A review of assessment methods for measuring individual differences in oral somatosensory perception.

Wender L P Bredie, Agnès Giboreau, Anestis Dougkas, Florence Carrouel, Reisya Rizki Riantiningtyas, Camille Kwiecien

Journal: Journal of texture studies 2024;55(4):e12849

PMID: 38961563

Abstract

While taste and smell perception have been thoroughly investigated, our understanding of oral somatosensory perception remains limited. Further, assessing and measuring individual differences in oral somatosensory perception pose notable challenges. This review aimed to evaluate the existing methods to assess oral somatosensory perception by examining and comparing the strengths and limitations of each method. The review highlighted the lack of standardized assessment methods and the various procedures within each method. Tactile sensitivity can be assessed using several methods, but each method measures different tactile dimensions. Further investigations are needed to confirm its correlation with texture sensitivity. In addition, measuring a single textural attribute may not provide an overall representation of texture sensitivity. Thermal sensitivity can be evaluated using thermal-change detection or temperature discrimination tests. The chemesthetic sensitivity tests involve either localized or whole-mouth stimulation tests. The choice of an appropriate method for assessing oral somatosensory sensitivity depends on several factors, including the specific research objectives and the target population. Each method has its unique intended purpose, strengths, and limitations, so no universally superior approach exists. To overcome some of the limitations associated with certain methods, the review offers alternative or complementary approaches that could be considered. Researchers can enhance the comprehensive assessment of oral somatosensory sensitivity by carefully selecting and potentially combining methods. In addition, a standardized protocol remains necessary for each method.

© 2024 The Author(s). Journal of Texture Studies published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

Address: Section for Food Design and Consumer Behaviour, Department of Food Science, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.; Health Systemic Process (P2S) Research Unit UR4129, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, University of Lyon, Lyon, France.; Institut Lyfe (Ex. Institut Paul Bocuse) Research Center, Ecully, France.; Institut Lyfe (Ex. Institut Paul Bocuse) Research Center, Ecully, France.; Laboratoire Centre Européen Nutrition et Santé (CENS), CarMeN, Unité INSERM 1060, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Pierre-Bénite, France.; Danone Global Research & Innovation Center, Utrecht, Netherlands.; Health Systemic Process (P2S) Research Unit UR4129, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, University of Lyon, Lyon, France.; Health Systemic Process (P2S) Research Unit UR4129, University Claude Bernard Lyon 1, University of Lyon, Lyon, France.; Institut Lyfe (Ex. Institut Paul Bocuse) Research Center, Ecully, France.; Section for Food Design and Consumer Behaviour, Department of Food Science, Faculty of Science, University of Copenhagen, Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Bant logo

© Copyright 2026, Nutrition Evidence

NED wishes to thank the following organisations for their support:

We use cookies to improve your experience and analyze site traffic with Google Analytics. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more.