This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Does anyone else taste sourness just by looking at something sour? Just me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.120.100 ( talk) 05:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
/Basic taste —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTork ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
maybe put the sense of tase on gustation and leave this page for the (complex and lengthy) subject of aesthetic taste -- Tarquin
I agree that most people are looking for gustation, but the article shortchanges gustation as well. To describe my complaint loosely, this article describes the gustatory noun "taste", but the gustatory verb "taste" ("what does it taste like, apples or oranges?") generally refers to "flavor" (which does not have sense verb), so there should be a more prominent mention of this in the first paragraph, even as a disambiguation. "You might be looking for the article on what things taste like; this is described at flavor" 69.203.73.99 ( talk) 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What are the (X) and (VII) things? Are these artifacts from something else? Or are they actually useful information? Quadell 19:55, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
The cranial nerves are numbered 1 through 12, but anatomists traditionally designate them by Roman numerals. The vagus nerve is the tenth cranial nerve to exit the brain (counting from the top down), and so is designated "X". Likewise, the facial nerve is "VII". Sayeth 19:32, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
Tarquin, I agree, there definitely needs to be a separate article for gustation.
-- Johnkarp 07:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps this article should be simply about taste (the sense), with an italic header pointing to info about aesthetics. Merge in Basic taste for good measure. Jonathan Grynspan 28 June 2005 06:02 (UTC)
If half of the tongue is blocked from sending information to the brain, people will report that a doubling of psychological perception has occurred for sweet, sour, salty, and bitter.
What does this mean? How is half of the tongue blocked from sending information to the brain?
-- 202.3.172.129 03:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Probably that the nerves on one side of the tounge are numbed with lidocaine or a similar drug. Sayeth 20:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is right. This is probably a reference to a paper by Linda Bartoshuk, but my memory is the intensity of the taste is not doubled. It is only enhanced somewhat. I removed this statement because it was inaccurate and not especially relevant. SJS1971 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Any objection if I convert this into a proper dab, splitting out the relevant content into Gustatory system, Basic taste, and Taste (aesthetics)? -- Arcadian 21:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I updated this article somewhat. There were some neuroanatomy errors, such as:
I also rephrased some sentences to avoid terminological confusions. For example, tastes aren't transduced; taste stimuli are transduced. The taste (the sweetness, for example) is experienced by the organism - it is a psychological, not physical, entity.
I will try and come back to add references and put references in the preferred format.
I'm curious: does anyone know about this statement that "color deficiency" is related to taste sensitivity? I hadn't heard that...
SJS1971 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"Some researchers still argue against the notion of primaries at all and instead favor a continuum of percepts similar to color vision."
While it is true that visible light is indeed a spectrum, it can still correctly be divided into three primary colors due to the fact that there are three types of cone cells in the human eye, with each type being more sensitive to a different part of the spectrum. Color vision is a poor choice of illustration, because both the idea of a spectrum and the idea of primary colors coexist without conflict. CobraA1 20:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Changed from "similar to", to "in sharp contrast to", which is still clumsy but at least more accurate. Then again, the hypothesis is clumsy too: I don't think there's any part of the human nervous system which doesn't have primaries, whether they are the pigments, or tastes, or pain/heat/whatever of the nerves. There can't be a receptor that triggers when it's hit by a taste that's 25% salt, 25% sweet and 50% bitter: receptors don't work like that. They bind to one type of chemical, then send one type of signal. Like sight, our overall experience is the sum of all the nerves in that area. But with taste, we also get input from the nose, to confuse things. DewiMorgan 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think without a decent reference the above sentence should just be scrapped. DrJunge 22:22, 01.06.2007 (UTC)
"For a long period, it was commonly accepted that there is a finite and small number of "basic tastes" of which all seemingly complex tastes are ultimately composed. Just as with primary colors, the "basic" quality of those sensations derives chiefly from the nature of human perception, in this case the different sorts of tastes the human tongue can identify."
I have several problems with this bit. First of all, it leaves the current scientific consensus on the matter unclear, it only states something which "was commonly accepted" once (past tense). Furthermore, if what follows is in fact supposed to reflect the current consensus (as would seem from an earlier version of the article which started the sentence with "it has been commonly accepted"), then this is incorrect, as far as I know. Complex tastes are not composed of the basic tastes, they also depend heavily on olfactory input. And even if you only look at combinations of the basic tastes, the perception of such combinations is analytic rather than synthetic, i.e. you perceive all the separate components (as in audition) rather than an intermediate (as in colour vision). Consequently, basic tastes are emphatically not like primary colours. Finally, the last bit (i.e. "the "basic" qualities of those sensations derives chiefly from the nature of human perception") is messy to say the least. It is especially unclear what is meant by the "nature of human perception". -- Rubseb ( talk) 00:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As well as this page, there is another page: http://en.wikipedia.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/wiki/Basic_taste These should be merged and IMHO classified under the conventional term "Taste" rather than "Basic Taste". Raichu2 04:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
We must be very careful not to mix up two concepts -- taste as the sense we have in our tongues and noses (in short, the psycho-physiological phenomenon) -- and taste as in preference (the psycho-social-cultural phenomenon). The article Basic Taste is about the former, but Acquired Taste is clearly about the latter. Mixing everything in the same bag could be confusing. SaintCahier 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge: This is a no-brainer. Oicumayberight 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge: obviously. These are two articles on the same subject. Rracecarr 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The basic tastes are said to be SWEET, SOUR, SALTY AND BITTER.
What is HOT? How does a Red Chili taste? - HOT. Isnt it?
is it the -ve version of SWEET?
may be we should add it to the basic tastes.
-Vijay
I'm not much of a cook or a gourmet, but I've often heard that fat serves to "bring out" or enhance certain kinds of flavours. Shouldn't the article address this phenomenon? My guess, although I'm not sure, is that various flavour molecules are somehow dissolved in the fat, and therefore spread out over a wider surface area, so that the same amount of taste-inducing substance now induces a greater, stronger taste. I've also heard something similar about sugar (even seen an experiment on TV, involving Heston Blumenthal), but I have no idea of how that actually works. -- Peter Knutsen ( talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not the most popular to use in cooking, but I'm sure it must be some sort of taste? And is there an opposite of sour, ie a taste sensation when there is an excess of OH- ions? Alex9788 ( talk) 11:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"Some researchers still argue against the notion of primaries at all and instead favor a continuum of percepts [7][8][9], similar to color vision."
This is a strange comparison to make, given that color vision definitely DOES involve primaries.
Ordinary Person ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph because it makes no sense -
"One notable occurrence is the discrepancies between different salts when discussed from the perspective of the psychological sensation of taste. While NaCl, regular table salt, has one distinctive taste, another salt - the compound NaNH4, ammonium for example - is observed to have a completely different taste. This occurs despite the similarity in which this chemical is received in the taste receptors to NaCl. Reasons for this may include the mixing of sensations with sublimating particles of the salt entering the smell receptors through retronasal passageways and having a differing reaction there, which could produce a distinctively different flavor sensation. Other than that, the full bredth of reasoning on this subject is not yet accounted for as the understanding of taste and flavor are two very different and complicated fields."
1. There is no such salt as NaNH4. It would have the ionic formula of Na+ NH4+ which is impossible.
2. There are no salts which sublime under physiological conditions found in the human mouth.
3. The paragraph is rather poorly worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeeOh ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph because it makes no sense -
"One notable occurrence is the discrepancies between different salts when discussed from the perspective of the psychological sensation of taste. While NaCl, regular table salt, has one distinctive taste, another salt - the compound NaNH4, ammonium for example - is observed to have a completely different taste. This occurs despite the similarity in which this chemical is received in the taste receptors to NaCl. Reasons for this may include the mixing of sensations with sublimating particles of the salt entering the smell receptors through retronasal passageways and having a differing reaction there, which could produce a distinctively different flavor sensation. Other than that, the full bredth of reasoning on this subject is not yet accounted for as the understanding of taste and flavor are two very different and complicated fields."
1. There is no such salt as NaNH4. It would have the ionic formula of Na+ NH4+ which is impossible.
2. There are no salts which sublime under physiological conditions found in the human mouth.
3. The paragraph is rather poorly worded.
GeeOh ( talk) 03:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please mention something about why e.g., putting salt in one's coffee, or sugar on one's spaghetti tastes bad. I bet it is the stomach or saliva glands saying "hey Holmes, what exact acid formulation do you expect me to produce to digest that?" Jidanni ( talk) 00:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This entire article seems to revolve around the human perception of taste. Is there absolutely nothing worth mentioning on Wikipedia about the sense of taste in non-human creatures, aside from the fact that mice seem to be able to taste fat? What about carnivores' ability (or lack thereof) to taste meat proteins, fats, and salts? What about birds' supposed inability to taste bitterness? What about fish? Reptiles? Invertebrates?? 75.211.78.183 ( talk) 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for some information on the tastes of ancient spices, mustard seed and cinnamon in particular, and was surprised not to find any mention of these wide spread spices here. Should we mention them somewhere in this article? And if yes, where? Mansize ( talk) 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In the section of the article labeled "aftertaste" appears this sentence: "Aftertaste is the persistence of a sensation of flavor after the stimulating substance has passed out of contact with the sensory end organs for taste.[dubious – discuss]" I'm not the one who marked it as dubious, but since discussion is requested I would say that some foods (such as wine, which was offered as an example) do indeed appear as a series of tastes but not only after the wine has been swallowed. Perhaps some chemical reactions take longer to complete than others, so that the successive sensations of blueberry, oak and chocolate (or whatever) are the result of chemical timing. RHBridges ( talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I recommend revising the sentence. Although the stimulating substance is typically swallowed before we speak of an aftertaste, the fact that one is still tasting something is caused by the lingering presence of some molecules which continue to activate the taste receptors. If literally all of the substance passed out of contact, there would be no reason for these receptors to stay activated, and thus for any taste to remain. Note that this is different from visual afterimages, which are caused by photoreceptor fatigue and therefore the opposite of the original input (green produces red afterimage). The current phrasing suggests that taste receptors, be it on the tongue or in the nose, have some sort of memory allowing them to stay activated in the absence of stimulation, which simply isn't true, as far as I know. -- Rubseb ( talk) 23:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there any dimensions of the Taste. For example , a particular quality of Sugar may be sweeter than others, is there any way to Quantify the same ?? if yes then what are the units of measurement. Ap aravind ( talk) 14:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
How can lidocaine have been identified as the source of a bitter taste, when it comes in a solution of HCl, which is acid? I thought acid is sour and bitterness is associated with alkaline? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 23:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that two editors recently (and I think independently) changed all "savoury" to "umami" and vice-versa.
My opinion is that Wikipedia articles are not scientific papers, therefore they should be accessible to most English speakers. At least until a time when "umami" will be used in common parlance with comparable frequency to "savoury", we should prefer clarity and accessibility to (let's face it) nerdy terms like "umami" and "initialism" that may be more precise (are they?) but require the vast majority of readers to interrupt their reading the article and look up these terms - or roll their eyes. 205.228.108.185 ( talk) 05:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your argument, and I don't feel too strongly about the issue, but if savouriness and umami are such different concepts (are they?), why does the former point to the latter article? My understanding is that umami is not less vague a concept than savoury. Umami is also not necessarily about "meatiness", but more about "glutamic acidity", for which I think "savouriness" would be good enough a proxy for the purpose of this section.
Please note that I'm not proposing we remove the use of "umami" completely from this section, just switch to "savoury" after introducing "umami" as the most appropriate term and perhaps explaining the difference from savoury (if any). It just seems another case of cryptocratic bullying of the reader through words that are never used outside of a niche context - or to bring back the case of "initialism", never used at all outside of Wikipedia. 205.228.108.185 ( talk) 00:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Language changes as terms are added to it and adopted. Umamai is one of those terms and as far as the science behind the taste senses, it's here to stay. It behooves the Wikipedia community to utilize clarity and accuracy when possible, for example, like with scientific names. I've used Umami in the article to advance not only the adoption of the word (which is correct) but to also facilitate the clarity of the article itself. If people are uncomfortable using adopted words to adequately describe something, they will find themselves without much of a vocabulary. - Team4Technologies ( talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I can and have read both the article and the section, quoting them in entirety is wasting everyone's time. Being succinct and specific, as I have tried to do, is really helpful in this kind of discussion. For example, you could name a single subject fact covered in
Taste#Savoriness that does not and cannot reasonably have similar or deeper coverage in
umami. You're completely failing to convince me; your arguments appear to be more about the minutiae of article content, and the context in which a certain synonym is generally preferred, not the overall article topic. Such concerns are best addressed by editing the articles concerned, rather than pedantic and unhelpful changes to the targets of redirects in opposition to
consensus. My position remains that umami is a synonym for savouriness in the context of basic tastes, and that the article
umami and the section
taste#Savoriness are about the same topic, using alternate synonyms as a title. I have provided
reliable sources supporting the assertion that these are synonyms. This use of synonyms is entirely acceptable in English Wikipedia, and in this circumstance any synonyms should redirect to the main article rather than a subsection of another article (
WP:Redirect). While I remain opposed to your changes, I do not intend to
flog a dead horse, and thus will not continue to argue this unless new arguments, preferably put succinctly, are put forward. If you wish to pursue these changes, I suggest you do this or consider the steps outlined in
WP:dispute resolution. --
MegaSloth (
talk) 08:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be an invented meaning for the word 'savory.' Savory is a word for a general idea about flavor, but not in the sense of a basic taste like sweet, salty, bitter, or sour. Merriam-Webster's definition of savory reads-
synonyms see palatable-
A food with umami may indeed be savory, and a pastry filling or a sauce may be either sweet or savory, but savory itself does not describe a specific taste. In the context of this article, umami is clearly the correct term. Ghadhean ( talk) 09:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Did this dispute get resolved? It's unclear from reading through this talk section, but I'm seeing an edit war in the making. Personally, I'd rather we use savoriness, but clearly there are people who feel relatively strongly about both sides (looking at the edit history, Fleetham and Mhalberstam). If it was resolved, what was the result? It looks like umami has been dominating the article for a while, so it would appear that it was resolved in favor of that, but I'd really like for there to be something clear, right here, so that we have something to refer to if this crops up again. ~rezecib ( talk) 04:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I am in favor of keeping umami. Not only does it refer specifically to the fifth taste, but the only place I have seen "savory" used as a euphemism is Wikipedia.
The initial argument for using the word savory instead of umami was that this non-foreign term was more accessible to the non-scientist reader and that umami was not in common use. I believe the term is in common use and that using savory as the preferred word ill informs the reader. Savory is often used to describe umami but is no substitute for the correct term.
Fleetham ( talk) 15:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
My point is: the name of this fifth basic taste is umami. That's what the people who discovered it called it. That's what scientists call it. That's how it is referred to in late, popular media. Using the word "savory" to describe this fifth basic taste is common practice, not the reverse. Fleetham ( talk) 05:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe using "savory" was common practice when the prior consensus was reached, but I believe I've provided sufficient examples to show that this is no longer the case. In today's popular media, the term used is umami.
Also, the name of this fifth basic taste is umami. "Savory" may a good word to describe this fifth basic taste but it is not its name. Fleetham ( talk) 18:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
My view is that the name of this basic taste is umami.
simple as that Fleetham ( talk) 03:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Mhalberstam ( talk) 11:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This has already been resolved in favor of umami. See Talk:Umami#Rename, this neological term is highly promotional! ~rezecib ( talk) 04:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
"Bitterness" redirects here. Should this not redirect to "resentment"? (When I typed in "bitterness", I meant bitternes as in resentment, not as in the taste). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.97.170 ( talk) 22:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
What about the taste associated with certain spoiled, rotten food. It feels to me like such food can most often not be properly classed into any of these five basic categories. 72.195.136.30 ( talk) 15:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. I was intrigued to notice the recent changes made since the version of 7 September 2010], when the article contained more information in the sections on basic tastes. While experiments in layout and simplification of article information can be useful, there can be drawbacks if useful information is lost, particularly for sections for which there is no dedicated article, such as Bitterness (taste). Sections for which there exist dedicated articles are of course less susceptible to this problem, provided that editors take the care to ensure that anything deleted from this article is covered in the main article, or incorporated if not. Useful references can also be lost with wholesale changes if care is not taken.
Regarding the use of "index" terms. In my readings over time, including a period where I tracked down and reviewed a large amount of material from a range of disciplines, I don't ever recall coming across specific terminology of "quinine index", "NaCl index", "sucrose index", or "HCL index" in the sense used here. Given how long these substance have been used as datums for relative indices, and how widely they are referred to as index substances, if the terms were to have entered the professional lexicon as used in this article, but they'd have done so by now, and not only would I have likely come across them as search terms, but they would be found in textbooks in the sense used in this article. However, that does not appear to be the case. The WHO reference for example ( Quality control methods for medicinal plant materials, Pg. 38 World Health Organization, 1998), while it does have a chapter on "Determination of Bitterness Value" in which there is a useful discussion, does not use the term "quinine index" anywhere in the entire work, although there is reference to other types of index (e.g. the foaming and swelling indexes). Similarly, I haven't found consistent reference to "sucrose index" in the sense used in this article. I find individual uses in articles where the index is defined relative to the methodology of the article and for the convenience of discussion (and "refractive index" in relation to sucrose measurement in produce), but not as used here, which therefore has the potential to be misleading. It might be better to choose different headings: such as "Bitterness index", "Saltiness index", "Sourness index", and "Sweetness index", since these are descriptively accurate, and not susceptible to the challenges of original research or misleading terminology. Wotnow ( talk) 06:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote much of the info. because I am in the process of fact checking. So please assume that the sections that include deceptive and wrong info. will be removed (or rewritten) shortly.
Also, I changed the "Quinine index" section to better reflect the source. Fleetham ( talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Does anyone else taste sourness just by looking at something sour? Just me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.120.100 ( talk) 05:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
/Basic taste —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilkTork ( talk • contribs) 11:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
maybe put the sense of tase on gustation and leave this page for the (complex and lengthy) subject of aesthetic taste -- Tarquin
I agree that most people are looking for gustation, but the article shortchanges gustation as well. To describe my complaint loosely, this article describes the gustatory noun "taste", but the gustatory verb "taste" ("what does it taste like, apples or oranges?") generally refers to "flavor" (which does not have sense verb), so there should be a more prominent mention of this in the first paragraph, even as a disambiguation. "You might be looking for the article on what things taste like; this is described at flavor" 69.203.73.99 ( talk) 21:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
What are the (X) and (VII) things? Are these artifacts from something else? Or are they actually useful information? Quadell 19:55, May 3, 2004 (UTC)
The cranial nerves are numbered 1 through 12, but anatomists traditionally designate them by Roman numerals. The vagus nerve is the tenth cranial nerve to exit the brain (counting from the top down), and so is designated "X". Likewise, the facial nerve is "VII". Sayeth 19:32, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
Tarquin, I agree, there definitely needs to be a separate article for gustation.
-- Johnkarp 07:40, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps this article should be simply about taste (the sense), with an italic header pointing to info about aesthetics. Merge in Basic taste for good measure. Jonathan Grynspan 28 June 2005 06:02 (UTC)
If half of the tongue is blocked from sending information to the brain, people will report that a doubling of psychological perception has occurred for sweet, sour, salty, and bitter.
What does this mean? How is half of the tongue blocked from sending information to the brain?
-- 202.3.172.129 03:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Probably that the nerves on one side of the tounge are numbed with lidocaine or a similar drug. Sayeth 20:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think this is right. This is probably a reference to a paper by Linda Bartoshuk, but my memory is the intensity of the taste is not doubled. It is only enhanced somewhat. I removed this statement because it was inaccurate and not especially relevant. SJS1971 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Any objection if I convert this into a proper dab, splitting out the relevant content into Gustatory system, Basic taste, and Taste (aesthetics)? -- Arcadian 21:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I updated this article somewhat. There were some neuroanatomy errors, such as:
I also rephrased some sentences to avoid terminological confusions. For example, tastes aren't transduced; taste stimuli are transduced. The taste (the sweetness, for example) is experienced by the organism - it is a psychological, not physical, entity.
I will try and come back to add references and put references in the preferred format.
I'm curious: does anyone know about this statement that "color deficiency" is related to taste sensitivity? I hadn't heard that...
SJS1971 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
"Some researchers still argue against the notion of primaries at all and instead favor a continuum of percepts similar to color vision."
While it is true that visible light is indeed a spectrum, it can still correctly be divided into three primary colors due to the fact that there are three types of cone cells in the human eye, with each type being more sensitive to a different part of the spectrum. Color vision is a poor choice of illustration, because both the idea of a spectrum and the idea of primary colors coexist without conflict. CobraA1 20:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Changed from "similar to", to "in sharp contrast to", which is still clumsy but at least more accurate. Then again, the hypothesis is clumsy too: I don't think there's any part of the human nervous system which doesn't have primaries, whether they are the pigments, or tastes, or pain/heat/whatever of the nerves. There can't be a receptor that triggers when it's hit by a taste that's 25% salt, 25% sweet and 50% bitter: receptors don't work like that. They bind to one type of chemical, then send one type of signal. Like sight, our overall experience is the sum of all the nerves in that area. But with taste, we also get input from the nose, to confuse things. DewiMorgan 16:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I think without a decent reference the above sentence should just be scrapped. DrJunge 22:22, 01.06.2007 (UTC)
"For a long period, it was commonly accepted that there is a finite and small number of "basic tastes" of which all seemingly complex tastes are ultimately composed. Just as with primary colors, the "basic" quality of those sensations derives chiefly from the nature of human perception, in this case the different sorts of tastes the human tongue can identify."
I have several problems with this bit. First of all, it leaves the current scientific consensus on the matter unclear, it only states something which "was commonly accepted" once (past tense). Furthermore, if what follows is in fact supposed to reflect the current consensus (as would seem from an earlier version of the article which started the sentence with "it has been commonly accepted"), then this is incorrect, as far as I know. Complex tastes are not composed of the basic tastes, they also depend heavily on olfactory input. And even if you only look at combinations of the basic tastes, the perception of such combinations is analytic rather than synthetic, i.e. you perceive all the separate components (as in audition) rather than an intermediate (as in colour vision). Consequently, basic tastes are emphatically not like primary colours. Finally, the last bit (i.e. "the "basic" qualities of those sensations derives chiefly from the nature of human perception") is messy to say the least. It is especially unclear what is meant by the "nature of human perception". -- Rubseb ( talk) 00:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
As well as this page, there is another page: http://en.wikipedia.org.ezproxy.auckland.ac.nz/wiki/Basic_taste These should be merged and IMHO classified under the conventional term "Taste" rather than "Basic Taste". Raichu2 04:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
We must be very careful not to mix up two concepts -- taste as the sense we have in our tongues and noses (in short, the psycho-physiological phenomenon) -- and taste as in preference (the psycho-social-cultural phenomenon). The article Basic Taste is about the former, but Acquired Taste is clearly about the latter. Mixing everything in the same bag could be confusing. SaintCahier 02:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge: This is a no-brainer. Oicumayberight 18:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Merge: obviously. These are two articles on the same subject. Rracecarr 21:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The basic tastes are said to be SWEET, SOUR, SALTY AND BITTER.
What is HOT? How does a Red Chili taste? - HOT. Isnt it?
is it the -ve version of SWEET?
may be we should add it to the basic tastes.
-Vijay
I'm not much of a cook or a gourmet, but I've often heard that fat serves to "bring out" or enhance certain kinds of flavours. Shouldn't the article address this phenomenon? My guess, although I'm not sure, is that various flavour molecules are somehow dissolved in the fat, and therefore spread out over a wider surface area, so that the same amount of taste-inducing substance now induces a greater, stronger taste. I've also heard something similar about sugar (even seen an experiment on TV, involving Heston Blumenthal), but I have no idea of how that actually works. -- Peter Knutsen ( talk) 03:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously not the most popular to use in cooking, but I'm sure it must be some sort of taste? And is there an opposite of sour, ie a taste sensation when there is an excess of OH- ions? Alex9788 ( talk) 11:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
"Some researchers still argue against the notion of primaries at all and instead favor a continuum of percepts [7][8][9], similar to color vision."
This is a strange comparison to make, given that color vision definitely DOES involve primaries.
Ordinary Person ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph because it makes no sense -
"One notable occurrence is the discrepancies between different salts when discussed from the perspective of the psychological sensation of taste. While NaCl, regular table salt, has one distinctive taste, another salt - the compound NaNH4, ammonium for example - is observed to have a completely different taste. This occurs despite the similarity in which this chemical is received in the taste receptors to NaCl. Reasons for this may include the mixing of sensations with sublimating particles of the salt entering the smell receptors through retronasal passageways and having a differing reaction there, which could produce a distinctively different flavor sensation. Other than that, the full bredth of reasoning on this subject is not yet accounted for as the understanding of taste and flavor are two very different and complicated fields."
1. There is no such salt as NaNH4. It would have the ionic formula of Na+ NH4+ which is impossible.
2. There are no salts which sublime under physiological conditions found in the human mouth.
3. The paragraph is rather poorly worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeeOh ( talk • contribs) 03:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph because it makes no sense -
"One notable occurrence is the discrepancies between different salts when discussed from the perspective of the psychological sensation of taste. While NaCl, regular table salt, has one distinctive taste, another salt - the compound NaNH4, ammonium for example - is observed to have a completely different taste. This occurs despite the similarity in which this chemical is received in the taste receptors to NaCl. Reasons for this may include the mixing of sensations with sublimating particles of the salt entering the smell receptors through retronasal passageways and having a differing reaction there, which could produce a distinctively different flavor sensation. Other than that, the full bredth of reasoning on this subject is not yet accounted for as the understanding of taste and flavor are two very different and complicated fields."
1. There is no such salt as NaNH4. It would have the ionic formula of Na+ NH4+ which is impossible.
2. There are no salts which sublime under physiological conditions found in the human mouth.
3. The paragraph is rather poorly worded.
GeeOh ( talk) 03:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen, please mention something about why e.g., putting salt in one's coffee, or sugar on one's spaghetti tastes bad. I bet it is the stomach or saliva glands saying "hey Holmes, what exact acid formulation do you expect me to produce to digest that?" Jidanni ( talk) 00:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This entire article seems to revolve around the human perception of taste. Is there absolutely nothing worth mentioning on Wikipedia about the sense of taste in non-human creatures, aside from the fact that mice seem to be able to taste fat? What about carnivores' ability (or lack thereof) to taste meat proteins, fats, and salts? What about birds' supposed inability to taste bitterness? What about fish? Reptiles? Invertebrates?? 75.211.78.183 ( talk) 00:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I was looking for some information on the tastes of ancient spices, mustard seed and cinnamon in particular, and was surprised not to find any mention of these wide spread spices here. Should we mention them somewhere in this article? And if yes, where? Mansize ( talk) 14:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In the section of the article labeled "aftertaste" appears this sentence: "Aftertaste is the persistence of a sensation of flavor after the stimulating substance has passed out of contact with the sensory end organs for taste.[dubious – discuss]" I'm not the one who marked it as dubious, but since discussion is requested I would say that some foods (such as wine, which was offered as an example) do indeed appear as a series of tastes but not only after the wine has been swallowed. Perhaps some chemical reactions take longer to complete than others, so that the successive sensations of blueberry, oak and chocolate (or whatever) are the result of chemical timing. RHBridges ( talk) 17:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I recommend revising the sentence. Although the stimulating substance is typically swallowed before we speak of an aftertaste, the fact that one is still tasting something is caused by the lingering presence of some molecules which continue to activate the taste receptors. If literally all of the substance passed out of contact, there would be no reason for these receptors to stay activated, and thus for any taste to remain. Note that this is different from visual afterimages, which are caused by photoreceptor fatigue and therefore the opposite of the original input (green produces red afterimage). The current phrasing suggests that taste receptors, be it on the tongue or in the nose, have some sort of memory allowing them to stay activated in the absence of stimulation, which simply isn't true, as far as I know. -- Rubseb ( talk) 23:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Is there any dimensions of the Taste. For example , a particular quality of Sugar may be sweeter than others, is there any way to Quantify the same ?? if yes then what are the units of measurement. Ap aravind ( talk) 14:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
How can lidocaine have been identified as the source of a bitter taste, when it comes in a solution of HCl, which is acid? I thought acid is sour and bitterness is associated with alkaline? DRosenbach ( Talk | Contribs) 23:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that two editors recently (and I think independently) changed all "savoury" to "umami" and vice-versa.
My opinion is that Wikipedia articles are not scientific papers, therefore they should be accessible to most English speakers. At least until a time when "umami" will be used in common parlance with comparable frequency to "savoury", we should prefer clarity and accessibility to (let's face it) nerdy terms like "umami" and "initialism" that may be more precise (are they?) but require the vast majority of readers to interrupt their reading the article and look up these terms - or roll their eyes. 205.228.108.185 ( talk) 05:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate your argument, and I don't feel too strongly about the issue, but if savouriness and umami are such different concepts (are they?), why does the former point to the latter article? My understanding is that umami is not less vague a concept than savoury. Umami is also not necessarily about "meatiness", but more about "glutamic acidity", for which I think "savouriness" would be good enough a proxy for the purpose of this section.
Please note that I'm not proposing we remove the use of "umami" completely from this section, just switch to "savoury" after introducing "umami" as the most appropriate term and perhaps explaining the difference from savoury (if any). It just seems another case of cryptocratic bullying of the reader through words that are never used outside of a niche context - or to bring back the case of "initialism", never used at all outside of Wikipedia. 205.228.108.185 ( talk) 00:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Language changes as terms are added to it and adopted. Umamai is one of those terms and as far as the science behind the taste senses, it's here to stay. It behooves the Wikipedia community to utilize clarity and accuracy when possible, for example, like with scientific names. I've used Umami in the article to advance not only the adoption of the word (which is correct) but to also facilitate the clarity of the article itself. If people are uncomfortable using adopted words to adequately describe something, they will find themselves without much of a vocabulary. - Team4Technologies ( talk) 19:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
I can and have read both the article and the section, quoting them in entirety is wasting everyone's time. Being succinct and specific, as I have tried to do, is really helpful in this kind of discussion. For example, you could name a single subject fact covered in
Taste#Savoriness that does not and cannot reasonably have similar or deeper coverage in
umami. You're completely failing to convince me; your arguments appear to be more about the minutiae of article content, and the context in which a certain synonym is generally preferred, not the overall article topic. Such concerns are best addressed by editing the articles concerned, rather than pedantic and unhelpful changes to the targets of redirects in opposition to
consensus. My position remains that umami is a synonym for savouriness in the context of basic tastes, and that the article
umami and the section
taste#Savoriness are about the same topic, using alternate synonyms as a title. I have provided
reliable sources supporting the assertion that these are synonyms. This use of synonyms is entirely acceptable in English Wikipedia, and in this circumstance any synonyms should redirect to the main article rather than a subsection of another article (
WP:Redirect). While I remain opposed to your changes, I do not intend to
flog a dead horse, and thus will not continue to argue this unless new arguments, preferably put succinctly, are put forward. If you wish to pursue these changes, I suggest you do this or consider the steps outlined in
WP:dispute resolution. --
MegaSloth (
talk) 08:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
This seems to be an invented meaning for the word 'savory.' Savory is a word for a general idea about flavor, but not in the sense of a basic taste like sweet, salty, bitter, or sour. Merriam-Webster's definition of savory reads-
synonyms see palatable-
A food with umami may indeed be savory, and a pastry filling or a sauce may be either sweet or savory, but savory itself does not describe a specific taste. In the context of this article, umami is clearly the correct term. Ghadhean ( talk) 09:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Did this dispute get resolved? It's unclear from reading through this talk section, but I'm seeing an edit war in the making. Personally, I'd rather we use savoriness, but clearly there are people who feel relatively strongly about both sides (looking at the edit history, Fleetham and Mhalberstam). If it was resolved, what was the result? It looks like umami has been dominating the article for a while, so it would appear that it was resolved in favor of that, but I'd really like for there to be something clear, right here, so that we have something to refer to if this crops up again. ~rezecib ( talk) 04:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I am in favor of keeping umami. Not only does it refer specifically to the fifth taste, but the only place I have seen "savory" used as a euphemism is Wikipedia.
The initial argument for using the word savory instead of umami was that this non-foreign term was more accessible to the non-scientist reader and that umami was not in common use. I believe the term is in common use and that using savory as the preferred word ill informs the reader. Savory is often used to describe umami but is no substitute for the correct term.
Fleetham ( talk) 15:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
My point is: the name of this fifth basic taste is umami. That's what the people who discovered it called it. That's what scientists call it. That's how it is referred to in late, popular media. Using the word "savory" to describe this fifth basic taste is common practice, not the reverse. Fleetham ( talk) 05:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe using "savory" was common practice when the prior consensus was reached, but I believe I've provided sufficient examples to show that this is no longer the case. In today's popular media, the term used is umami.
Also, the name of this fifth basic taste is umami. "Savory" may a good word to describe this fifth basic taste but it is not its name. Fleetham ( talk) 18:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
My view is that the name of this basic taste is umami.
simple as that Fleetham ( talk) 03:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Mhalberstam ( talk) 11:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
This has already been resolved in favor of umami. See Talk:Umami#Rename, this neological term is highly promotional! ~rezecib ( talk) 04:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
"Bitterness" redirects here. Should this not redirect to "resentment"? (When I typed in "bitterness", I meant bitternes as in resentment, not as in the taste). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.97.170 ( talk) 22:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
What about the taste associated with certain spoiled, rotten food. It feels to me like such food can most often not be properly classed into any of these five basic categories. 72.195.136.30 ( talk) 15:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi folks. I was intrigued to notice the recent changes made since the version of 7 September 2010], when the article contained more information in the sections on basic tastes. While experiments in layout and simplification of article information can be useful, there can be drawbacks if useful information is lost, particularly for sections for which there is no dedicated article, such as Bitterness (taste). Sections for which there exist dedicated articles are of course less susceptible to this problem, provided that editors take the care to ensure that anything deleted from this article is covered in the main article, or incorporated if not. Useful references can also be lost with wholesale changes if care is not taken.
Regarding the use of "index" terms. In my readings over time, including a period where I tracked down and reviewed a large amount of material from a range of disciplines, I don't ever recall coming across specific terminology of "quinine index", "NaCl index", "sucrose index", or "HCL index" in the sense used here. Given how long these substance have been used as datums for relative indices, and how widely they are referred to as index substances, if the terms were to have entered the professional lexicon as used in this article, but they'd have done so by now, and not only would I have likely come across them as search terms, but they would be found in textbooks in the sense used in this article. However, that does not appear to be the case. The WHO reference for example ( Quality control methods for medicinal plant materials, Pg. 38 World Health Organization, 1998), while it does have a chapter on "Determination of Bitterness Value" in which there is a useful discussion, does not use the term "quinine index" anywhere in the entire work, although there is reference to other types of index (e.g. the foaming and swelling indexes). Similarly, I haven't found consistent reference to "sucrose index" in the sense used in this article. I find individual uses in articles where the index is defined relative to the methodology of the article and for the convenience of discussion (and "refractive index" in relation to sucrose measurement in produce), but not as used here, which therefore has the potential to be misleading. It might be better to choose different headings: such as "Bitterness index", "Saltiness index", "Sourness index", and "Sweetness index", since these are descriptively accurate, and not susceptible to the challenges of original research or misleading terminology. Wotnow ( talk) 06:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I rewrote much of the info. because I am in the process of fact checking. So please assume that the sections that include deceptive and wrong info. will be removed (or rewritten) shortly.
Also, I changed the "Quinine index" section to better reflect the source. Fleetham ( talk) 18:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)