Received: 3 January 2018 Revised: 11 June 2018 Accepted: 12 June 2018

DOI: 10.1111/joss.12459
Journal of
Sensory Studies
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Temporal dominance of sensations, emotions, and temporal

liking measured in a bar for two similar wines using a multi-sip
approach
Ana P. Silva1,2 | Hans-Peter Voss2,3 | Hannelize van Zyl4 | Tim Hogg2,5 | Cees de Graaf1 |
Manuela Pintado2 | Gerry Jager1

1
Division of Human Nutrition, Wageningen
University, Wageningen, The Netherlands
2
CBQF – Centro de Biotecnologia e Química
Fina – Laboratório Associado, Escola Superior
de Biotecnologia, Rua Arquiteto Lobão Vital,
Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Porto,
Portugal
3
VossID, Almere, The Netherlands
4
HEINEKEN Global Innovation and Research,
Zoeterwoude, The Netherlands
5
Centro de Excelência da Vinha e do Vinho,
Universidade de Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro,
Vila Real, Portugal
Correspondence
Ana Patricia Silva, Division of Human
Nutrition, Wageningen University, Stippeneng
4, 6703 HD, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Email: apsilva51@gmail.com
Present address
Ana Patricia Silva, Eurofins SAM Sensory &
Marketing Spain, Calle Ausiàs Marc 148-150,
08013 Barcelona, Spain.
Funding information
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Grant/
Award Numbers: SFRH/BD/85152/2012,
UID/Multi/50016/2013
Abstract
Eating and drinking are dynamic processes where both sensations and emotions might evolve or
change over time during multiple bites/sips. However, most previous studies have measured
food-evoked emotions statically, that is, at a fixed time point after consumption and using a sin-
gle bite/sip approach. This study aimed to explore the sensitivity of temporal dominance of sen-
sations (TDS), of emotions (TDE), and temporal liking (TL), using a multi-sip approach, to
differentiate between two comparable tasting wines. A glass of wine, in an appropriate con-
sumption context, a bar, was served to 69 consumers, in two different sessions. It was shown
that TDS and TDE captured small differences between equally liked wines. Wines were distin-
guishable during consumption, based on the dominance of basic sensations such as acid, bitter,
and dry, rather than aromatic sensations and based on three emotions pleased, comforted, and
relaxed. These emotions were dominant in both wines and in all stages of consumption but dif-
fered in the dominance rates. So, the impact of wine consumption on emotions was more uni-
form during consumption while new sensations became dominant during drinking.
Practical implications
The method tested in this study showed a sensitivity level sufficient to capture subtle but signif-
icant differences between similar, equally liked wines. Wines tested have a major difference in
wine-making process, that is, one of the wines had a particular wood aging processing in new
oak barrels conferring specific flavors and associated costs. For the wine industry, the method
can be particularly useful to understand to which extent consumers perceive differences in sen-
sations and emotions, in a blind tasting, to investigate if increased costs of production are
acceptable and justified. For other food products, the method can be useful to use during prod-
uct development stage, when the aim is to differentiate prototypes with subtle differences in
ingredients composition and associated costs. Knowing when certain sensations and emotions
occur during consumption might help to create successful products in the market. Further
research using different food or beverages is however necessary to assure its validity.

1 | I N T RO D UC T I O N however, more than sensory experiences, they are also emotional

Wine has a strong cultural and social connection with Portugal and
therefore an emotional connotation (Mora & Moscarola, 2010; Silva
et al., 2017). Wine producers and sensory researchers consider flavor
to be one of the main criteria for wine choice by consumers (Lockshin,
Jarvis, d'Hauteville, & Perrouty, 2006). Eating and drinking are,
ones (Bisogni et al., 2007; Gibson, 2006; Piqueras-Fiszman & Jaeger,
2016). Measuring food-evoked emotions has been shown to be a rele-
vant tool to complement sensory and liking measurements when aim-
ing at differentiating between products of the same category (Gutjar
et al., 2015; Ng, Chaya, & Hort, 2013; Spinelli, Masi, Zoboli, Prescott, &
Monteleone, 2015). However, the emotion component of wine

J Sens Stud. 2018;e12459. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joss © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1 of 13

https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12459
2 of 13 Journal of
Sensory Studies
consumption is less explored in the literature. It has been shown that
consumers perceive emotional benefits of drinking wine that are
partly derived from the sensory experience of wine flavor (Barrena &
Sanchez, 2009; Ferrarini et al., 2010; Mora & Moscarola, 2010; Silva
et al., 2016). Recently, Danner, Johnson, Ristic, Meiselman, and
Bastian (2017), Niimi, Danner, Li, Bossan, and Bastian (2017), Danner
et al. (2016), and Jiang, Niimi, Ristic, and Bastian (2016) actually mea-
sured emotions evoked by different wines in the sensory lab and in
different contexts of consumption. These studies used questionnaires
and rating scales to measure the intensity of emotions, which were
measured statically, that is, at one point after tasting and using a small
sample of wine. This means that the emotional experience of wine
tasting was summarized in an overall single score. Emotions are, how-
ever, defined as a continuous process and are recursive, according to
contemporary appraisal theories (Moors, Ellsworth, Scherer, & Frijda,
2013). Therefore, using a dynamic approach to measure emotions
might be important because it could reveal part of the emotion pro-
cess that would remain hidden with more static methods (Jager,
2016). For instance, static measurements do not reveal in which stage
of consumption negative emotions occurred, or what is the first emo-
tion response immediately after the first sip. Knowing which emotions
are perceived in the different stages of consumption is important as
there are key moments of consumption experience that will be stored
in memory and seem to be important in explaining choice and con-
sumption (Robinson, Blissett, & Higgs, 2011). For instance, a yogurt
that provoked a pleasant sensation at the end was remembered as sig-
nificantly more enjoyable than one in which the pleasure was more
concentrated at the beginning (Robinson et al., 2011). Regarding wine,
it is not known how emotions evolve and change during the consump-
tion experience and how this information can be used to differentiate
wines.
Temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) is a method that cap-
tures how dominant sensations simultaneously evolve over time
(Pineau et al., 2009) and has been used to determine how wine sensa-
tions evolve during consumption using a single or a multi-sip approach
(Galmarini, Loiseau, Visalli, & Schlich, 2016; Galmarini, Visalli, &
Schlich, 2016; Meillon et al., 2010; Meillon, Urbano, & Schlich, 2009;
Sokolowsky & Fischer, 2012; Sokolowsky, Rosenberger, & Fischer,
2015). TDS determines dominant sensations, which are defined as the
ones that trigger most attention at a given moment during consump-
tion (Pineau et al., 2009). TDS seems to be a suitable method to use
with consumers as dominance is recorded, and usually not intensity,
and therefore, training is not required (Di Monaco, Su, Masi, & Cavella,
2014), as long as consumers are familiar with the attributes used.
Based on the concept of temporal dominance, Jager et al. (2014)
evaluated how food-evoked emotions simultaneously evolve over
time, replacing sensations by emotions, and developing the temporal
dominance of emotions (TDE). The authors showed that TDS and TDE
discriminated among five different plain and flavored chocolates,
showing that the temporal evolution of sensations and emotions were
related. For flavored chocolates, mainly flavor attributes and positive
emotions were dominant whereas for plain chocolates, textural and
taste attributes were dominant and accompanied by more negative
emotions. To the best of our knowledge, none of the published stud-
ies have measured the TDE evoked by wine consumption.
SILVA ET AL.
Recently, researchers coupled temporal liking (TL), that is, liking
measured at several points throughout the tasting period, to TDS
measurements. Different approaches were tested aiming to determine
which sensations are dominant when liking of a product increases or
decreases. The temporal drivers of liking method was developed using
data from TL and TDS collected separately in two independent ses-
sions (Thomas, Visalli, Cordelle, & Schlich, 2015). In a follow-up study,
another method was developed, alternated temporal drivers of liking
(Thomas, van der Stelt, Prokop, Lawlor, & Schlich, 2016). In this
method, TL was alternated with TDS in the same session, that is, for
each sip TDS was performed followed by a liking measurement that
appeared on the screen immediately after completion of the TDS. In
other study, consumers performed TDS and TL simultaneously using
the same data acquisition screen (Schlich, 2015; Thomas, Chambault,
et al., 2015). Additionally, in some TDS studies a multi-sip approach
was applied showing an added value compared to a single intake eval-
uation (Galmarini, Loiseau, et al., 2016; Galmarini, Visalli, et al., 2016;
Thomas et al., 2016; Zorn, Alcaire, Vidal, Giménez, & Ares, 2014).
Indeed, tasting a full-portion is becoming more and more important in
sensory and consumer research, as tasting a small sample is limited in
the amount of information given to study the experience of consump-
tion, and does not translate to consumers' behavior in daily life. In
order to study the consumption experience not only the amount
tasted play a role, but also the context where the experience occurs
(Jaeger et al., 2017). There are many external contextual conditions
that can influence consumer perception (sensory or emotional) and
behavior, such as music, videoclips, lightning, and social interaction
(Sester et al., 2013; Stafford, Fernandes, & Agobiani, 2012; Quartier,
Vanrie, & Van Cleempoel, 2014; Wang & Spence, 2015; Wansink,
2004). These factors had mostly been studied independently but in
consumption experience they may not be independent and may inter-
act in an integrative way, and therefore ecologically valid research
should take into account products, consumers, and the environment
(Jaeger & Porcherot, 2017; Köster, 2009). This present study took
place in a wine bar, a natural and appropriate place and one of the
social settings where wine is consumed (Silva et al., 2017).
Combining the measurement of dominant emotions and sensa-
tions and TL during consumption experience in a bar might be a signif-
icant contribution to the characterization of products of this type and
might help to better understand the choice of wine. As such, the study
would extend the palette of methods available in consumer science
and marketing. The role of understanding emotions in the product
development process is often focused on products that are similar in
nature, an example of a potentially application would be to decide
which of a number of prototypes developed fits a desirable concept
(van Zyl, 2016).
The aim of this study was thus to explore the sensitivity of TDS,
TDE, and TL, to differentiate two similar tasting wines. The protocol
used in this study was first introduced by Schlich (2015) and Thomas,
Chambault, et al. (2015) to evaluate TDS and TL simultaneously. In
our study, the referred protocol was extended to include TDE and
TL. Data were collected by combining the approaches of TDE + TL
and TDS + TL with the same consumers in two different sessions. The
study was performed in a real context of consumption, a bar, using a
multi-sip approach, simulating a natural situation of wine
SILVA ET AL.
consumption, which increases the validity of the measurements on
the prediction of real-life consumption behavior (Jaeger et al., 2017;
Köster, 2003; Meiselman, 2013).
2 | MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 | Wines
Two commercial Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) white wines
of 2015 from the Dão region in Portugal were studied, hereafter
named DV and CB. Wines were from the same wine producer and
both had 13% alcohol (vol/vol). The description of the wines and a
basic chemical characterization is presented in Table 1. The wines
were selected because of their closeness in intrinsic attributes, that is,
grape variety and wine-making process. The composition regarding
grape variety and amount is slightly different, although the major vari-
ety is the same for both wines: DV contains 72% Encruzado, 18%
Bical, and 10% Verdelho and CB contains 80% Encruzado and 20% Ver-
delho. Regarding the wine-making process, 20% of the wine CB is fer-
mented and matured for 6 months in oak barrels, whereas the
fermentation of the wine DV occurs mainly in stainless steel tanks.
Most extrinsic elements of these wines are very different, namely the
label, bottle, and price but those were not the scope of the study.
Wines were presented blind and served at 10–12  C in tulip-shaped
glasses, each containing 80 ml of wine. This type of glasses was cho-
sen because it allows consumers to smell the aroma of the wine in the
center of the glass at a lower alcohol concentration while drinking
(Arakawa et al., 2015).
2.2 | Preliminary test: Triangle test
To know how comparable the wines were, a triangle test was per-
formed with 47 wine consumers (not participating in the temporal
study), aiming to know whether the wines were perceived as signifi-
cantly different or not. Consumers (23 men, 24 women, aged between
26 and 57 years) were recruited using a database of the Catholic Uni-
versity in Porto, and were regular white wine consumers, which for
this study was defined as ranging from drinking one glass of white
wine per week to two glasses a day. The test was performed in indi-
vidual booths at the sensory facilities of the university, and followed
Journal of 3 of 13
Sensory Studies
the procedure described by Lawless and Heymann (2010). Participants
were presented with three samples of wine and had to identify the
sample that differed from the other two. Wines were coded with a
three-digit code, served in tulip-shaped dark glasses at 10  C, each
containing 20 ml of wine. Results of the triangle test showed 21 cor-
rect and 26 incorrect answers, which was according to a binomial test
indicated that the wines were perceived as not significantly different
(p > .05). It can be argued that the result is on the edge of significance.
This however indicates that the wines are not easily discriminated by
consumers, making them suitable for the aim of this study.
2.3 | Attribute selection
The selection of the sensory and the emotion attributes is a key pro-
cedure for a TDS/TDE measurement as it determines the response
range of consumers. Following the guidelines of Pineau et al. (2012), a
list of 10 attributes for each measurement, that is, 10 for sensations
and 10 for emotions was defined. Subsequently, it was assured that
the attributes selected were used in everyday language so that con-
sumers would easily understand the meaning of the attributes
presented.
Sensory attributes were defined by the internal sensory panel of
the company that produce the wines, which are well trained panelists
that taste wines on a daily basis. These attributes were validated with
a consumer panel in a single session described below. Seven regular
white wine consumers (four men, three women, aged between 27 and
56 years old) were recruited from Catholic University in Porto to par-
ticipate in a sensory evaluation session. These consumers did not par-
ticipate in any other part of the study. The session took part in a
comfortable room of the university and lasted one and a half hours.
For each sample, consumers tasted the wines blinded and wrote down
the attribute names and/or descriptions that were perceived in flavor
(overall or notes). Then, in a group discussion, the 10 most relevant
attributes for the sensory characterization of both wines were chosen
based on consensus among consumers (see Table 2).
Emotion attributes related to wine consumption were adopted
from our previous qualitative study in which 25 terms were compiled
as the most representative of emotion associations of wine consump-
tion for a group of Portuguese and Dutch consumers (Silva et al.,
2016). To select the 10 most relevant (out of the 25) emotion attri-
butes, a survey was performed with 426 Portuguese wine consumers

TABLE 1 Characterization of the Dão wines from Portugal used in the study

Vinification and maturation Ethanol % TA RS Terpenes Esters

Wine Type/year Grapes descriptions (vol/vol) (g/L) pH (g/L) (μg/L) (mg/L)
Duque de Viseu (DV) Dão PDO 72% Encruzado, Vinification: Stainless steel tanks. 13 5.53 3.35 <2 109.6 21
white 2015 18% Bical, Maturation: The majority in
10% Verdelho stainless steel tanks and a
small part in French oaks.
Encruzado Colheita Dão PDO 80% Encruzado, Vinification: Encruzado 13 6.39 3.16 3.3 191.7 27.6
Branco (CB) white 2015 20% Verdelho must was partly fermented
in French oak barrels.
The remainder was vinified
in stainless steel tanks.
Maturation: 20% aged about 6 months
in used French oak barrels and 80%
in stainless steel tanks.

TA = total acidity expressed in g/L as tartaric acid equivalent; RS = residual sugars.

4 of 13 Journal of SILVA ET AL.
Sensory Studies
TABLE 2 List of sensory and emotion attributes translated from average of 30 min. An informed consent form was signed by each par-
Portuguese to English and its description ticipant before the start of the study and all were compensated for
Portuguese English Description their participation. This study was submitted and positively evaluated
Sensory 
Acido Acid Vinegar by the Medical Ethical Committee of Wageningen University, The
attributes

Alcool Alcohol Warmth sensation Netherlands.
Maçã/pêra Apple/pear White fruits as apple
and pear
2.5 | General procedure and experimental design
Amargo Bitter Coffee without sugar
Lima/Limão Citrus Grapefruit, orange, lime, This study took place in the wine bar, Prova (Porto, Portugal, https://
lemon, and lemon prova.com.pt/) in two sessions performed on two consecutive week
grass
days. The bar is a specific place to taste wine. The decoration is mod-
Seco Dry That leaves your mouth
dry ern and allusive to wine, with stone walls and dark comfortable wood
Minerais Mineral Mineral water tables and chairs and low artificial light conditions. There was ambient
Doce Sweet Sugar low volume music and the temperature inside was 22–23 C. Smoking
Folhas verdes/ Vegetal Chives, hay cut, balm, is not allowed. During the course of the study, extreme care was
vegetais and moss taken to maintain the same environment conditions to avoid bias.
Madeira Woody Wood, oak Consumers performed individually using a laptop while sitting
Emotion Divertido/a Amused Diverted, showing that around tables. Data were collected using TimeSens software Version
attributes something is funny
0.93.122.904 (INRA, Dijon, France). To ensure that consumers under-
Comfortado/a Comforted Consolation, feeling
good stood and could identify the different attributes, the list of sensory
Desiludido/a Disappointed When your and emotion attributes (Table 2), as well as their descriptions, was
expectations are not sent to all consumers via e-mail two days before the first session and
fulfilled, frustration
they were asked to read it carefully. This list was also available during
Energético/a Energetic Having or showing
energy the experiment. The study design was balanced across consumers for
Livre Free Not limited or the order of the wines´ presentation as well as for the type of session
controlled, (sensations or emotions). Attributes were presented in random order
unrestrained, and
disinhibited across consumers but remained the same for a given consumer during
Completo/a Fulfilled Satisfaction, completed the evaluation to avoid order effects (Pineau et al., 2012). The proto-
Alegre/feliz Happy Joy or glad, col was an extension of those presented by Schlich (2015) and Jager
contentment, and
et al. (2014) and consisted of coupling TDS or TDE with a liking scale
delighted
while drinking a glass of wine. As an example, a print screen of each
Agradado/a Pleased Pleasure
session is presented in Figure 1. Before starting the first session (day
Relaxado/a Relaxed Relieved from tension
or anxiety, without 1), each consumer received an individual explanation and demonstra-
worries
tion on how to use the program. Consumers performed TDS + TL or
Triste Sad Sorrow or unhappiness
TDE + TL with a glass of water (dummy sample) to familiarize them-
selves with the computer program and the methodology. Following
(136 men and 290 women, aged between 18 and 70 years old). Con- this, the real experiment started. Each consumer had to perform either
sumers were asked to imagine a situation where they were drinking the TDS + TL or the TDE + TL while drinking a glass of the first wine.
wine and to rate-all-that-apply (Ares et al., 2014) in each emotion The specific instructions are described in the next section. After fin-
term to what extent they perceived a change in that emotion after ishing the first wine, consumers were instructed to rinse their mouth
consumption. The rating scale used was: much less, less, slightly less,
with water and eat some crackers. Then they were forced by the com-
slightly more, more, much more, and not applicable/no change. Based
puter directed protocol to wait at least four minutes before proceed-
on the frequencies of the responses for each emotion, 10 terms were
ing and starting the evaluation of the second wine. The second test,
selected to be used in this study (data not published yet) (see Table 2).

2.4 | Participants
Eighty Portuguese consumers, 41 men and 39 women, 39 aged
between 20 and 35 years and 41 between 36 and 62 years, were
recruited via a consumer research company. Participants were all
moderate alcohol consumers, and drink on average 1.7 glasses of
white wine per occasion, ranging from 3 to 4 times per week to one
time per fortnight. They had a normal ability to taste and smell (self-
reported) and had no previous training in sensory evaluation. Partici-
pants attended two sessions on two different days, each lasting an FIGURE 1 Example of a print screen of each session
SILVA ET AL.
was similar with the first one, performing TDS + TL or TDE + TL while
drinking the second wine. In the second session (day 2) consumers fol-
lowed the same procedure as the first day. In summary, sessions of
TDS + TL and TDE + TL were not mixed, so in 1 day consumers only
performed one type of session, either TDS + TL for both wines or
TDE + TL for both wines.
2.6 | Measurements: TDS + TL and TDE + TL
The same procedure described below was followed for both TDS + TL
or TDE + TL measurements but sessions occurred on different days.
The 10 selected attributes were presented at the same time on a
computer screen and consumers were instructed to click the “START”
button as soon as they drank the first sip of wine. Then they had to
select the attribute that was dominant, that is, the attribute that cap-
tured their attention most at a given moment in time (Pineau et al.,
2009). While drinking, consumers were free to select the same attri-
bute several times or never use an attribute. The sequence of domi-
nant attributes was recorded for each wine and for each consumer as
was the duration of dominance (not intensity). The duration of domi-
nance corresponds to the time passed between the selection of one
attribute and the next attribute chosen. For each new sip, each person
had to click the button “NEW SIP” and then continue to evaluate the
dominant attributes. The button “NEW SIP” recorded the time at
which consumers drank a new sip. Consumers were asked to drink at
least four sips. They could finish the glass or not and the time they
needed to drink it was not controlled. When they finished the glass of
wine and no longer perceived any attribute as dominant, they were
instructed to click on the button “STOP.”
While drinking each glass of wine, consumers performed a TL task
simultaneously with the TDS or TDE task. A 9-point Liking scale rang-
ing from “Dislike extremely” to “Like extremely” was shown on the
same screen as the dominance attributes (Schlich, 2015; Thomas,
Chambault, et al., 2015). For each wine, consumers were instructed to
score liking at least once, although they were free to select liking
scores whenever they wanted throughout the tasting, and to change
the liking score every time they perceived a change in liking.
2.7 | Data analysis
Data were analyzed using TimeSens software, IBM SPSS Statistics for
Windows, Version 22.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. and Microsoft Excel
2013/XLSTAT (XLSTAT Version 2015.5.01.23234, Addinsoft, Inc.,
Brooklyn, NY). For the analysis, three sips were considered: the first,
the second, and the last sip. The first sip represents the beginning of
the drinking experience and the first contact with the wine; the sec-
ond sip represents the continuity of the drinking experience and the
last sip represents the end of the drinking experience, so the last sen-
sations and emotions evoked by wine. Sixty-nine consumers per-
formed the test as required and behaved in a similar way, for example,
they took at least three sips of each wine. The 11 participants that did
not comply with the protocol had their data excluded from all
analyses.
Journal of 5 of 13
Sensory Studies
2.7.1 | Consumers performance
Consumers performance between sessions and wines were compared
through selected indicators (Lepage et al., 2014; Rodrigues et al.,
2016), namely: average number of attributes used, average of time
elapsed until the first attribute selection, average of total duration of
the evaluation and average number of sips. For TL, the indicators used
were: average number of clicks in the liking scale, average time
elapsed until the first liking score and average of range, that is, the
average of the difference between the highest and the lowest scores.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the average
scores of continuous variables, per wine and per session, and chi-
square (Χ 2) test was used to compare categorical variables per wine
and per session.
2.7.2 | Dominance rates of sensations and emotions:
TDS/TDE curves and difference curves
TDS and TDE data are commonly represented by dominance curves in
which the dominance rate of each attribute is represented over time.
The dominance rate is calculated by dividing the number of citations
an attribute is given at a certain moment by the number of judges
times the number of replications (Pineau et al., 2009). All the values
are then compared to a significance level to differentiate results that
are due to chance from results that come from agreement among par-
ticipants. The chance level is the dominance rate that an attribute can
obtain by chance and the significance level is calculated based on a
binomial test (Pineau et al., 2009). An attribute is considered dominant
when it is above the significance level. If the attribute is between
chance and significance level, it can be considered as having a ten-
dency toward dominance. TDS and TDE difference curves were built
to compare the wines. The difference curves are the result of sub-
tracting dominance rates at each time point from one wine to the
other, and are plotted when the difference is significantly different
from zero.
2.7.3 | ANOVA and MANOVA of dominance durations of
attributes
Data analysis followed the procedure described by Galmarini, Visalli,
et al. (2016). The average of the total duration of dominance of attri-
butes was calculated from the total duration over which an attribute
was dominant for each participant. Attribute duration was analyzed
using ANOVA, with wine (DV or CB), sips (first, second, and last) as
fixed factors and consumers as random factors. Attributes with signifi-
cant effects or interaction (wine × sip) where further analyzed using
ANOVA by wine. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) test
was performed to evaluate if there was a multivariate wine effect.
The MANOVA F-value was obtained according to the Hotelling-
Lawley statistic (Peltier, Visalli, & Schlich, 2015).
2.7.4 | Temporal liking
TL was recorded per sip, per wine, and per session (sensations and
emotions). Liking was analyzed using a mixed model ANOVA, with
wine (DV, CB), sips (first, second, and last), and session (sensations,
emotions) as fixed factors and consumers, and all interactions including
it, as random factors.
6 of 13 Journal of
Sensory Studies
3 | RESULTS
3.1 | Consumers performance
In Table 3, a comparison of consumers´ performance in both sessions
is shown using different indicators. Results showed that on average
consumers used half of the attributes (5 out of 10) to describe sensa-
tions and emotions, and clicked six times to evaluate liking while
drinking. The time elapsed for the first attribute selection was on aver-
age 16 s, and for the first liking evaluation was 34 s; this corresponds
to 7 and 14% of the total duration of the test, respectively. On aver-
age consumers took five sips of the wines in the 4 min in which they
were performing the test, which means they evaluated each sip in less
than a minute.
For all indicators, no differences between sessions and between
wines were found (all p > .05), showing that the response of con-
sumers to the experiment was consistent between sessions and
wines.
3.2 | TDS and TDE curves
In Figure 2, the TDS and TDE curves show the dominant attributes
per sip and wine over time. For wine CB, at first sip acid had the high-
est dominant rate, starting in the very beginning of the evaluation
with 30% of dominance rate, and slowly decreasing to no dominance
at the end of the sip. Toward the end of the evaluation, alcohol
became dominant reaching 18% of dominance rate. The first dominant
sensation of the second sip was alcohol, reaching its highest domi-
nance rate of 20% in the beginning of the evaluation, and keeping a
lower dominance rate in the second half of this sip. The second sensa-
tion dry became dominant (18%) over a limited time period, between a
fifth and half of the evaluation time. In the same period, bitter also
started to become dominant, increasing its dominance rate, reaching
the highest rate (21%) near the end of the evaluation. At the begin-
ning of the last sip, alcohol, bitter, and dry were all dominant but alco-
hol reached the highest level, a peak of 23%, decreasing to a lower
rate between the second half and the end. Bitter was dominant during
all evaluation periods, except for the middle part. From a fifth of the
evaluation time until the end, dry was the most dominant attribute
TABLE 3 Indicators of consumers performance per session and per wine (average and standard deviation)
Wine
Session
Temporal dominance indicators
Number of used attributes
Time elapsed for the first attribute selection (in seconds)
Temporal liking indicators
Number of clicks in liking scores
Time elapsed for the first liking score selection (in seconds)
Range of liking scores (max–min)
Number of sips
Total duration of the test (in seconds)
No significant differences among wines evaluation for each session were found (p > .05).
SILVA ET AL.
reaching the highest dominance rate of 25% in the middle of the eval-
uation period.
Regarding wine, DV acid was dominant from the beginning reach-
ing a peak of 31% of dominance rate, and then decreased until no
dominance around three quarters of the evaluation time. After that
time, dry reached a small peak of dominance (15%) followed by alco-
hol (15%). Additionally, sweet had a dominance rate of 23% but only
at the very beginning of the first sip. The second sip was characterized
by the dominance of acid in the beginning (23%), evolving to alcohol in
the middle, that reached also 23% of dominance rate. Sweet was dom-
inant at the same time as alcohol but with a lower dominance rate of
17%, evolving to dry also with 17% of dominance rate. At the end of
the second sip, acid was again dominant reaching 21% of dominance
rate. On the last sip, acid was first dominant with 25% of dominance
rate evolving to alcohol, which reached the highest dominance rate of
23% at the middle period of evaluation, very similarly as in the second
sip. However, afterwards, two new attributes were dominant for the
first time in this wine. In the middle vegetal reached 16% of domi-
nance rate and in the very end bitter with 17% of dominance.
Regarding emotions, the same three emotions were dominant in
both wines, and all were dominant in each of the three sips. In the first
sip of wine CB, pleased was highly dominant from the beginning until
the end, starting and ending with a 30% of dominance rate and reach-
ing a peak of 36% before the halfway through of the evaluation period.
Comforted showed an increase in dominance rate during the evaluation
period reaching a rate of 19% by the end. Relaxed showed the lowest
dominance rate of all, at 17% in the beginning and becoming dominant
again around three quarters of the way throughout the evaluation
period and staying this way until the end. With the second sip, pleased
was dominant from the beginning until the end reaching the highest
rate at the end with 30%. Comforted was also dominant from the begin-
ning until the end reaching the highest dominance rate at the beginning
with 27%. Relaxed was dominant during the whole sip as well, but with
lower rates than pleased and comforted, reaching its peak of 26% in the
middle of the period under evaluation. The last sip was characterized
by the high rate of dominance of relaxed during the whole sip, with the
highest value in the beginning with 33%. Around a fifth of the evalua-
tion period, pleased was dominant with a rate of 20%, becoming domi-
nant again at the end of the sip. Comforted, was only dominant at the
middle of the evaluation period with a rate of 20%. Regarding wine
CB DV
Sensations Emotions Sensations Emotions
4.7  2 4.8  2 4.7  1 4.9  2
17  15 17  10 13  10 16  10
5.7  3 6.5  4 5.7  3 5.7  3
36  38 33  29 31  27 35  26
0.9  0.8 1.1  0.9 1.0  0.9 1.0  0.9
5.7  2 5.8  3 5.4  2 5.4  2
244  126 233  129 240  119 228  120
SILVA ET AL.
FIGURE 2 Temporal dominance of sensations and emotions for the first, second and last sip of the wines. Legend: above the significance level
dominant attributes are shown; below the significance level a grey shadow is hiding attributes that are not significantly dominant
DV, during the first sip, it was observed that pleased started with the
highest dominance rate of 36%, decreasing gradually along the evalua-
tion period but always remaining dominant. Until the middle of the
evaluation, comforted and relaxed were both dominant with rates
around 17%. In the middle of the evaluation, relaxed increased its domi-
nance rate to 26% and comforted decreased. In the second sip, pleased
started with 29% of dominance rate and after a fifth of the evaluation
time was quite constant in its dominance rate (21%). Comforted reached
a peak of dominance of 22% just before the middle of the evaluation
period. Relaxed was dominant during the whole evaluation period, with
a higher dominance rate of 24% in the beginning and decreasing
slightly until the end. In the last sip, pleased was dominant during the
whole sip, reaching a peak rate of 27% after a quarter of the evaluation
period. Relaxed became dominant after a fifth of the evaluation time,
increasing until the middle stage to a rate of 24% and remaining domi-
nant until the end. Comforted was only dominant at the very beginning
of this sip, with 17% of dominance rate.
Journal of 7 of 13
Sensory Studies
Overall, a greater number of sensory attributes (six) achieved
dominance compared to the number of emotions that were dominant
(three).
3.3 | TDS and TDE difference curves
Figure 3 depicts the difference curves of dominant sensations and
emotions between wines per sip. Longer and higher differences in
dominance rates of the sensory attributes were observed in the sec-
ond and last sips when compared to the first sip. In the first sip, differ-
ences were observed only in the very beginning in which sweet in the
wine DV was very briefly more dominant than the wine CB, which
instead had a higher dominance rate for dry. In the second sip, the
wine DV had a higher and shorter dominance rate for acid in the
beginning followed by sweet. For a short time, the wine CB showed a
higher dominance rate for dry at the beginning and an almost continu-
ous higher dominance rate for bitter throughout this sip. In the last
8 of 13 Journal of
Sensory Studies
sip, wine DV had again a higher dominance rate for acid at the begin-
ning and, for a brief period at the middle, for vegetal. The wine CB had
a higher dominance rate of alcohol in the beginning but for a very
short period. Bitter was higher in dominance until the middle of this
sip and dry showed the highest and most continuous dominance rate.
Regarding differences in the dominance rate of emotions, it was
observed that in the first sip of wine DV, relaxed showed a higher
dominance rate in the middle whereas wine CB had a higher domi-
nance rate for pleased. In the second sip, the wine CB had a higher
dominance rate of comforted in the beginning and middle time of eval-
uation and, for a very short period, a higher dominance rate for
pleased. In the last sip, wine CB had a higher dominance rate of
relaxed, followed for a short time by comforted, and wine DV had a
higher dominance rate of pleased in the middle of the evaluation
period.
It was observed that the number of attributes with differences in
dominance is greater in the last sip compared to the first sip, that is,
two sensory attributes in the first sip versus five attributes in the last
sip, and two emotion attributes in the first sip versus three in the
last sip.
3.4 | Differences between wines based on durations
of dominance of attributes
MANOVA test showed that there is no multivariate wine effect for
sensations or emotions. ANOVA results of Table 4 showed that acid
had a significant effect at sip level [F (2,136) = 5.94; p = .03], as it was
dominant for longer within the first sip. ANOVA per wine (Table 5)
showed significant differences between wines, that is a sip effect only
in wine CB [F (2,207) = 6.12; p = .003], and that the dominance of
acid was significantly higher in the first sip. Bitter had an effect at the
FIGURE 3 Difference curves for dominant duration of sensations and emotions for the first, second and last sip of the wines
SILVA ET AL.
wine level [F (1,68) = 6.19; p = .03], meaning that the total duration
of bitter was significantly higher for wine CB compared to wine DV
(4.9 versus 2.1 s). However, no significant interaction between wines
and sip were found for any of the sensory attributes, meaning that the
duration of sensations within each sip was the same in both wines.
Regarding emotion attributes, a wine effect was observed in ful-
filled [F (1,68) = 5.11; p = .02], meaning that the total duration of
dominance of fulfilled was significantly higher for wine DV than for
wine CB (2.3 versus 1.0 s). There was an interaction between wine
and sip in energetic [(F (2,136) = 3.31; p = .04]. ANOVA per wine
(Table 5) showed significant differences between wines, that is a sig-
nificant sip effect only in wine DV [F (2,136) = 3.70; p = .03], and that
the dominance of energetic was decreasing significantly along the sips
(first sip 5.9 s, second sip 1.9 s, and last sip 0.9 s).
Total duration of dominance of sensory and emotion attributes
per wine and per sip showed no significant differences (all p-values
>.05).
3.5 | Temporal liking
The ANOVA model for TL showed a significant wine effect
[F (1,204) = 4.80; p = .03], a significant sip effect [F (2,204) = 4.86;
p = .009], and a significant session effect [F (1,204) = 10.39;
p = .002]. This means that on average: the wine DV was globally more
liked than the wine CB, liking increased with the number of sips and
liking scores were rated higher in the emotion session compared to
the sensations session. The model did not show significant interac-
tions between the factors, which means that the session and sip
effects on liking was the same for both wines. In Figure 4, the mean
liking scores per wine, sip, and session are graphically presented. Pair-
wise comparisons between sips per session for each wine, showed
SILVA ET AL. Journal of 9 of 13
Sensory Studies
TABLE 4 ANOVA results for the total duration of dominance per attribute for wines and sips. Mean values and standard errors (in seconds)

Attributes F-wines CB DV F-sip First sip Second sip Last sip F-wines × sip
Sensory Acid 0.39 4.1  1 4.8  1 5.94 7.1 a,b
2 3.4  0.5
a
2.8  0.4
b
0.23
Alcohol 0.28 5.7  1 6.6  1 1.65 4.2  1 7.5  1 6.7  2 0.35
Apple/pear 0.65 1.6  0.5 2.2  0.5 1.88 2.8  1 2.0  1 1.0  0.5 2.04
Bitter 6.19 4.9a  1 2.1a  0.4 0.50 2.9  1 4.3  1 3.4  1 0.70
Citrus 0.03 2.9  1 2.7  1 0.27 3.2  1 3.0  1 2.3  1 1.47
Dry 0.26 4.9  1 4.3  1 0.51 5.0  1 5.0  1 3.7  1 0.34
Mineral 1.44 1.6  0.5 3.4  1 1.01 3.8  2 2.6  1 1.2  0.4 0.70
Sweet 0.13 3.9  1 4.3  1 0.01 4.1  1 4.2  1 4.0  2 2.51
Vegetal 1.39 1.5  0.4 2.3  0.5 0.96 2.1  1 2.3  1 1.3  0.3 0.63
Woody 0.13 2.2  1 1.8  1 0.93 1.8  1 3.0  1 1.3  0.4 0.60
All sensations 1.09 33.3  3 34.5  2 1.39 36.9  3 37.3  3 27.6  3 1.04
Emotions Amused 0.39 1.4  0.4 1.8  0.4 1.08 1.7  0.5 2.0  0.6 1.0  0.3 0.70
Comforted 0.00 5.7  1 5.8  1 0.81 5.7  0.9 6.8  1.2 4.7  1.2 0.70
Disappointed 0.02 1.0  0.3 1.1  0.3 0.41 1.3  0.4 1.0  0.4 0.9  0.4 0.66
Energetic 3.50 1.2  0.3 2.9  1 2.60 3.4  1.2 1.9  0.5 1.0  0.3 3.32
Free 0.17 2.3  0.4 2.7  1 0.39 1.9  0.6 2.4  0.6 3.0  1.2 1.37
Fulfilled 5.11 1a  0.2 2.3a  1 1.61 0.9  0.3 2.1  0.6 2.0  0.5 0.42
Happy 0.06 2.1  1 2.0  0.4 0.77 1.8  0.5 2.6  0.6 1.7  0.4 0.13
Pleased 0.11 7.0  1 6.6  1 0.93 7.8  1.2 7.1  1.1 5.5  1.3 0.73
Relaxed 0.52 5.7  1 6.7  1 0.47 6.5  1.7 6.9  1.3 5.2  0.8 0.01
Sad 0.90 0.7  0.3 0.3  0.2 0.18 0.66  0.4 0.6  0.3 0.4  0.3 0.98
All emotions 1.07 28.3  2 32.2  2 0.89 31.9  2.4 33.3  2.3 25.5  2.8 0.93

Significant F-values are highlighted in bold (p ≤ .05). Means with the same uppercase letters are significantly different (p ≤ .05).

TABLE 5 ANOVA results for the duration of dominance of significant attributes for each wine over the different sips. Mean values and standard
errors (in seconds)
DV CB
Wine
Attributes F-sip First sip Second sip Last sip F-sip First sip Second sip Last sip
Acid 2.56 7.0a  2 4.2  0.9 3.2a  0.6 6.12 7.2a,b  2 2.6a  0.9 2.5b  0.9
Energetic 3.70 5.9 a,b
2 1.9  0.7
a
0.9  0.3
b
0.63 1.0  0.4 1.8  0.8 1.0  0.5

Significant F-values are highlighted in bold (p ≤ .05). Means with the same uppercase letters are significantly different (p ≤ .05).

significant differences which are marked in Figure 4. From the graph, was not significant in both sessions (p > .05), however in the emotion
it can be observed that the wine effect was larger in the emotion ses- session there was a marginally significant trend (p ≤ .1).
sion compared to the sensory session. The difference between wines

Temporal liking 4 | DI SCU SSION

7.5
Temporal dominance of sensations and emotions and temporal liking
c
7.0 d measured using a multi-sip approach showed that two similar tasting
7.0 6.9
Liking - 9 point scale

a wines were equally liked along the drinking process but each demon-
6.7 6.7 c
b 6.6 strated small differences in sensory and emotion profiles. New sensa-
6.5 6.5 6.5
d
6.5 6.4 6.4 tions become dominant while drinking, whereas the same emotions
6.3
a were dominant in all stages of consumption. These findings are dis-
6.1

6.0 cussed in more detail below.

Besides vegetal, that was dominant at the end of the tasting
period for wine DV, none of the other aromatic descriptors, such as
5.5
F S L F S L F S L F S L apple/pear, citrus, mineral, and woody, were dominant at any time
CB_Sensations DV_Sensations CB_Emotions DV_Emotions during consumption. Dominant sensations were the basic taste
descriptors, acid, sweet, bitter, and sensations characteristic of wine
FIGURE 4 Representation of the mean liking scores of the wines per
sip (F - first, S - second, L - last) and per session. Values with the same in general, such as alcohol and dry. This is not surprising because the
uppercase letters are significantly different (p ≤ .05) consumers in this study were not trained in sensory descriptive
10 of 13 Journal of
Sensory Studies
analysis and therefore rely on common sensory words to describe
their sensations (Hopfer & Heymann, 2014; Mueller, Lockshin, Salt-
man, & Blanford, 2010). However, these descriptors are those that
can differentiate between wines and that allow us to understand con-
sumers´ perception and evaluation. From a chemical analysis, the wine
CB showed a higher concentration of terpenes than did DV, but it is
unlikely that this is related to the perceived bitterness. Terpenes are
fruit-derived compounds affecting wine aroma and quality signifi-
cantly (Sokolowsky & Fischer, 2012) and might be oxidized during oak
aging altering the type of aroma they confer (Marais, 1983). Bitterness
is one of the major modalities to characterize wine taste and is elicited
primarily by phenolic compounds and ethanol (Noble, 1994).
Untrained consumers might easily confuse astringency with bitterness
and both attributes are conferred by phenolic compounds that are
extracted during wood aging. For the same reason, it was also
expected that woody sensation would be more dominant in the wine
CB, as shown by Nunes et al. (2017), however woody was never a
dominant sensation. It could also have happened that the aromatic
sensations might be perceived by consumers, but are not the most
dominant. An interesting method to complement the TDS is the new
method of Temporal Check-all-that-apply, as several attributes can be
selected at the same time and relevant attributes for describing sam-
ples might have low dominance rates which did not reach significance
(Ares et al., 2015).
Wines with different flavor characteristics influenced consumers´
on liking and elicited emotions when measured statically (Danner
et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2016; Niimi et al., 2017). In this study, per-
formed using TDE, three dominant emotions characterized the con-
sumption of both wines: relaxed, pleased, and comforted, confirming
the similarity, in qualitative evaluation, between the wines.
Relaxed and pleased are associated with wine consumption in gen-
eral (Charters & Pettigrew, 2008), and although differences in domi-
nance of these emotions were perceived, its meaning was difficult to
translate to practice as relaxed was dominant in the beginning of the
wine DV and more pleased at the end of consumption, and the other
way around for the wine CB. Of relevance to distinguish the wines, is
that during the middle and final stages of consumption, comforted was
more dominant in wine CB than with wine DV (Figure 3). According to
wine experts (enologists and wine makers with whom the results were
discussed), the comforted feelings being more dominant in wine CB
might be translating some particular differences between the wines
due to the maturation process in oak barrels which consumers could
not translate based on the sensory attributes but expressed that dif-
ferences in the dominance of emotions. Oak aging softens wines and
gives it a more rounded mouthfeel and those aromas that it does con-
fer are often low notes, being consistent with these observations.
Sensory profiles evolved faster than emotion profiles, in a sense
that new sensations became dominant at different stages of wine con-
sumption. This is likely to be related to the flavor development over
time, which in beverages like wine is recognized to vary as a function
of time, usually getting better over the course of the sensory experi-
ence (Lawless & Heymann, 2010) and highlights the relevance of using
a multi-sip approach. At the end of the drinking experience, more dif-
ferences of dominance of sensations were perceived. At the same
time as different sensations became dominant with each additional sip
SILVA ET AL.
of wine, liking increased. This is hedonic escalation and is likely to
occur in palatable food or beverages with complex combinations of
flavors (Crolic & Janiszewski, 2016). As hedonic escalation occurred
with the number of sips, namely: liking increased and more differences
in dominance were observed, our findings suggest the importance of
using a multi-sip approach to characterize and differentiate between
similar wines. To a certain extent, this follows the assumption that
first impressions based on a single evaluation, such as single sip, can
be poor predictors of preference and choice (Köster, Couronne, Léon,
Lévy, & Marcelino, 2003). However, as the objective of this study was
not to compare static and dynamic responses, the authors suggest
that further research is necessary for validation. Conversely, emotion
profile of both wines was more uniform over time, in a sense that the
same three emotions were dominant in all stages of consumption. This
might be different for other wines but no other studies were yet pub-
lished, so a comparison is not possible. However in chocolates, TDE
showed that it is possible that new emotions evolved at the middle
stage of consumption, such as calm, aggressive, and energetic (Jager
et al., 2014).
Several factors should be considered to understand the differ-
ences in the development of the dynamic sensory versus dynamic
emotion profiles: the high similarity between wines, differences in the
perception process of sensory attributes versus emotion responses,
the influence of contextual factors on the evaluations and the specific
list of emotion terms used.
Regarding the wines, our results suggest that in the absence of a
large difference in flavor in equally liked wines, the same emotions
caught the most attention of consumers for the two wines, and similar
emotion profiles evolved in qualitative terms. Additionally, in sensory
evaluation consumers are focused on the product tasting through a
rational thinking and a conscious monitored process. Conversely,
emotion responses are intrinsic to the person, more subjective, and
elicited without much reflection. So more an intuitive thought process
(Kahneman, 2003) and therefore more difficult to report than sensory
evaluation (Thomson, 2016). The atmosphere of the place of wine
consumption has a great effect on emotions evoked (Edwards,
Hartwell, & Giboreau, 2016; Schrieks et al., 2014). It could be that the
similarity between emotion profiles of the wines that evolved while
drinking was a response of the drinking experience itself, that is,
including the emotions evoked by the context of consumption, thus
not permitting the highlighting of huge differences evoked by the
wines. Based on TL measurements, the wines were not distinguishable
but showed differences in the dominance of emotions. Previous
research performed in blind conditions in real contexts of consump-
tion or immersive contexts, showed that better liked wines evoked
more intense positive emotions, whereas equally liked wines only dif-
fer in one emotion, surprised (Danner et al., 2016; Jiang et al., 2016).
Among three equally liked fruit variants of an alcoholic aperitif
consumed during a meal in a restaurant Porcherot, Petit, Giboreau,
Gaudreau, and Cayeux (2015) using a static method for measuring
emotions did not find any significant difference in short-term emotion
responses. So, it seems that in real contexts of consumption, emotion
profiles of similar products equally liked are small. In the current study,
using temporal measurement of emotions of equally liked wines, the
whole emotion experience of drinking a glass of wine was revealed,
SILVA ET AL.
which is not achievable using static measurements. However, further
research is needed to understand the impact of the context of con-
sumption in the emotion response.
There are at least two more factors that might have affected
reported emotion responses including the psychological state of par-
ticipants at the moment of consumption (Di Muro & Murray, 2012)
and previous experiences of white wine consumption (Desmet &
Schifferstein, 2008), but none of these was evaluated.
Wines were discriminated based on liking during the emotion ses-
sion, which did not happen during the sensation session. This high-
lights the relevance of the measurement of emotions to distinguish
similar wines. Wines were better liked during the emotion session
compared to the sensation session, showing that there was an impact
of measuring liking simultaneously with different tasks. Coupling TL to
TDE was for the first time measured and coupling TL with TDS is a
very recent practice (Galmarini, Loiseau, et al., 2016; Schlich, 2015;
Thomas et al., 2016). Prescott, Lee, and Kim (2011) found that overall
liking rates decreased when consumers were asked to rate their liking
after doing an analytical task of rating the intensity of sensory attri-
butes of beverages. The measurements themselves are fundamentally
different, in that temporal dominance is qualitative and intensity rating
is quantitative. Therefore, it could be that the focus of the evaluation
during the liking measurements is different, that is, when evaluating
sensory attributes consumers were focused on the wines whereas to
report emotions they were focused on themselves. This might explain
why liking is higher when coupled with emotion measurement. The
trend-wise better discrimination between wines noted when liking
and emotion measurements were coupled, compared to when liking
and sensation measurements were coupled, is a topic that deserves to
be explored to see if it is a more general phenomenon.
4.1 | Limitations and further research
Despite individual instructions and a practice session, 14% of the par-
ticipants did not perform the task as expected. It could be that they
did not properly understand the task proposed, as some participants,
for example, alternated to take a sip with the selection of one attri-
bute during the whole test. Consumers do not like tasks that are com-
plex in nature and this showed that the protocol used is complex to
perform with consumers and that there is a need to simplify the pro-
cedure and/or a more effective practicing prior to the measurements.
We added additional complexity to the procedure as we did not
instruct on the number of sips that each consumer would drink nor
defined a specific time between each sip, as we thought this proce-
dure would be more in line with natural behavior. In other studies,
where the number of sips and time between sips was controlled, this
difficulty was not reported (Zorn et al., 2014). As also proposed by
Thomas et al. (2016), in further research using this method, the num-
ber of sips should be limited and within specific time. We think that
on one hand, this will help consumers perform the test and, on the
other hand, will facilitate the analysis of the results creating a bal-
anced data set and limiting variation. Additionally, it is not likely that
the success of consumer´s performance is related to education level,
but it could be associated with the ability and practice to use a
Journal of 11 of 13
Sensory Studies
computer or tablet. If this were the case, it could be that older con-
sumers might have more difficulties performing the test.
Of relevance is also the number of attributes to use in temporal
measurements which should be restricted to 10 (Pineau et al., 2012).
Therefore, participants are forced to choose within the attributes pre-
sented, which influences the results in a certain direction (Jager et al.,
2014). This shows how difficult and important it is to use the right
words for a specific food or beverage. Although we selected appropri-
ated attributes for the wines characterization, does not mean that
other attributes, excluded from the lists presented on this study but
also associated to wine consumption, would not contribute for a bet-
ter differentiation between the wines. For example, other emotions
wine related, such as contented, frustrated, and warm, might contribute
to better discrimination between the wines in terms of emotion pro-
file. A way to overcome this limitation, and include more terms in tem-
poral dominance measurements, could be to group terms in
dimensions. This idea could be tested in further research.
The protocol used in this study assumed that an attribute remain
dominant until another attribute is selected, which means that is not
considering “no dominant” periods during consumption, that might
occur when consumers do not perceive anything, are distracted or
hesitate in attribute selection. This limitation can be weakened with a
different protocol design and further studies could test the extent of
this limitation.
Food product development is in need of use research methods
able to accommodate dynamic changes in experiences that occur over
time (Schifferstein, 2015), and sufficiently sensitive to capture subtle
differences among products (van Zyl, 2016), therefore it would cer-
tainly be valuable to explore TDE further to confirm its validity and
reliability.
TDE is an explicit emotion measurement in which only the con-
scious part of the emotional response—the subjective feeling—is cap-
tured (Köster & Mojet, 2015). This is to a certain extent a limitation
inherent to explicit emotion measurements as only emotional associa-
tions that consumers are aware of are reported. However, explicit
methods are the most prominent used to measure food-evoked emo-
tions (Lagast, Gellynck, Schouteten, De Herdt, & De Steur, 2017) and
even if not all words represent a “true” emotion but an emotional
association (Cardello & Jaeger, 2016), they are measurable and cer-
tainly relevant for consumer research.
5 | CONC LU SION
This study aimed to explore the sensitivity of temporal dominance of
sensations and emotions and temporal liking to differentiate between
two similar tasting wines, using a multi-sip approach and a realistic con-
sumption context, a bar. It was shown that using TDS and TDE small
differences between equally liked wines were captured, showing the
sensitivity of the method to distinguish similar wines, and giving a
broader understanding of consumers´ perception of wines. The impact
of wine consumption on emotions was more uniform along consump-
tion experience whereas the impact of sensations changed in the differ-
ent stages of consumption, especially toward the end of the drinking
process. This highlights the importance of using a multi-sip approach, to
12 of 13 Journal of
Sensory Studies
differentiate between similar products, as more differences were
observed as the number of sips consumed increased. In competitive
markets, this study is relevant for the food and beverages industry
which are interested in testing subtle differences among prototypes of
products or between competitors. If the products are very different
from one another, those same differences will be picked up no matter
what the method, and therefore might not tell us so much about its
sensitivity. To create food or beverages with high emotion impact and
to have a broader understanding of the emotion perception of similar
products, TDE, combined with TDS and TL seems to be promising and
suitable for that purpose.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Sogrape Vinhos S.A. and Sense
Test for their support to perform this study, the graduate school
VLAG from Wageningen University and the Portuguese Foundation
for Science and Technology (FCT) for the PhD grant of A. P. Silva (Ref.
SFRH/BD/85152/2012). Also thanks to the owners of the wine bar
Prova and to the consumers for their enthusiastic participation. A spe-
cial thanks to the team that assisted during study performance: Ana
Amaro, Beatriz Rocha, and Dr. Hans-Peter Voss. In addition, the
authors thank Michel Visalli for the support with TimeSens manage-
ment and Arnaud Thomas for the valuable comments on this paper.
This work was supported by National Funds from FCT through project
UID/Multi/50016/2013.
ORCID
Ana P. Silva http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3262-7479
RE FE R ENC E S
Arakawa, T., Iitania, K., Wang, X., Kajiro, T., Toma, K., Yano, K., &
Mitsubayashia, K. (2015). Sniffer-camera for imaging of ethanol vapori-
zation from wine: Effect of wine glass shape. Analyst, 140(148),
2881–2886. https://doi.org/10.1039/c4an02390k
Ares, G., Bruzzone, F., Vidal, L., Cadena, R. S., Giménez, A., Pineau, B., …
Jaeger, S. R. (2014). Evaluation of a rating-based variant of
check-all-that-apply questions: Rate-all-that-apply (RATA). Food Qual-
ity and Preference, 36, 87–95.
Ares, G., Jaeger, S. R., Antúnez, L., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., Coste, B., …
Castura, J. C. (2015). Comparison of TCATA and TDS for dynamic sen-
sory characterization of food products. Food Research International, 78,
148–158.
Barrena, R., & Sanchez, M. (2009). Connecting product attributes with
emotional benefits: Analysis of a Mediterranean product across con-
sumer age segments. British Food Journal, 111(2), 120–137.
Bisogni, C. A., Falk, L. W., Madore, E., Blake, C. E., Jastran, M., Sobal, J., &
Devine, C. M. (2007). Dimensions of everyday eating and drinking epi-
sodes. Appetite, 48(2), 218–231.
Cardello, A. V., & Jaeger, S. R. (2016). Measurement of consumer product
emotions using questionnaires, in Meiselman, Herbert L. (ed), Emotion
measurement, 165–200. Woodhead Publishing.
Charters, S., & Pettigrew, S. (2008). Why do people drink wine? A
consumer-focused exploration. Journal of Food Products Marketing,
14(3), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10454440801985894
Crolic, C., & Janiszewski, C. (2016). Hedonic escalation: When food just
tastes better and better. Journal of Consumer Research, 43(3), 388–406.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw032
Danner, L., Johnson, T. E., Ristic, R., Meiselman, H. L., & Bastian, S. E.
(2017). “I like the sound of that!” Wine descriptions influence
SILVA ET AL.
consumers' expectations, liking, emotions and willingness to pay for
Australian white wines. Food Research International, 99, 263–274.
Danner, L., Ristic, R., Johnson, T. E., Meiselman, H. L., Hoek, A. C.,
Jeffery, D. W., & Bastian, S. E. (2016). Context and wine quality effects
on consumers' mood, emotions, liking and willingness to pay for
Australian Shiraz wines. Food Research International., 89, 254–265.
Desmet, P. M., & Schifferstein, H. N. (2008). Sources of positive and nega-
tive emotions in food experience. Appetite, 50(2), 290–301.
Di Monaco, R., Su, C., Masi, P., & Cavella, S. (2014). Temporal dominance
of sensations: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 38(2),
104–112.
Di Muro, F., & Murray, K. B. (2012). An arousal regulation explanation of
mood effects on consumer choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(3),
574–584.
Edwards, J. S., Hartwell, H. J., & Giboreau, A. (2016). Emotions studied in
context: The role of the eating environment, in Meiselman, Herbert L.
(ed), Emotion Measurement, 377–403. Woodhead Publishing.
Ferrarini, R., Carbognin, C., Casarotti, E., Nicolis, E., Nencini, A., &
Meneghini, A. (2010). The emotional response to wine consumption.
Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 720–725.
Galmarini, M., Visalli, M., & Schlich, P. (2016). Advances in representation
and analysis of mono and multi-intake temporal dominance of sensa-
tions data. Food Quality and Preference, 56, 247–255.
Galmarini, M. V., Loiseau, A. L., Visalli, M., & Schlich, P. (2016). Use of
multi-intake temporal dominance of sensations (TDS) to evaluate the
influence of cheese on wine perception. Journal of Food Science,
81(10), S2566–S2577.
Gibson, E. L. (2006). Emotional influences on food choice: Sensory, physio-
logical and psychological pathways. Physiology & Behavior, 89(1), 53–61.
Gutjar, S., de Graaf, C., Kooijman, V., de Wijk, R. A., Nys, A., ter
Horst, G. J., & Jager, G. (2015). The role of emotions in food choice
and liking. Food Research International, 76, 216–223.
Hopfer, H., & Heymann, H. (2014). Judging wine quality: Do we need
experts, consumers or trained panelists? Food Quality and Preference,
32, 221–233.
Jaeger, S. R., Hort, J., Porcherot, C., Ares, G., Pecore, S., & MacFie, H. J. H.
(2017). Future directions in sensory and consumer science: Four per-
spectives and audience voting. Food Quality and Preference Part B, 56,
301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.03.006
Jaeger, S. R., & Porcherot, C. (2017). Consumption context in consumer
research: Methodological perspectives. Current Opinion in Food Science,
15, 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2017.05.001
Jager, G. (2016). Short-term time structure of food-related emotions: Mea-
suring dynamics of responses, in Meiselman, Herbert L. (ed), Emotion
Measurement, 273–298. Woodhead Publishing.
Jager, G., Schlich, P., Tijssen, I., Yao, J., Visalli, M., De Graaf, C., &
Stieger, M. (2014). Temporal dominance of emotions: Measuring
dynamics of food-related emotions during consumption. Food Quality
and Preference, 37, 87–99.
Jiang, W., Niimi, J., Ristic, R., & Bastian, S. E. P. (2016). The effects of
immersive context and wine flavor on consumer wine flavor percep-
tion and emotions elicited. American Journal of Enology and Viticulture,
ajev-2016.
Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping
bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.
Köster, E. (2003). The psychology of food choice: Some often encountered
fallacies. Food Quality and Preference, 14(5), 359–373.
Köster, E. (2009). Diversity in the determinants of food choice: A psycho-
logical perspective. Food Quality and Preference, 20(2), 70–82.
Köster, E., Couronne, T., Léon, F., Lévy, C., & Marcelino, A. (2003). Repeat-
ability in hedonic sensory measurement: A conceptual exploration.
Food Quality and Preference, 14(2), 165–176.
Köster, E., & Mojet, J. (2015). From mood to food and from food to mood:
A psychological perspective on the measurement of food-related emo-
tions in consumer research. Food Research International, 76, 180–191.
Lagast, S., Gellynck, X., Schouteten, J. J., De Herdt, V., & De Steur, H. (2017).
Review: Consumers' emotions elicited by food: A systematic review of
explicit and implicit methods. Trends in Food Science & Technology (Part
A), 69, 172–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2017.09.006
Lawless, H. T., & Heymann, H. (2010). Sensory evaluation of food: Principles
and practices. Springer Science & Business Media, New York, USA.
SILVA ET AL.
Lepage, M., Neville, T., Rytz, A., Schlich, P., Martin, N., & Pineau, N. (2014).
Panel performance for temporal dominance of sensations. Food Quality
and Preference, 38, 24–29.
Lockshin, L., Jarvis, W., d'Hauteville, F., & Perrouty, J.-P. (2006). Using simula-
tions from discrete choice experiments to measure consumer sensitivity
to brand, region, price. and awards in wine choice. Food Quality and Prefer-
ence, 17(3–4), 166–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.03.009
Marais, J. (1983). Terpenes in the aroma of grapes and wines: A review.
South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 4(2), 49–58.
Meillon, S., Urbano, C., & Schlich, P. (2009). Contribution of the temporal
dominance of sensations (TDS) method to the sensory description of
subtle differences in partially dealcoholized red wines. Food Quality
and Preference, 20(7), 490–499.
Meillon, S., Viala, D., Medel, M., Urbano, C., Guillot, G., & Schlich, P.
(2010). Impact of partial alcohol reduction in Syrah wine on perceived
complexity and temporality of sensations and link with preference.
Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 732–740.
Meiselman, H. L. (2013). The future in sensory/consumer research: Evolv-
ing to a better science. Food Quality and Preference, 27(2), 208–214.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.03.002
Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Appraisal
theories of emotion: State of the art and future development. Emotion
Review, 5(2), 119–124.
Mora, P., & Moscarola, J. (2010). Representations of the emotions associ-
ated with a wine purchasing or consumption experience. International
Journal of Consumer Studies, 34(6), 674–683.
Mueller, S., Lockshin, L., Saltman, Y., & Blanford, J. (2010). Message on a
bottle: The relative influence of wine back label information on wine
choice. Food Quality and Preference, 21(1), 22–32.
Ng, M., Chaya, C., & Hort, J. (2013). The influence of sensory and packag-
ing cues on both liking and emotional, abstract and functional concep-
tualisations. Food Quality and Preference, 29(2), 146–156.
Niimi, J., Danner, L., Li, L., Bossan, H., & Bastian, S. E. (2017). Wine con-
sumers' subjective responses to wine mouthfeel and understanding of
wine body. Food Research International., 99, 115–122.
Noble, A. C. (1994). Bitterness in wine. Physiology & Behavior, 56(6),
1251–1255. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(94)90373-5
Nunes, P., Muxagata, S., Cosme, F., Nunes, F. M., Correia, A. C., &
Jordão, A. M. (2017). Effect of oak wood barrel capacity and utilization
time on phenolic and sensorial profile evolution of an Encruzado white
wine. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 97(14),
4847–4856. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8355
Peltier, C., Visalli, M., & Schlich, P. (2015). Canonical variate analysis of
sensory profiling data. Journal of Sensory Studies, 30(4), 316–328.
https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12160
Pineau, N., de Bouillé, A. G., Lepage, M., Lenfant, F., Schlich, P.,
Martin, N., & Rytz, A. (2012). Temporal dominance of sensations: What
is a good attribute list? Food Quality and Preference, 26(2), 159–165.
Pineau, N., Schlich, P., Cordelle, S., Mathonnière, C., Issanchou, S.,
Imbert, A., … Köster, E. (2009). Temporal dominance of sensations:
Construction of the TDS curves and comparison with time–intensity.
Food Quality and Preference, 20(6), 450–455.
Piqueras-Fiszman, B., & Jaeger, S. R. (2016). Consumer segmentation as a
means to investigate emotional associations to meals. Appetite, 105,
249–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2016.05.034
Porcherot, C., Petit, E., Giboreau, A., Gaudreau, N., & Cayeux, I. (2015). Mea-
surement of self-reported affective feelings when an aperitif is con-
sumed in an ecological setting. Food Quality and Preference, 39, 277–284.
Prescott, J., Lee, S. M., & Kim, K.-O. (2011). Analytic approaches to evaluation
modify hedonic responses. Food Quality and Preference, 22(4), 391–393.
Quartier, K., Vanrie, J., & Van Cleempoel, K. (2014). As real as it gets: What
role does lighting have on consumer's perception of atmosphere, emo-
tions and behaviour? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 39, 32–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.04.005
Robinson, E., Blissett, J., & Higgs, S. (2011). Peak and end effects on remem-
bered enjoyment of eating in low and high restrained eaters. Appetite,
57(1), 207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2011.04.022
Rodrigues, J. F., de Souza, V. R., Lima, R. R., Carneiro, J. d. D. S.,
Nunes, C. A., & Pinheiro, A. C. M. (2016). Temporal dominance of sen-
sations (TDS) panel behavior: A preliminary study with chocolate. Food
Quality and Preference, 54, 51–57.
Journal of 13 of 13
Sensory Studies
Schifferstein, H. N. (2015). Employing consumer research for creating new
and engaging food experiences in a changing world. Current Opinion in
Food Science, 3, 27–32.
Schlich, P. (2015). Temporal dominance of sensation paired with temporal
liking. Workshop presentation at the 11th Pangborn Sensory Science Sym-
posium, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Schrieks, I. C., Stafleu, A., Kallen, V. L., Grootjen, M., Witkamp, R. F., &
Hendriks, H. F. (2014). The biphasic effects of moderate alcohol consump-
tion with a meal on ambiance-induced mood and autonomic nervous sys-
tem balance: A randomized crossover trial. PLoS One, 9(1), e86199.
Sester, C., Deroy, O., Sutan, A., Galia, F., Desmarchelier, J.-F.,
Valentin, D., & Dacremont, C. (2013). “Having a drink in a bar”: An
immersive approach to explore the effects of context on drink choice.
Food Quality and Preference, 28(1), 23–31.
Silva, A. P., Jager, G., van Bommel, R., van Zyl, H., Voss, H.-P., Hogg, T., …
de Graaf, C. (2016). Functional or emotional? How Dutch and Portu-
guese conceptualise beer, wine and non-alcoholic beer consumption.
Food Quality and Preference, 49, 54–65.
Silva, A. P., Jager, G., van Zyl, H., Voss, H.-P., Pintado, M., Hogg, T., & de
Graaf, C. (2017). Cheers, Proost, Saúde: Cultural, contextual and psy-
chological factors of wine and beer consumption in Portugal and in the
Netherlands. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 57(7),
1340–1349.
Sokolowsky, M., & Fischer, U. (2012). Evaluation of bitterness in white wine
applying descriptive analysis, time-intensity analysis, and temporal domi-
nance of sensations analysis. Analytica Chimica Acta, 732, 46–52.
Sokolowsky, M., Rosenberger, A., & Fischer, U. (2015). Sensory impact of
skin contact on white wines characterized by descriptive analysis,
time–intensity analysis and temporal dominance of sensations analysis.
Food Quality and Preference, 39, 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2014.07.002
Spinelli, S., Masi, C., Zoboli, G. P., Prescott, J., & Monteleone, E. (2015). Emo-
tional responses to branded and unbranded foods. Food Quality and
Preference, 42, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.12.009
Stafford, L. D., Fernandes, M., & Agobiani, E. (2012). Effects of noise and
distraction on alcohol perception. Food Quality and Preference, 24(1),
218–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2011.10.012
Thomas, A., Chambault, M., Dreyfuss, L., Gilbert, C., Hegyi, A., Henneberg, S.,
… Schlich, P. (2015). Temporal drivers of liking in 6 European countries.
Advances in data collection and analysis. Poster presentation at the 11th
Pangborn Sensory Science Symposium, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Thomas, A., Visalli, M., Cordelle, S., & Schlich, P. (2015). Temporal drivers
of liking. Food Quality and Preference, 40, 365–375.
Thomas, A., van der Stelt, A., Prokop, J., Lawlor, J., & Schlich, P. (2016).
Alternating temporal dominance of sensations and liking scales during
the intake of a full portion of an oral nutritional supplement. Food Qual-
ity and Preference, 53, 159–167.
Thomson, D. M. (2016). Conceptual profiling, in Meiselman, Herbert L.
(ed), Emotion Measurement, 239–272. Woodhead Publishing.
van Zyl, H. (2016). Emotion in Beverages, in Meiselman, Herbert L. (ed),
Emotion Measurement, 473–499. Woodhead Publishing.
Wang, Q., & Spence, C. (2015). Assessing the effect of musical congruency
on wine tasting in a live performance setting. Perception, 6(3),
2041669515593027.
Wansink, B. (2004). Environmental factors that increase the food intake
and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annual Review of
Nutrition, 24, 455–479.
Zorn, S., Alcaire, F., Vidal, L., Giménez, A., & Ares, G. (2014). Application of
multiple-sip temporal dominance of sensations to the evaluation of
sweeteners. Food Quality and Preference, 36, 135–143. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.04.003
How to cite this article: Silva AP, Voss H-P, van Zyl H, et al.
Temporal dominance of sensations, emotions, and temporal
liking measured in a bar for two similar wines using a multi-sip
approach. J Sens Stud. 2018;e12459. https://doi.org/10.1111/
joss.12459