution and functions of mental imagery9!'%
!# -3+ 3K9
!899?00@9+--D+Science203L
/9
/9
!C"'!9K%19B9?//@9,'#C
+Spat. Vis.14/L09
!&',91&K9?/@9 2)<D##-
2)9PLoOS One11?@/69D/9X&9)9/6
![95!993#(91#.9$9B#'(919?//@9=
''#D%%'%&Vision Res.47
L69
(&&59J$9595CH'19?//@9B)'#
Chem. Senses2900L/69
(&&59J$959.1959K95CH'19?//@9
'##'#NeuroImage240L6/9
(959#9=9?/@9')'#D)
))%''Br. J. Psychol.10500L
9
B9"9$9K'K9819594''!9"191\%#K9
4''9?/@9D'#)-
Neuroscience2686L9
'8959?06@9K)#)))Perspect. Biol. Med.24
L09
H-$9?00@9##%2)-J.
Sens. Stud.A12L69
H-$9;%K9,9"9?///@9KF1C8GD'#
''#'C-Aust. J. Grape Wine Res.A6
/L/9
/9
H%K9 9!19*')9B9?006@9;''#J.
Ment. Imag.22L9
H##194!9 B9?//@9'#%'#
)')Sport Psychol.190L009
H59C[91II$9?00@9))2'
Trends Food Sci. Technol.7L09
4)K9$9?/@9('#C))
%'Psychomusicology25L9
4)K9$9J$959?000@98#DK.B
#'#''Cereb. Cortex90L/9
4#K9"9Y+$9K9?//@9.)#)-2)9
Australian Journal of Psychology53?@/L/69
)DXX9#X/9/6/X///0//6/
*919?//@91'#%Cogn. Neuropsychol.22L9
*1'19519?00@9#
''#Neuropsychologia 33L9
,K91+(99Y$(9H9?06@9K'#'#
''D=1','#>?=1,>@9Journal of
Mental Imagery10?@L/9
*919')89"9K) 919?00@9 '%
'#))D)''#)Neuroimage6
/L9
*1')89"9HH9?//@9The case for mental imagery9;2
. -3+ 3K9
"K9?06@9Wine and conversation9;2D;2.9
/9
"9!91&K9?/@9(%Mind Lang.29
/L9)DXX9#X/9X'9/
1&K9Y 9?/@9;2)%###)+
###9ACognitionA130?@C/9
1&K9*) 9?/6@94L#)Curr. Biol. 28/0C
9
1&K9$%9H9!"9B''B '9;GH"89
""949!9"99=!9H9B 9
59$I+$9K999(#'19;I+;9-.9
4!9"H;94I=9H&$919K9"9!9
?/6@9#))-G##Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1150C.
1+(99?0@9='#)Br. J. Psychol.64
L9
1+19!!9?00@9,'#%''DImagery and
Cognition,!9!19K91(?B@))9L69)# -3+
3K9
1K959>&8939?0@9K')''#
')!CK'J. Cross
Cult. Psychol.5L9
15919Y5989?00@9'''%-)D=%
))2)'%-#''9
Journal of Memory and Language35?@L9
)DXX9#X/9//X&'9009//
/9
;59*9H59K9?/@9'D #'
##Trends Cogn. Sci.19L9
.89=94%(98*9H9?//@9('#-2)D
))+'''2)-&#
Chem. Senses27L9
.89=98*9H94%(9K9?//@9B2)#-
2)D--2)G#''#P
Food Qual. Prefer.15L/9
.H9C5939?/@9)'#%D-
-%!%G)-'')
'<Eur. Health Psychol.16L09
.H9C5939?/@9userfriendlyscience: Quantitative analysis made accessible.$
)+#/9C/9
.J989?0@98'G'G%DK<'
'#Psychol. Bull.80L9
$!'?/@9R: A language and environment for statistical computing9$
!')#=K9
$59C.9.59K9C"9=K9(C1!9?/@9')
2)Front. Psychol.4069
)DXX9#X/960X)#9/9//06
.989?0@9K'G<)''#J.
Clin. Psychol.236L609
'9!9?/@9.)D')29Nature486?/@9
)DXX9#X/9/6X6
/9
)"9591&K9?/@9('2'D'#))
')9Behav. Res. Methods49/L69
)!9?/@91))9Cell161?@L9
)DXX9#X/9/X&99/9/9//
' 9599?//@91'#))%DEncyclopedia of
Cognitive Science"9 ?B9@))9L958Y"9
'I+!9$959?//0@9;'#))'#D
'#'#%Exp. Psychol.560L/69
=%#]9?06@9%))D)#DExplanations for
Language Universals9-9!'^9(?B@))9L
1HH'9
8599?//@9()'-!K,'#
Behav. Res. Methods426L0/9
/9
Appendix
The Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire (VWIQ)
-#) < 29, - %
#)-%'#9K
#<)''#%
%&9;'#%')
''#93-    C% '
'#<93+-)'#
-#D
1 '#?F+-#G+#%&@
2=#'
31
4!%
5.
A9,'###)+#-
9
9-#
9'-#
9-)
B.3#-9,'#-
%%#9
9---)'%
9'-)#
9-
/9
C.,'###-#---9
#---?#@9
9--)%#
9'--'#
9--)-'
D.3-)-#9
9--!#
9'2-. 
9-?. @--
E.3%93##-)-
9
9---)'
9'---++
9--)
F.,'##2##'#-
--%'9
9---#
9'--)#'
9--)-'
/9
Table 1.
B2')''=8,>
 ()
#
=
;

Imagine you are going to a short wine tasting where you will try
different wines. The tasting starts with a French white wine a
Sauvignon Blanc
The color of the wine as the sun is reflected in your glass
The smell of the wine as you place your nose in the glass
The taste of the wine when you have your first sip
/9
Table 2.
1#)'
 ')
?nQ6@
-C)')
?nQ/@
1
( $# 1 ( $#
=8,> /9 9/ L6 /9 9
L6
=8,> 9 9 L/ 9 9 L/
=8,> /9 9 L/ /9 9 L/
=8,>' 690 9 L/ 69 9 L/
==,> 9 9/ L 9 9
L
=;,> 9 9 L /9 9
6
L
.,C> /9/ 9 /L
6
/9 9
6
6L6
.,C= 9 9 0L 9 9 0L
.,C' 9 69 /L 9 9 L
.,C 9/ 69 L 90 9 L
8* 9 9 /L 96 9 /L
HX-+ 9 9 L 9 9 L
/9
Table 3.
!') #  % '  < - ;%< ?;%'@ 
))7')#U/9))
!')
!> /90
!> /9 /9
!> /966
!> /9
!> /9
!> /9
;> L/96
;> /96
;> /9
L/90
;> /9
/
L/9/
;> /9
L/9/
;> /9
L/9
> /96
> /90
> /96
0
> /96
> /966
> /90
/9
Table 4.
,?'#@L%?)@# ' ' 

;'#
?nQ
6@
)
MSD
?nQ/@
!#'
'
t?p@
?nQ/@
$

r?p@
?n Q/@
=8,>C /90 /96?/9/@ /9/?/90@ /96?U/9//@
=8,>C /966 /9/?/9@ /9?/966@ /96?U/9//@
=8,>C' /90 /9/?/9@ /9?/96@ /96/?U/9//@
=8,>C /90 /9?/9/@ /9?/9@ /96?U/9//@
/9
Table 5.
.%-<
> !
.,C> =8,>C /966
.,C= =8,>C /9/6
.,C' =8,>C /9
.,C =8,>C /9
==,> =8,>C L/9/
=;,> =8,>C L/9
! #  p U /9// ? -C@9 Note: ==,>  =;,>  -
')=8,>##9
/9
Table 6.
.%-=8,>%'-+-#
=8,>C =8,>C =8,>C' =8,>C
8* /96 /9/ /9 /9
H) /9/ /9 /9// /90
8') /9/0 /9// /9/ /9/
/9
Color Smell Taste
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Mean total vividness
Figure 1.1#=8,>'9
/9
... Nanay, 2018;Spence, 2019), with salient aspects with respect to its color, smell, taste, and touch (mouthfeel). Previous studies into wine imagery have focused on three primary sensory modalities salient for wine: color (vision), smell, and taste (Croijmans, Speed, Arshamian, & Majid, 2019;. However, wine can be experienced in other modalities too. ...
... With this research question in mind, here we present two studies. The first study was set out to validate an extension to the Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire (VWIQ; Croijmans et al., 2019), which included mouthfeel as a dimension. This revised questionnaire was validated using factor analysis, reliability analysis, and analyses of external validity. ...
... The mouthfeel modality was added to the VWIQ (Croijmans et al., 2019) as a modification. The original version of the VWIQ consists of six "scenes" that the participant is asked to imagine, for example, "Imagine you are visiting a sunny vineyard and order a glass of your favorite sparkling wine on their outdoor terrace." ...
Article
Full-text available
The influence of general wine imagery vividness on consumers' reported desire to drink was investigated. In Study 1, the Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire (VWIQ) was revised and validated so that it included the dimensions of sight, smell, flavor, and mouthfeel. Mouthfeel is an important factor in wine appreciation, both for consumers and wine experts. In Study 2, we demonstrated the usage of VWIQ in a consumer context: participants were asked to indicate their desire to drink a range of wines that differed in familiarity, with half the participants also receiving a multisensory description of the wine in addition to information regarding the wine's geographical origin and grape variety. Without a description, consumers with higher imagery vividness reported higher desire to drink compared with consumers with lower imagery vividness. However, with a description, the desire to drink from the lower imagery vividness group increased, matching the higher imagery vividness group. Practical application The ability to imagine helps people to plan for the future. In effect, imagery ability can influence how consumers make purchase decisions. Sensory descriptions thus seemed to override differences in people's ability to imagine a wine. In summary, this research demonstrates the value of VWIQ as a tool to tailor advertisements and wine descriptions to specific groups of consumers.
... Some studies have reported inter-individual physiological and psychological differences, especially in olfaction (Croijmans, Speed, Arshamian, & Majid, 2019;Tempere et al., 2011;Tempere, Hamtat et al., 2014a) and mouthfeel (e.g., astringency, Ballester, Patris, Symoneaux, & Valentin, 2008). For these senses, varying wine representations and descriptions make it difficult to obtain a strong consensus in wine tasting (Sauvageot, Urdapilleta, & Peyron, 2006;Parr, Mouret, Blackmore, Pelquest-Hunt, & Urdapilleta, 2011;Loison et al., 2015;Muñoz-Gonzáles, Canon, Feron, Guichard, & Pozo-Bayón, 2019). ...
... The senses thus offer a specific set of input possibilities, with potential individual differences. The data presented here support more marked individual differences when both smell (Croijmans et al., 2019;Holley & Mcleod, 1977;Tempere et al., 2011) and taste (Bajec & Pickering, 2008) are involved, compared to those involving vision (Herz & Engen, 1996). This order of differences between the senses was obtained in all scale ratings. ...
... Notably, the wine experts reported more vivid imagery for wines, compared to the average vividness for visual, smell, taste, and somesthetic images. These results, in close correspondence to a recent study by Croijmans and collaborators (2020; see also Croijmans et al., 2019), suggest that expertise shapes multimodal imagery for wine with repeated experience, since wine images were reported as more vivid compared to images in other, unrelated sensory contexts. Greater consensus was also achieved for words in secondary wine descriptions, suggesting a better availability of quality distinctions and clearer word representations for lower-quality wines. ...
Article
The aim of this study was to model decisional consensus in expert red wine tastings, using an integrated competency framework. Wine assessment responses on both technical and emotional scales were collated for two wine categories (Premium vs. Secondary) under several different sensory conditions: six global tastings (all senses involved), three unimodal tastings (visual, smell, and taste), and three bimodal tastings (visual-smell, visual-taste, and taste-smell). Psychological predictors also included vocabulary and vividness of mental imagery associated with the various senses involved, together with professional experience indicators (age and tasting frequency). Principal component analyses revealed a greater response consensus with unimodal vision cues compared to all other sensory conditions (at least equal to global conditions). On average, a greater consensus was observed among technical quality scale responses under all sensory conditions, compared to emotional scale responses. The quality responses were used to build a 4-factor prediction model: age, wine imagery, vocabulary, and smell consensus. The image responses were used to build a two-factor prediction model: visual words (semantic knowledge) and visual-smell consensus. This indicated that the quality decisional consensus was based on smell information (wine aroma), combined with longevity/knowledge. In contrast, the image decisional consensus was based on visual information (wine color), combined with visual knowledge (and smell as a subordinate factor). Taken together, our results revealed previously uncharted individual differences in wine tasting and decision-making, concomitant with similarly weighted predictions based on sensory and psychological factors.
... We began by first testing whether wine experts have more vivid imagery for the color, odor, and taste 1 of wines than novices. To this end, we used the recently constructed and validated Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire (VWIQ; Croijmans, Speed, Arshamian, & Majid, 2019). This questionnaire presents individuals with different scenes (e.g., a wine tasting, a dinner in a restaurant) that participants were instructed to imagine, and then to rate for vividness of the corresponding imagery of the featured wine. ...
... We administered the Dutch version of the VWIQ (see Croijmans et al., 2019). The VWIQ is composed of six scenarios related to wine assessing the vividness of the imagined wine for color, smell, and taste; for example, "Imagine you are going to a short wine tasting where you will try different wines. ...
Article
Full-text available
Although taste and smell seem hard to imagine, some people nevertheless report vivid imagery in these sensory modalities. We investigate whether experts are better able to imagine smells and tastes because they have learned the ability, or whether they are better imaginers in the first place, and so become experts. To test this, we first compared a group of wine experts to yoked novices using a battery of questionnaires. We show for the first time that experts report greater vividness of wine imagery, with no difference in vividness across sensory modalities. In contrast, novices had more vivid color imagery than taste or odor imagery for wines. Experts and novices did not differ on other vividness of imagery measures, suggesting a domain‐specific effect of expertise. Critically, in a second study, we followed a group of students commencing a wine course and a group of matched control participants. Students and controls did not differ before the course, but after the wine course students reported more vivid wine imagery. We provide evidence that expertise improves imagery, exemplifying the extent of plasticity of cognition underlying the chemical senses.
... This scale is innovative because it is the first to introduce the experience dimension. The literature allows to ensure the existence of measurement of wine product involvement (Bruwer and Buller, 2013), consumers' motivators decision to purchase wine (Barber et al., 2006), vividness of wine imagery (Croijmans et al., 2019) and market for and issues involved in cocreating integral tourist experiences in rural wine destinations (Cunha et al., 2021). ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose Understanding the role of emotion, landscape, involvement and storytelling related to wine is the basis for understanding the wine tourist experience. The purpose of this study is to analyze the validity and reliability of the wine experience scale in Spain. Design/methodology/approach The scale validation comprised translation, cultural adaptation and validity, in which 250 wine tourists (45.6% male and 54.4% female) from 17 Spanish wineries participated. Data was collected on different days during three consecutive months. To carry out the analyses, IBM SPSS and JASP software were used. Findings The statistical procedures used allowed the verification of psychometric properties as well as adjustment indices and reliability measures. The analyses carried out retained 16 items and ensured grouping into four factors: wine storytelling, wine involvement, winescape and wine tasting excitement. Originality/value By providing this instrument, it will be possible to create a promising path of commercial knowledge. Its application will contribute to establishing a more accurate profile of wine tourists and, simultaneously, to adapting a sustainable tourist offer.
... A key focus has been to study how different sensorial experiences and perceptions are packaged into linguistic units (Winter, 2019). Researchers have looked at how some senses dominate in language (Winter et al.), how sensorial language varies across lexical categories (Lievers and and how sensory experiences influence sensorial language (Croijmans et al., 2019;Murphy, 2019). However, the domain of sensorial linguistics is still nascent with many unexplored questions. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
It is well recognized that sensory perceptions and language have interconnections through numerous studies in psychology, neuroscience, and sensorial linguistics. Set in this rich context we ask whether the use of sensorial language in writings is part of linguistic style? This question is important from the view of stylometrics research where a rich set of language features have been explored, but with insufficient attention given to features related to sensorial language. Taking this as the goal we explore several angles about sensorial language and style in collections of lyrics, novels, and poetry. We find, for example, that individual use of sensorial language is not a random phenomenon; choice is likely involved. Also, sensorial style is generally stable over time - the shifts are extremely small. Moreover, style can be extracted from just a few hundred sentences that have sensorial terms. We also identify representative and distinctive features within each genre. For example, we observe that 4 of the top 6 representative features in novels collection involved individuals using olfactory language where we expected them to use non-olfactory language.
... In total, 68 out of the 90 articles reported validity. A total of 18 studies [28,42,96,102,106,111,124,125,130,141,142,146,148,150,153,157,161,166] were rated as very good or adequate and 21 studies [22,35,94,98,104,109,112,115,118,119,121,127,136,145,151,152,160,162,163,165,168] were rated as inadequate regarding their methodological quality. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Over the last two centuries, researchers developed several assessments to evaluate the multidimensional construct of imagery. However, no comprehensive systematic review (SR) exists for imagery ability evaluation methods and an in-depth quality evaluation of their psychometric properties. Methods We performed a comprehensive systematic search in six databases in the disciplines of sport, psychology, medicine, education: SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ERIC. Two reviewers independently identified and screened articles for selection. COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the studies. All included assessments were evaluated for quality using criteria for good measurement properties. The evidence synthesis was summarised by using the GRADE approach. Results In total, 121 articles reporting 155 studies and describing 65 assessments were included. We categorised assessments based on their construct on: (1) motor imagery (n = 15), (2) mental imagery (n = 48) and (3) mental chronometry (n = 2). Methodological quality of studies was mainly doubtful or inadequate. The psychometric properties of most assessments were insufficient or indeterminate. The best rated assessments with sufficient psychometric properties were MIQ, MIQ-R, MIQ-3, and VMIQ-2 for evaluation of motor imagery ability. Regarding mental imagery evaluation, only SIAQ and VVIQ showed sufficient psychometric properties. Conclusion Various assessments exist to evaluate an individual’s imagery ability within different dimensions or modalities of imagery in different disciplines. However, the psychometric properties of most assessments are insufficient or indeterminate. Several assessments should be revised and further validated. Moreover, most studies were only evaluated with students. Further cross-disciplinary validation studies are needed including older populations with a larger age range. Our findings allow clinicians, coaches, teachers, and researchers to select a suitable imagery ability assessment for their setting and goals based on information about the focus and quality of the assessments. Systematic reviews register PROSPERO CRD42017077004.
... To the best of our knowledge, odour imagery has systematically been rated as the least vivid perceptual modality across all published studies comparing sensory modalities, even in those where the same object (e.g. wine) is rated for its visual versus olfactory appearance [94]. With that said, future studies could use items that have been matched for familiarity across modalities and participant groups (e.g. ...
Article
Full-text available
Across diverse lineages, animals communicate using chemosignals, but only humans communicate about chemical signals. Many studies have observed that compared with other sensory modalities, communication about smells is relatively rare and not always reliable. Recent cross-cultural studies, on the other hand, suggest some communities are more olfactorily oriented than previously supposed. Nevertheless, across the globe a general trend emerges where olfactory communication is relatively hard. We suggest here that this is in part because olfactory representations are different in kind: they have a low degree of embodiment, and are not easily expressed as primitives, thereby limiting the mental manipulations that can be performed with them. New exploratory data from Dutch children (9–12 year-olds) and adults support that mental imagery from olfaction is weak in comparison with vision and audition, and critically this is not affected by language development. Specifically, while visual and auditory imagery becomes more vivid with age, olfactory imagery shows no such development. This is consistent with the idea that olfactory representations are different in kind from representations from the other senses. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue ‘Olfactory communication in humans’.
... Furthermore, flavour encompasses almost all sensory modalities (Auvray & Spence, 2008;Shepherd, 2006), including the visual experience of food and drink consumed; the texture of it in our mouth (mouth-feel); the temperature, etc. The multisensory nature of flavour elucidates why flavour imagery is often rated as more vivid than odour imagery (Andrade et al., 2014;Croijmans, Speed, Arshamian, & Majid, 2019). One might predict, therefore, that flavour-related language is also easier to mentally simulate. ...
Article
Full-text available
Grounded theories hold sensorimotor activation is critical to language processing. Such theories have focused predominantly on the dominant senses of sight and hearing. Relatively fewer studies have assessed mental simulation within touch, taste, and smell, even though they are critically implicated in communication for important domains, such as health and wellbeing. We review work that sheds light on whether perceptual activation from lesser studied modalities contribute to meaning in language. We critically evaluate data from behavioural, imaging, and cross-cultural studies. We conclude that evidence for sensorimotor simulation in touch, taste, and smell is weak. Comprehending language related to these senses may instead rely on simulation of emotion, as well as crossmodal simulation of the “higher” senses of vision and audition. Overall, the data suggest the need for a refinement of embodiment theories, as not all sensory modalities provide equally strong evidence for mental simulation.
Article
Online, as offline, purchase decisions are based on expectations about flavour and taste, offering an opportunity to make healthy and sustainable options desirable by using the right descriptions. This study investigates the effect of different types of coffee flavour descriptions on consumers, showing language can influence consumer purchase behaviour. In two experiments, participants were asked to rate vividness of imagery, desire to taste, and willingness to pay for several coffee flavour descriptions online. In the first experiment, descriptions differed on the type of words used: abstract words (“sweet”), evaluative words (“nice”), source-based words (“berries”), or a combination of these. Word type had an effect on all three variables, with source-based terms leading to the most vivid imagery, highest desire to taste, and highest willingness to pay. In the second experiment, descriptions presented flavour words in different description contexts (a stative, sensory, or figurative description), or a simple summation of those 6 words. The results showed no difference between the different types of descriptions, but words in sentences led to higher imagery vividness, higher desire to taste, and higher willingness to pay. Together, this suggests consumers seem to be able to imagine flavour from a verbal description quite clearly, but it depends on the type of words used and the form in which these words are presented. The desire to taste and willingness to pay for a product relate to the degree of imageability. The results are not only useful for optimising (coffee) flavour descriptions, but also for shaping consumer choices.
Article
Full-text available
Is there a universal hierarchy of the senses, such that some senses (e.g., vision) are more accessible to consciousness and linguistic description than others (e.g., smell)? The long-standing presumption in Western thought has been that vision and audition are more objective than the other senses, serving as the basis of knowledge and understanding, whereas touch, taste, and smell are crude and of little value. This predicts that humans ought to be better at communicating about sight and hearing than the other senses, and decades of work based on English and related languages certainly suggests this is true. However, how well does this reflect the diversity of languages and communities worldwide? To test whether there is a universal hierarchy of the senses, stimuli from the five basic senses were used to elicit descriptions in 20 diverse languages, including 3 unrelated sign languages. We found that languages differ fundamentally in which sensory domains they linguistically code systematically, and how they do so. The tendency for better coding in some domains can be explained in part by cultural preoccupations. Although languages seem free to elaborate specific sensory domains, some general tendencies emerge: for example, with some exceptions, smell is poorly coded. The surprise is that, despite the gradual phylogenetic accumulation of the senses, and the imbalances in the neural tissue dedicated to them, no single hierarchy of the senses imposes itself upon language.
Article
Full-text available
People struggle to name odors [1-4]. This has been attributed to a diminution of olfaction in trade-off to vision [5-10]. This presumption has been challenged recently by data from the hunter-gatherer Jahai who, unlike English speakers, find odors as easy to name as colors [4]. Is the superior olfactory performance among the Jahai because of their ecology (tropical rainforest), their language family (Aslian), or because of their subsistence (they are hunter-gatherers)? We provide novel evidence from the hunter-gatherer Semaq Beri and the non-hunter-gatherer (swidden-horticulturalist) Semelai that subsistence is the critical factor. Semaq Beri and Semelai speakers-who speak closely related languages and live in the tropical rainforest of the Malay Peninsula-took part in a controlled odor- and color-naming experiment. The swidden-horticulturalist Semelai found odors much more difficult to name than colors, replicating the typical Western finding. But for the hunter-gatherer Semaq Beri odor naming was as easy as color naming, suggesting that hunter-gatherer olfactory cognition is special.
Article
Full-text available
Perceptual information is important for the meaning of nouns. We present modality exclusivity norms for 485 Dutch nouns rated on visual, auditory, haptic, gustatory, and olfactory associations. We found these nouns are highly multimodal. They were rated most dominant in vision, and least in olfaction. A factor analysis identified two main dimensions: one loaded strongly on olfaction and gustation (reflecting joint involvement in flavor), and a second loaded strongly on vision and touch (reflecting joint involvement in manipulable objects). In a second study, we validated the ratings with similarity judgments. As expected, words from the same dominant modality were rated more similar than words from different dominant modalities; but – more importantly – this effect was enhanced when word pairs had high modality strength ratings. We further demonstrated the utility of our ratings by investigating whether perceptual modalities are differentially experienced in space, in a third study. Nouns were categorized into their dominant modality and used in a lexical decision experiment where the spatial position of words was either in proximal or distal space. We found words dominant in olfaction were processed faster in proximal than distal space compared to the other modalities, suggesting olfactory information is mentally simulated as “close” to the body. Finally, we collected ratings of emotion (valence, dominance, and arousal) to assess its role in perceptual space simulation, but the valence did not explain the data. So, words are processed differently depending on their perceptual associations, and strength of association is captured by modality exclusivity ratings.
Article
Full-text available
People in Western cultures are poor at naming smells and flavors. However, for wine and coffee experts, describing smells and flavors is part of their daily routine. So are experts better than lay people at conveying smells and flavors in language? If smells and flavors are more easily linguistically expressed by experts, or more “codable”, then experts should be better than novices at describing smells and flavors. If experts are indeed better, we can also ask how general this advantage is: do experts show higher codability only for smells and flavors they are expert in (i.e., wine experts for wine and coffee experts for coffee) or is their linguistic dexterity more general? To address these questions, wine experts, coffee experts, and novices were asked to describe the smell and flavor of wines, coffees, everyday odors, and basic tastes. The resulting descriptions were compared on a number of measures. We found expertise endows a modest advantage in smell and flavor naming. Wine experts showed more consistency in how they described wine smells and flavors than coffee experts, and novices; but coffee experts were not more consistent for coffee descriptions. Neither expert group was any more accurate at identifying everyday smells or tastes. Interestingly, both wine and coffee experts tended to use more source-based terms (e.g., vanilla) in descriptions of their own area of expertise whereas novices tended to use more evaluative terms (e.g., nice). However, the overall linguistic strategies for both groups were en par. To conclude, experts only have a limited, domain-specific advantage when communicating about smells and flavors. The ability to communicate about smells and flavors is a matter not only of perceptual training, but specific linguistic training too.
Article
Full-text available
Mental imagery abilities vary among individuals, as shown both by objective measures and by self-report. Few imagery studies consider auditory imagery, however. The Bucknell Auditory Imagery Scale is a short self-report measure encompassing both Vividness and Control subscales for musical, verbal, and environmental sounds. It has high internal reliability, no relation to social desirability, and only a modest relation to musical training. High scores on Vividness predict fewer source memory errors in distinguishing heard from imagined tunes on a recognition test, and better performance on pitch imitation tasks. Furthermore, higher scores are related to hemodynamic response and gray matter volume in several brain areas that are known to be involved in auditory imagery. Even though self-report measures encompass both cognitive and metacognitive aspects, they are useful tools in accounting for individual differences in high-level cognitive skills.
Article
Mental imagery in experts has been documented in visual arts, music and dance. Here, we examined this issue in an understudied art domain, namely culinary arts. Previous research investigating mental imagery in experts has reported either a stronger involvement of the right hemisphere or bilateral brain activation. The first aim of our study was to examine whether culinary arts also recruit such a hemispheric pattern specifically during odor mental imagery. In a second aim, we investigated whether expertise effects observed in a given sensory domain transfer to another modality. We combined psychophysics and neurophysiology to study mental imagery in cooks, musicians and controls. We collected response times and event-related potentials (ERP) while participants mentally compared the odor of fruits, the timbre of musical instruments and the size of fruits, musical instruments and manufactured objects. Cooks were faster in imagining fruit odors, and musicians were faster in imagining the timbre of musical instruments. These differences were not observed in control participants. This expertise effect was reflected in the ERP late positive complex (LPC): only experts showed symmetric bilateral activation, specifically when cooks imagined odors and when musicians imagined timbres. In contrast, the LPC was significantly greater in the left hemisphere than in the right hemisphere for non-expert participants in all conditions. These findings suggest that sensory expertise does not involve transfer of mental imagery ability across modalities and highlight for the first time that olfactory expertise in cooks induces a balance of activations between hemispheres as does musical expertise in musicians. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
Chapter
Since Paivio’s (1971) treatise on imagery and verbal processes, a variety of authors have provided reviews of data and theories concerning imagery and memory for verbal materials. In this way, a long-standing area of investigation has come to be considered in a more systematic and critical manner. The tradition of linking imagery and memory, however, goes back at least to Aristotle, who, in his treatise on memory (I, 450a, 20–25) asserted: Τíνος μŧν οΰν τών τñς ψνχñς έστιν ή μνήυη, φανερòν, δτι οŧπερ χαì ή φαντασία, χαι ϊστι μνημονευτà α αθ’ αύτà uìν δσz έστì φανταστà, χατà συuбτбηχòς ö δσє “It is therefore clear in which part of the soul memory is, that is, in the same part where also imagination is. In fact, memory objects are per se those which fall into imagination incidentally, those which are not separated from imagination.”
Article
Olfactory and gustatory mental images are defined as short-term memory representations of olfactory or gustatory events that give rise to the experience of smelling with the mind's nose or tasting with the mind's tongue. This chapter reviews converging evidence supporting the view that, as with visual mental images, odor and taste mental images preserve some aspects of olfactory and gustatory percepts. The variability that affects both types of imagery is also considered in an experiment comparing the effect of experience on chemosensory mental imagery and auditory mental imagery. © 2013 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. All rights reserved.
Article
The vocabulary of wine is large and exceptionally vibrant-from straight-forward descriptive words like "sweet" and "fragrant", colorful metaphors like "ostentatious" and "brash", to the more technical lexicon of biochemistry. The world of wine vocabulary is growing alongside the current popularity of wine itself, particularly as new words are employed by professional wine writers, who not only want to write interesting prose, but avoid repetition and cliché. The question is: what do these words mean? Can they actually reflect the objective characteristics of wine, and can two drinkers really use and understand these words in the same way? This book explores whether or not wine drinkers (both novices and experts) can in fact understand wine words in the same way. The conclusion, based on experimental results, is no. Even though experts do somewhat better than novices in some experiments, they tend to do well only on wines on which they are carefully trained and/or with which they are very familiar. Does this mean that the elaborate language we use to describe wine is essentially a charade? This book shows that although scientific wine writing requires a precise and shared use of language, drinking wine and talking about it in casual, informal setting with friends is different, and the conversational goals include social bonding as well as communicating information about the wine. The book also shows how language innovation and language play, clearly seen in the names of new wines and wineries, as well as wine descriptors, is yet another influence on the burgeoning and sometimes whimsical world of wine vocabulary.