Relationships of Chewing Sounds to Judgments of

Crispness, Crunchiness and Hardness

2. M. VICKERS

ABSTRACT Judgments of hardness were included in this study for com-

The relationships between oral and auditory judgments of crispness, parison with judgments of crispness and crunchiness because
crunchiness and hardness were examined. Twenty subjects used judgments of food sample hardness were expected to show
magnitude estimation to judge the crispness, crunchinessand hard- a relatively small correlation with judgments of sound
ness of sixteen food items and sixteen tape recorded biting and hardness.
chewing sounds. Correlations between oral and auditory judgments
of each attribute were generally large. In addition, all three attri- EXPERIMENTAL
butes appearto be very closelyrelated.
Subjects
INTRODUCTION Twenty University of Minnesota students, 16 females and 4
males, served as subjects. They were solicited by an advertisement in
IN 1976 Vickers and Bourne hypothesized that crispness in the campusnewspaper.Subjectswere chosenin order of inquiry and
foods was an auditory sensation. Christensen and Vickers were paid for their participation.
(1981), in an effort to test this hypothesis, clearly demon-
strated that auditory sensations were not essential for judg- Preparation of samples
ments of crispness. They, in turn, suggested that the stimu- Nine different food samples, purchased in local supermarkets
lus for crispness may be vibratory. If the Vickers and were used in this study. From these foods sixteen different samples,
Bourne hypothesis is true, auditory sensations alone should some with altered crispness, were prepared for testing (Table 1).
be sufficient stimuli for making judgments of food crispness. This series of wet crisp and dry crisp foods was chosen to represent
The results of Vickers and Wasserman (1980) show that a broad range of crispness levels and textures. The foods were cut
food crushing sounds can be judged for crispness. One ob- into rectangular shapes. (Celery was an exception. Each rib was cut
in half longitudinally. Measuresof height and width thus correspond
jective of this study was to further test the Vickers and to the nonrectangular half-rib sections.)
Boume hypothesis by determining if crispness judgments The level of crispness of the dry crisp samples was adjusted by
can be made solely on the basis of auditory sensations. altering their water activities to approximately those shown in
A second objective of this research was to examine the Table 1. The samples were placed in desiccators containing one of
relationships between crispness and crunchiness. Several the following saturated solutions: LiCl (aw = O.ll), MgCl (av., =
scientists have produced evidence to indicate that crispness 0.32), KzC03 (a, = 0.44), and NaCl (aw = 0.75), The samples re-
and crunchiness are closely related sensations. Moskowitz mained in the desiccators for 2 wk. They were then wrapped indi-
and Kapsalis (1974) studied the use of 15 texture descrip- vidually in Saran and stored in airtight containers. The crispness of
tors for 71 different foods. The regression equations they the wet crisp foods wasadjustedby blanchingthem in boiling water
derived showed crispness to be most closely related to the for the length of time indicated in Table 1. Wet crisp foods were
refrigerated in water until the day of testing.
quality of crunchiness. Crunchiness was most closely re-
lated to crispness and to hardness. Vickers (1979) suggested Preparation of tape
that crispness and crunchiness are both auditory sensations
The tape recording contained sounds produced by biting and
and differ in pitch. Vickers and Wasserman (1980) used chewing the foods listed in Table 1. The sounds were produced by
multidimensional scaling to arrange 15 food sound descrip- the author and consisted of a bite and two subsequent chews.
tors in two-dimensional space. The descriptors crisp and During both the biting and chewing, a microphone (Bruel and Kjaer
crunchy were very close to each other in this space, indi- 4133) was held against the outer ear immediately above the opening
cating that they have similar meanings when used to de-
scribe sounds. Vickers and Wasserman also regressed scores
for each of these descriptors on a two-dimensional multi- Table 1
dimensional scaling solution of 18 different food sounds.
The crispness and the crunchiness axes crossed the two- Dimensions in m m
dimensional space at roughly the same angle, again indicat- Product Height Width
ing that the two attributes are similar. The present study
examines the relationships between oral and auditory 1. Celerv, fresh 9.7 16.7
judgments of crispness and crunchiness. 2. Celerv;blanched 45 set 8.25 15.0
Subjects participating in this study were also asked to 3. Celery, blanched 3 min 7.9 14.8
4. Turnips, fresh 11.7 12.1
judge the hardness of both the food samples and the 5. Turnips, blanched 30 set 10.6 11.1
sounds. Hardness (or firmness) has been shown to be 6. White radish, fresh 5.9 12.5
related to judgments of crispness (Brennan et al., 1970; 7. White radish, blanched 60 set 5.2 10.6
Jeon et al., 1975; Vickers and Christensen, 1981). Al- 8. Gingersnap (Nabisco), a, = 0.11 6.6 21.0
though subjects can associate the quality of hardness with 9. Gingersnap (Nabisco), a, = 0.32 6.6 21.0
food crushing sounds (Vickers and Wasserman, 1980), 10. Triscuit@ (Nabisco), a, = 0.32 5.0 19.4
hardness is generally regarded as an oral-tactile sensation. 11. Triscuit@ (Nabisco), a, = 0.44 5.0 19.4
12. Triscuit@ (Nabisco), a,,,, = 0.75 5.0 19.4
13. Waverly Wafer@ (Nabisco), a, - 0.11 4.8 36.0
14. Ry Krisp@ (Ralston Purina), a,.., = 0.32 5.7 30.7
Author Vickers is with the Dept. of Food Science & Nutrition,
15. Lorna Doone@ (Nabisco), a, = 0.75 9.5 20.6
Univ. of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108.
16. Saltine (Nabisco), a, - 0.44 4.0 25.0

Volume 47 (1981kJOlJRNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-121

CHEWING SOUNDS. ..

of the ear canal. This recording method produced very realistic

sounds. Sounds were recorded on Scotch Brand 207 tape using a
Nagra IV-SJ tape recorder (tape speed 19.05 cm/set). A Bruel and
Kjaer 2619 preamp and a QSJA-BK microphone amplifier were
connected between the microphone and the tape recorder. Ten
“bite and two chew” samples of each food were recorded. The tape
segment containing the best of these ten sounds (“best” defined as
the segment that sounded to the author most characteristic of the
food product) was removed. These 16 “best” segments were then
spliced in random order into a single tape. Three copies of these
tapes were cut and spliced into three more tapes each containing
the 16 sounds in a different random order. Individual sounds on all
the tapes were separated by segments of nonmagnetic tape.

EXPERIMENTAL
SUBJECTS PARTICIPATED in a single test sessionlasting approxi-
mately 35 minutes. Fach subject was tested separately by an ex-
perimenter who was present throughout the test. The experimenter
read the task instructions, answered procedural questions, distrib-
uted samples and operated the tape recorder, Subjects used magni-
tude estimation (modulus-free) to judge the crispness, crunchiness
and hardness of the food sampies and of the sounds. Subjects were
asked to make their judgments of the food samples by biting the
food with their incisors (keeping the lips clear) and chewing it twice
with their molars.
During the test session the subjects judged three separate and
sequential sets of the 16 food samples (one set for crispness, one set
for crunchiness, and one set for hardness) and three separate and
sequential sets of the 16 biting and chewing sounds. Half of the
subjects listened to the sounds first and then judged the foods.
The other half judged the food samples before listening to the
sounds. The order in which the subjects judged the qualities of crisp-
ness, hardness and crunchiness was randomized. The order of the
food samples within a set was also randomized. Before the testing
of both the foods and the soundsbegan,the subjectspracticedusing
magnitude estimation (modulus-free) to assign numbers to five
food or sound samplesfor the quality they would be judging in the
first of the three sets.During thesepractice trials the experimenter
would encourageand reinforceratio thinking.
After judging each sample set, subjects assignednumbers to
verbal concepts using the same numerical scales they had used to
evaluatethe foods or sounds. This scoringwas intended to anchor
the magnitude estimation results to the following five terms ar-
ranged in order of intensity:ieastcrisp (crunchy, hard) food imagin-
able, slightly, moderatley and extremely crisp (crunchy, hard)
and most crisp (crunchy, hard) food imaginable.
Analysis
The magnitudeestimation data were fist normalizedby setting
the geometricmeanof eachjudge’snonzeroscoresto 10.0. Normali-
zation procedureswere performed separatelyfor the three sensory
attributes and the oral and auditory judgments (a total of six sepa-
rate normalizations per judge). Regression lines and correlation
coefficients for relationshipsbetween the different sensoryparam-
eterswere computedusing mediannormalizeddata.
RESULTS
THE RELATIONSHIP between oral and auditory judg-
ments of crispness is shown in Fig. 1. The correlation
coefficient for all data points on this plot is 0.82 (slope =
0.77). Points 2, 3 and 12 on this plot were clearly outliers.
If these points are omitted and the correlation coefficient is
recalculated, r = 0.96 (slope = 0.89). The outlying foods
(celery blanched 45 set, celery blanched 3 min and Tris-
cuits a, = 0.75) are scored crisper when judged by audi-
tory cues alone than when judged by biting and chewing
the food. Correlations (including samples 2, 3 and 12)
between bite and chew judgments of crispness and auditory
judgments of crispness appeared to be somewhat larger
(r = 0.76) for the ten subjects who judged the sounds first
than for those who judged by biting and chewing first
(r = 0.66). In both groups samples 2, 3 and 12 were scored
significantly lower for crispness when bitten and chewed
than when judged by sound alone (paired t-test p < 0.05).
Subjects making oral judgments first tended to score sam-
Median Auditory Crjepness
Fig. I-Relarionship berween oral crispness and auditory crispness.
Each poinr is the median judgment for 20 subjects. The identifying
numbers refer to rhe list of foods in Table 1. The solid black line
represents rhe funcrion X = Y. Also included are rhe median v#ues
assigned ro rhe concept scale: slightly, moderately and extremely
crisp.
ples 2, 3 and 12 in the same manner as subjects who scored
the sounds first. There was no difference in the variability
of the crispness scores assigned to the foods or sounds be-
tween the two groups of subjects (paired t-test).
There is a large correlation (r = 0.95) and close to- one-
to-one relationship between crunchiness judged by biting
and chewing the food and crunchiness judgments made
on the sound alone (Fig. 2). Samples 2, 3 and 12 are not
outliers on this plot although they occupy positions similar
to their location in Fig. 1.
There is also a fairly large correlation (r = 0.89) and a
one-to-one relationship between judgments of hardness
made by biting and chewing the foods and hardness judged
from the sounds alone (Fig. 3). If foods 2 and 3 are con-
sidered outliers and omitted, the recalculated correlation
coefficient is 0.97.
The outlying foods (celery blanched 45 set and celery
blanched 3 min) are found to be harder when judged by
auditory cues alone than when judged by biting and chew-
ing the food. They fall in a similar position on Fig. 3 -
(the hardness plot) as on the crispness plot (Fig. 1). Correla-
tions (including samples 2 and 3) betwen bite and chew
judgments of hardness and auditory judgments of hardness
appeared to be slightly larger (r = 0.90) for the ten subjects
who judged the sounds first than for those who judged by
biting and chewing first (r = 0.84). In both groups, samples
2 and 3 were scored significantly lower for hardness when
bitten and chewed than when judged by sound alone
(paired t-test p < 0.05). Subjects judging the texture first
tended to score samples 2 and 3 slightly but no significantly
lower than subjects who scored the sounds first (t-test).
There was no difference in the variability of the hardness
scores assigned to the foods or the sounds between the two
groups of subjects (paired t-test).
The variability of crispness, hardness and crunchiness
judgments was similar between judgments made by biting

122-Volume 47 (1981kJOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE


Median Auditory Crunchina.m
Fig. 2-Relationship between oral crunchiness and auditory
ness. Details as for Fig. 1.
and chewing the foods and judgments made on the sound
alone. Mean standard errors for each attribute for either
test method fell between 5.5 and 8.2
By using the concept scale the subject’s judgments could
be anchored to adjectives describing the intensity of the
attributes. Fig. l-3 illustrate that very similar numerical
values were assigned to the same levels of sensory intensity
whether the test procedure was biting and chewing the food
or listening to the sound. Fig. 4 and 5 indicate that this
similarlity extends between attributes as well.
Crispness and crunchiness are clearly very closely related
(Fig. 4 and 5). The very large correlations (r = 0.97 and r =
0.96) and one-to-one relationships (slopes = 0.94 and 0.98)
exist whether judgments are made on the basis of biting and
chewing the foods or by only listening to the sounds.
Correlations between hardness and crispness or cunchi-
ness were as follows: oral hardness vs oral crunchiness (r =
0.90), auditory hardness vs auditory crunchiness (r = 0.93),
oral crispness vs oral hardness (r = 0.88), auditory crispness
vs. auditory hardness (r = 0.97).
DISCUSSION
THE BULK OF THE DATA in Fig. 1 show that crispness
judgments can be made in the absence of oral-tactile cues
or on the basis of sound alone. This inference, viewed to-
gether with the results of Christensen and Vickers (1981)
which showed that crispness judgments could be made in
the absence of auditory cues, would lead to the conclusion
that information reaching the brain by either the auditory
or oral route produces very similar crispness judgments.
The outliers on the crispness plot (Fig. 1) provide an
interesting perspective to judgments of crispness. They were
judged more crisp when only the sound was evaluated than
when the food was actually bitten and chewed. These
three products (celery blanched 45 set, celery blanched 3
min, and Triscuits a, = 0.75) are familiar foods that have
had their crispness lowered. The other foods with adjusted
crispness were less common and/or the altered level was not
dramatically different from that normally present. Whether
1
00 10 1
20 / 2-x
Median Auditory Hardness
crunchi- Fig. 3-Relationship between oral and auditory hardness. Details as
for Fig. 1.
these three outliers should be considered an unfortunate
confusion or a real part of the concept of crispness is un-
clear.
In the process of heating or adjusting the water activity
of these foods several mechanical properties (e.g., rigidity,
hardness, and toughness) that may contribute ‘to the con-
cept of crispness also change. These changes in physical
characteristics may be reflected in oral cues to a far greater
extent than in auditory cues. In such cases the oral crisp-
ness sensation would differ from the auditory crispness
sensation. Whether the oral sensation predominates or the
mouth and auditory sensations are integrated in such a
situation cannot be resolved from this study.
The large correlation between judgments of crunchiness
made with and without oral-tactile cues indicates that
crunchiness judgments can be made on the basis of sound
alone. The fact that points 2, 3 and 12 are not outliers on
the crunchiness plot (Fig. 2) may indicate that the oral-
tactile qualities that detract from the crispness of these
foods are not as important for judgments of crunchiness.
An initially surprising result of this study was the very
high correlation between hardness judged by biting and
chewing the foods and hardnessjudged by only listening to
the sounds. If hardness is an oral-tactile sensation as the tra-
ditional literature on food texture clearly suggests,why can
the subjects judge sounds for hardness nearly as accurately
as they can judge the foods? In other words, to what acous-
tical quality are they attributing the sensation of hardness?
One possibility is that subjects could be judging the
sounds for loudness and equating loudness to hardness.
This possibility would be reasonable because Vickers and
Wasserman (1980) considered loudness to be one of two
basic criteria for distinguishing among food crushing sounds.
However, earlier research has indicated that loudness is not
so closely related to hardness (firmness) when both judg-
ments are made by biting and chewing the food (r = 0.84,
Vickers and Christensen, 1981) or when both judgments
are made on sound alone (r = 0.66, Vickers and Wasserman,
1980). Thus if subjects had judged the sounds for loudness
instead of hardness, one would not have expected such a
Volume 47 (198lkJOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE- 123
CHEWING SOUNDS. . .

0
II

;0 i0
Median Oral Crunchiness
Median AudiWry Crunchiness

Fig. 4-Relationship between oral crispness and oral crunchiness. Fig. 5-Relationship between auditory crispness and auditory
Details as for Fig. 1. crunchiness. Details as for Fig. 1.

high correlation between the bite-and-chew and the sound- REFERENCES

only procedures unless the subjects judged loudness during Brennan. J.G., Jowett. R., and Mughsi, O.A. 1970. Some exper-
both test procedures. iences with the General Foods Texturometer.
.1: 0,.
,.”
J. Texture Studies.
The data seem to suggest that the food sounds possess Christensen, C.M. and Vickers, Z.M. 1981. Relationships of chewing
information that may be used to distinguish among degrees sounds to iudements of food crisoness. J. Food Sci. 46: 514.
of hardness. This suggestion is supported by evidence from Jeon. I.J.. Breene. W.M.. and Munson. S.T. 1975. Texture of fresh-
pa&k whole &umber pickles: Correlation of instrumental and
the Vickers and Wasserman (1980) study where hardness sensory measurements. J. Tex.ture Studies. 5: 339.
was included as a descriptor because several people had Moskowitz, H.R. and Kapsahs, J.G. 1974. Psychophysical relations
insisted on using it to describe and contrast biting and in texture. Presented at the Symposium on Advances in Food
Texture. Guelnh. Ontario. August 28-30.
chewing sounds. Vickers, Z.M. iSiS. Crispness&d crunchiness of foods. In “Food
Evidence from several earlier studies (Vickers and Texture and Rheology” Ed. P. Sherman, Adademic Press, London,
England.
Christensen, 1981; Moskowitz and Kapsalis, 1975; and Vickers, Z.M. and Bourne, M.C. 1976. 4 psychacoustical theory of
Vickers and Wasserman, 1980) shows that hardness and crispness. J. Food Sci. 41(5): 1158.
crispness do not vary independently. Vickers and Christen- Vickers, Z.M. and Christensen, C.M. 1981. Relationships between
sensory crispness and other sensory and instrumentaI parameters.
sen (1981) actually provide evidence for hardness being ‘J. Texture Studies 11: 291.
a component of the crispness sensation. The large correla- Vickers;Z.M. and Wasserman, S.S. 1980. Sensory qualities of food
sounds based on individual perceptions. J. Texture Studies 10:
tion (r = 0.97) between auditory crispness and auditory 319.
hardness in this study also supports this idea. If hardness MS received 6/18/81: revised S/10/81; accepted S/14/81.
is a component of crispness and crispness can be an audi- Paper No. 11’789, Scientific Journal Series, Minnesota Agricultural
tory sensation, then hardness, in the context of crisp foods, Exneriment Station. St. Paul. MN 55108.
could also be an auditory sensation. Thanks are due to Pam Kotnour-Foster and SaBy Overturf for
their technical assistance.

MYOSIN MOLECULE IN HEAT-INDUCED GELATION . . . From page 120

Yasui. T., Ishioroshi, M., Nakano, H., and Samejima. K. 1979. MS received 4/20/81: revised l/8/81: accepted 7/13/81.
Changes in shear modulus, ultrastructure and spin-spin relaxation
times of water associated with heat-induced gelation of myosin. This work was supported in part by a Grant-m Aid for scientific
J. Food Sci. 44: 1201. research (547113). 1980 from the Ministry of Education and
Yasui. T.. Ishioroshi. M.. and Sameiima. K. 1980. Heat-induced Culture of Japan.
gelation‘ of ‘myosin. in the presence of .actin. J. Food Biochem. The authors thank Dr. F.H. Wolf of the Univ. of Alberta, Canada
4: 61. for reading this manuscript and Dr. T. Nakagawa of Hokkaido Univ.,
Young. D.M.. Himmelfarb, S.. and Harrington, W.F. 1964. The Japan for his advice on measurement of the rigidity.
relationship of the meromyosin to the molecular structure of
myosin. J. Biol. Chem. 239: 2822.

724-Volume 47 (7981)-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE