Sugar and Texture: Why Mouthfeel Changes Sweetness and Liking
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 29, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Sugar and texture interact in both directions. Sugar changes the physical structure of foods by affecting water, viscosity, crystallization, freezing behavior, and the way a matrix sets or breaks. Texture then changes what happens to that sugar in the mouth: how quickly a food fractures, dissolves, mixes with saliva, coats oral surfaces, and releases tastants can alter the timing and intensity of perceived sweetness. That is why two foods with the same amount of sugar can feel and taste different.
Mouthfeel is part of flavor perception. A 2025 comprehensive review describes mouthfeel as a multidimensional sensory experience involving viscosity, crunchiness, astringency, thermal sensations, oral physiology, and chemical interactions, while a 2026 review emphasizes how rheology, microstructure, lubrication, and saliva shape texture and flavor during oral processing. See the mouthfeel review and the rheology and tribology review.
This article explains the sensory question owned by this page: why mouthfeel changes sweetness and liking. It does not treat texture as a proxy for sugar intake, blood glucose, craving, or addiction. For the receptor-level reason sugar tastes sweet, see Why Does Sugar Taste Sweet? Receptors, Brain Signals, and Perception. For the broader question of why identical sugar can taste different across contexts, see Sweetness Perception: Why the Same Sugar Can Taste Different.
Quick answer: can texture change how sweet sugar tastes?
Yes. Texture can change perceived sweetness even when the chemical identity of the sugar is unchanged, because sweetness is experienced during a dynamic oral process. The food has to deform or fracture, mix with saliva, release dissolved sugar, move across oral surfaces, and stimulate taste receptors over time. Changing viscosity, firmness, particle size, breakdown behavior, lubrication, or the spatial distribution of sugar can therefore change the sweetness profile that reaches perception.
The strongest conclusion is not that one texture is always sweeter. The evidence shows a context-dependent matrix effect. In some gels, softer structures that broke into more small fragments produced greater sweetness intensity. In baked sweetpotatoes, perceived particle size modified the relationship between sugar content and sweetness. In custard, changing viscosity affected taste intensity, but researchers also found that texture–taste–aroma interactions could not always be reduced to simple physical release mechanisms. Composition matters, and so does the physical route through which composition becomes sensation.
What do “texture” and “mouthfeel” mean?
Texture is the set of mechanical, geometrical, and surface properties that a person detects through touch, especially in the mouth. It includes hardness, softness, crispness, chewiness, graininess, and thickness, as well as dynamic properties such as how a food fractures, melts, dissolves, flows, sticks, lubricates, and changes during chewing.
Mouthfeel is the oral experience created by those physical properties together with temperature, lubrication, astringency, carbonation, fat-related sensations, and other tactile or trigeminal signals. Modern food science increasingly describes mouthfeel through both rheology—the way materials flow and deform—and tribology—the friction and lubrication that occur between food, saliva, tongue, palate, and other oral surfaces. The 2026 review by Neiers and colleagues summarizes how viscosity, microstructure, yield behavior, and lubrication can influence aroma release and taste perception across liquid, semi-liquid, solid, and emulsion-based foods.
This distinction matters because “thick,” “creamy,” “smooth,” and “sweet” are different sensations even though they can interact. A food can become thicker without containing more sugar, sweeter without becoming smoother, or smoother without becoming more liked. Sensory perception integrates the signals; it does not make them interchangeable.
Sugar changes texture before texture changes sweetness
Sucrose is not only a sweet-tasting molecule. In food formulation it is also a structural ingredient. The classic review by Davis describes sugar properties including solubility, hygroscopicity, crystallinity, viscosity, water mobility, and interactions with proteins, lipids, and carbohydrates. These properties help explain why removing sugar from a cookie, ice cream, jam, confection, or beverage can change much more than sweetness. See the review on the functionality of sugars in foods.
Water and moisture
Sugar changes water availability and distribution within food systems. This can alter softness, chewiness, moistness, shelf behavior, and the concentration of other dissolved components. In baked products, the amount and state of water influence how starches and proteins set. In confections and frozen desserts, dissolved sugars also influence phase behavior. A recipe reformulated with less sucrose can therefore feel drier, harder, thinner, icier, or otherwise structurally different even when a high-intensity sweetener restores nominal sweetness.
Crystals, particles, and fracture
Sugar can exist as dissolved molecules, dispersed crystals, concentrated layers, or part of an amorphous matrix. Crystal size and distribution change graininess, crunch, surface roughness, dissolution, and fracture. These physical changes alter the way sweetness is delivered over time. The sensory experience of a sugar crystal on the surface of a pastry is different from the same mass of sucrose dissolved uniformly in a soft filling because the sequence of contact, dissolution, and release is different.
Viscosity and body
Dissolved sugar contributes solids and can influence viscosity and perceived body, especially in beverages, syrups, sauces, dairy products, and confections. Replacing sucrose with an intense sweetener may restore a sweet signal at a far lower mass but cannot automatically reproduce sucrose’s physical contribution to the matrix. This is one reason sugar reduction is a formulation problem as well as a sweetness problem. A review of sugar-reduction strategies notes that sugar contributes to flavor and texture and that substitution can be constrained by its multiple functional roles; it also identifies structural and multisensory strategies as possible routes to sweetness preservation. See Di Monaco and colleagues.
How mouthfeel changes sweetness: the core mechanisms
The mouth is not a passive sweetness meter. Eating continuously transforms food. Teeth fracture it; the tongue compresses and moves it; saliva hydrates and dissolves components; heat changes viscosity and melting; and the forming bolus changes its surface area and lubrication. Reviews of oral processing describe this as a dynamic conversion of food structure into sensory information. Koç and colleagues emphasize that food structure changes continuously through mechanical and biochemical breakdown plus lubrication by saliva, while Liu and colleagues review how mastication, bolus formation, and taste perception interact. See Koç et al. and Liu et al..
1. Sugar has to become available in saliva
For sucrose in a solid or semi-solid food to stimulate oral sweet receptors, it must become accessible in the aqueous environment of the mouth. The matrix therefore affects the rate and pattern of release. A structure that traps a dissolved tastant, breaks down slowly, or exposes less surface area may create a different time course from one that fractures rapidly or releases liquid readily.
This does not mean that “more release” always maps linearly onto “more sweetness.” Sensory intensity depends on concentration at receptors, time, adaptation, competing tastes, aroma, temperature, expectation, and the physical properties of the matrix. Release is one major bridge between food physics and taste perception.
2. Fracture and particle size change the delivery pattern
Solid and gelled foods do not arrive at taste receptors as intact laboratory blocks. Their breakdown pattern matters. In a controlled study of layered gels, Mosca and colleagues found that soft gels with lower fracture stress and strain broke into more small fragments during chewing and showed the highest sweetness intensity. The authors concluded that breakdown behavior during oral processing affected sweetness perception. See the 2012 LWT study.
A real-food example comes from baked sweetpotatoes. In a study of 15 genotypes, sweetness was influenced by both sugar content and perceived particle size, showing that chemical composition and mouthfeel jointly predicted the sensory result. See the Food Chemistry: X study.
3. Viscosity can change taste intensity, but there is no universal “thicker means less sweet” law
Viscosity is often discussed as if its effect on sweetness were mechanically fixed. The literature is more complicated. Changes in viscosity can alter diffusion, mixing, oral coating, swallow timing, aroma release, and expectations about the product. Results depend on the thickener, concentration, food system, tasting method, and whether physical and cognitive effects are separated.
In a custard system, Tournier and colleagues found that texture affected taste intensity, while several observed interactions could not be fully explained by measured physicochemical mechanisms. Their broader conclusion was that texture–taste–aroma interactions are product-specific and can involve both physical and cognitive processes. See the International Dairy Journal study.
Classic psychophysical work is also a warning against simplistic rules. Theunissen and Kroeze obtained conflicting results across experiments on sweeteners and perceived viscosity and concluded that definite conclusions could not be drawn from their data. See Theunissen and Kroeze. The useful principle is that viscosity is a matrix variable, not a universal sweetness dial.
4. Lubrication, smoothness, and creaminess contribute to the total sensory object
People do not experience taste in isolation from what the food is doing against the tongue and palate. Oral lubrication changes during eating as saliva mixes with food and the matrix breaks down. The perception of creaminess is especially instructive: a review by Upadhyay and colleagues describes creaminess as multimodal and identifies viscosity and lubrication as key physical determinants, alongside smoothness, thickness, mouth coating, taste, and aroma. See the creaminess review.
Because creaminess, smoothness, and sweetness can co-occur in familiar foods, the nervous system also learns statistical relationships among them. That learned history can shape expectations, but it does not mean that creaminess itself contains sweetness or that every creamy food will taste sweeter.
5. Texture also changes aroma release, and aroma can change sweetness
Flavor is multisensory. Texture can change the release and transport of volatile aroma compounds during oral processing, while certain aromas can enhance perceived sweetness through learned and crossmodal associations. A 2024 review describes how food properties, chewing, saliva, and individual differences affect retronasal aroma release. Separately, a broad review of sweetness perception identifies texture and aroma among intrinsic sensory factors that can change perceived sweetness. See the oral aroma review and the sweetness-perception review. For the dedicated aroma–sweetness mechanism, see Sugar and Smell: How Aroma Changes Perceived Sweetness.
This is one reason a texture manipulation can alter sweetness indirectly. It may change physical tastant delivery, aroma release, or both, while the brain integrates the resulting signals into one food experience.
The same amount of sugar can taste different in different structures
One of the clearest demonstrations comes from experiments that changed where sucrose was located without simply adding more of it. Mosca and colleagues built layered gels with the same overall sucrose concentration but different spatial distributions. Gels with sufficiently large concentration contrasts between layers were perceived as sweeter than homogeneous controls. In that study, the researchers could reduce total sucrose by 20% in a structured gel without lowering perceived sweetness. See the Food Quality and Preference study.
Later work extended this idea into confectionery. Kistler and colleagues used spatially structured sweet zones and reported sweetness enhancement above 30% in specific confectionery designs, with the effect depending on the arrangement and concentration gradient. See the confectionery study.
These results do not establish a consumer rule that “uneven sugar is healthier” or that every product can cut sugar by a fixed percentage. They show something more scientifically useful: sensory intensity depends on temporal and spatial stimulation, not only on total grams in the sample. Structural engineering can sometimes increase perceived sweetness per unit of sugar, but the magnitude is product-specific and must be tested in the actual food matrix.
Why soft, smooth, thick, crunchy, or grainy foods do not have fixed sweetness values
Texture words describe different physical dimensions. “Soft” may refer to low force required to deform a solid. “Smooth” often refers to low perceived roughness and favorable lubrication. “Thick” concerns flow and deformation. “Creamy” combines multiple tactile and flavor cues. “Crunchy” includes fracture mechanics and sound. “Grainy” involves detectable particles and surface irregularity. These dimensions can move independently.
Research on crossmodal correspondences does find recurring associations between particular textures and tastes. Pistolas and Wagemans reviewed and experimentally examined texture–taste relationships and noted an established conceptual association between sweetness and softer or smoother qualities, while also emphasizing that many texture–taste correspondences remain underexplored. See their 2023 i-Perception paper.
An association is not the same as a sensory law. A crisp sugar cookie may be strongly sweet. A smooth unsweetened yogurt may be sour. A thick dark cocoa drink can remain bitter. Texture can bias expectation and alter processing, but sweetness still depends on sweet-active compounds, their concentrations, other tastes and aromas, and the context in which they are delivered.
Texture and liking: why mouthfeel can change whether sweetness feels “right”
Liking is an evaluative response, not a direct measure of sweetness. A person can accurately detect that one product is sweeter and still prefer the less-sweet one. They can also like a product because its sweetness, aroma, temperature, and texture form a familiar or category-appropriate combination.
Texture matters strongly for acceptance. The 2025 mouthfeel review describes mouthfeel as important to how people perceive and accept foods and beverages. In yogurt, Mehta and colleagues reported that mouthfeel and texture were important to acceptance across dairy and plant-based products, with creaminess prominent in dairy yogurts and different dominant sensations in non-dairy products. See the yogurt texture study.
The critical psychological mechanism is congruence. People learn what a product category is supposed to feel like. Ice cream is expected to be cold, smooth, and creamy; caramel may be expected to be sticky or chewy; cookies may be expected to be crisp, tender, or soft depending on style. When texture matches the learned prototype, the sweetness may feel more appropriate. When texture is wrong—a gritty pudding, watery yogurt, waxy chocolate, or unexpectedly tough cake—the same sweetness level can be evaluated differently because the whole sensory configuration has changed.
Familiarity and learning therefore matter, but they do not justify personality typing. Preferring crunchy candy over creamy dessert does not diagnose a trait, disorder, or “type of person.” It records a preference within a learned multisensory food environment.
Does smoother food taste sweeter?
Sometimes smoothness and sweetness are associated, but “smoother = sweeter” is too simple. Smoothness can influence liking and can participate in learned texture–taste correspondences. It can also emerge from lubrication and microstructure that affect how tastants and aromas are delivered. The direction and size of the effect depend on the product.
A useful distinction is between physical effects and expectation effects. Physical effects occur when the food matrix changes dissolution, release, contact, or oral processing. Expectation effects occur when the texture signals what the food is likely to taste like based on previous experience. Both can operate at once. A smooth, creamy vanilla dessert may carry a learned expectation of sweetness, while its viscosity and fat–saliva interactions simultaneously influence flavor release.
Does thicker food taste less sweet?
Not reliably. Increased viscosity has often been associated with reduced flavor or taste intensity in particular model systems, but the effect varies and can reflect multiple mechanisms. Thickening can change mass transport, oral coating, residence time, aroma release, and the way a panelist interprets the sample. Different hydrocolloids can also produce different mouthfeel even at similar instrumental viscosity.
Current reviews therefore favor matrix-specific analysis over a universal rule. The 2026 rheology and tribology review treats viscosity, microstructure, flow, lubrication, saliva interactions, and food type as interacting determinants of flavor perception. That framework is more accurate than assuming a fixed sweetness penalty for every increase in thickness.
Does crunchiness change sweetness?
Crunchiness can alter the timing and pattern of sweetness because brittle foods fracture into particles, expose new surfaces, and create sound while being chewed. There is no single validated rule that crunchy foods are inherently sweeter or less sweet than soft foods. The effect depends on where sugar is located, how rapidly it dissolves, how much saliva enters the bolus, particle size, aroma, and learned product expectations.
For sugar-coated cereals, cookies, hard candies, toppings, and bakery products, surface sugar may create an early high-intensity sweet pulse before the interior has fully broken down. A uniformly sweet soft food may instead deliver a more continuous profile. These are plausible sensory mechanisms, and product-specific studies support the importance of temporal and spatial delivery, but a fixed “crunch multiplier” for sweetness would go beyond the evidence.
Why sugar reduction can make food feel wrong even when it still tastes sweet
When manufacturers or home cooks replace sucrose with a high-intensity sweetener, the obvious target is sweetness. The less obvious loss is mass. Sucrose is a bulk ingredient. Removing it can change viscosity, solids, moisture behavior, freezing characteristics, crystal structure, browning, and mechanical properties. The result may reach a similar sweetness intensity while feeling thinner, drier, less chewy, less creamy, or otherwise unfamiliar.
This is especially clear in reduced-sugar and sugar-free beverages. Ramsey and colleagues review sweetness onset and linger, off-taste masking, flavor delivery, and mouthfeel as separate formulation challenges and note that removing sugar can reduce viscosity and fullness. See the 2025 review of sensory barriers in sugar-free beverages.
For consumers, the practical lesson is that “not as satisfying” after sugar reduction does not automatically mean the brain is demanding more sugar. A reformulated product may literally have a different texture, flavor-release profile, aroma balance, or sweetness time course. Preference can respond to those physical changes.
Can food structure reduce sugar without reducing perceived sweetness?
In some controlled products, yes. The strongest examples involve inhomogeneous sugar distribution and engineered release. Structured gels and confections have produced higher perceived sweetness at the same overall sucrose concentration, and some experiments maintained sweetness after reducing total sucrose. Stieger’s overview describes two relevant strategies: spatially non-uniform sugar distribution and increasing serum release from gels, both intended to raise taste intensity through structure rather than simply adding more tastant. See the Procedia Food Science paper.
The evidence supports the mechanism, not a universal percentage reduction. Foods differ radically in water content, fracture, processing, storage, microbial requirements, and consumer expectations. A result in layered gel cannot be copied numerically into bread, yogurt, chocolate, soda, or home baking without testing.
Expectation, learning, and the psychology of mouthfeel
People learn multisensory regularities from repeated eating. A texture becomes associated with a category, a flavor, a sweetness level, a brand, a preparation method, or a social context. Over time, the tactile cue can begin shaping expectation before the full flavor has unfolded. Visual appearance can create a parallel learned sweetness expectation; see Color and Sweetness: How Appearance Changes Taste Expectation.
This helps explain why texture can influence liking beyond its purely mechanical function. The mouth is generating evidence about what kind of food this is, while memory supplies predictions about what should come next. When prediction and sensation fit, the food can feel coherent. When they conflict, the experience can feel surprising, disappointing, or occasionally novel and attractive.
These effects belong to perception and learning. They are not proof that a texture causes craving, addiction, or a mental-health condition. Sensory liking, habitual choice, craving, reward learning, and clinical disorders are distinct constructs and require distinct evidence.
Individual differences: why the same texture–sweetness combination does not work for everyone
People differ in saliva production and composition, chewing behavior, oral anatomy, taste sensitivity, smell function, learned food history, culture, age, and product familiarity. Oral-processing reviews repeatedly note large individual differences in chewing and sensory dynamics. A texture that creates rapid breakdown for one person may produce a different temporal experience for another.
Context also changes judgments. A texture expected in one category can seem inappropriate in another. Thick sweetness may be desirable in a milkshake and unpleasant in a beverage expected to be refreshing. Graininess may signal artisanal or whole-food character in one product and manufacturing failure in another. The brain evaluates a food against learned category models as well as immediate receptor signals.
What the evidence establishes—and what it does not
Established evidence
Food texture and mouthfeel are generated dynamically during oral processing; saliva, mastication, rheology, fracture, and lubrication contribute to the sensory experience. Food matrix and texture can influence taste and flavor perception. Sugar itself has structural functions in foods beyond sweetness. In controlled systems, changing breakdown behavior or spatial sugar distribution can change perceived sweetness without simply increasing total sucrose. Texture and mouthfeel also contribute to consumer liking and acceptance.
Supported but product-specific evidence
Softer gels can yield greater sweetness than harder gels when their breakdown behavior produces different oral stimulation. Perceived particle size can modify sweetness in real foods such as baked sweetpotatoes. Smoothness, creaminess, and softness can become associated with sweetness through multisensory experience. Engineered inhomogeneous sugar distribution can enhance sweetness in some gels and confections.
Claims that are too broad
“Thicker foods always taste less sweet,” “smooth foods are always sweeter,” “crunch suppresses sweetness,” and “a certain texture proves sugar addiction” are not supported as general laws. The direction and magnitude of texture–sweetness effects depend on the food matrix, oral processing, other sensory cues, measurement method, and the person eating the food.
Practical meaning for everyday food
If two foods contain similar amounts of sugar but taste differently sweet, check the whole sensory system before assuming the label or your taste buds are wrong. One product may dissolve faster, fracture into smaller particles, release more liquid, carry a stronger sweetness-congruent aroma, or present sugar near the surface rather than uniformly.
If a reduced-sugar product tastes acceptable but feels disappointing, the missing variable may be texture rather than sweetness intensity. Restoring body, creaminess, lubrication, moisture, or fracture behavior is a separate formulation task from replacing a sweet taste signal.
If you are comparing sweeteners or recipes, compare them in the same food matrix whenever possible. A sweetness comparison made in water does not automatically predict sweetness in yogurt, cake, chocolate, gel, cereal, or a thick beverage because each matrix changes oral processing and flavor delivery.
If you are trying to reduce sugar, gradual reduction can help preserve familiarity, while food design can sometimes make lower-sugar products more satisfying through aroma, texture, spatial distribution, and other sensory features. Those strategies are product-specific; they do not create a universal sensory hack that makes any amount of sugar taste arbitrarily sweet.
Frequently asked questions
Can the same amount of sugar taste sweeter in one food than another?
Yes. Perceived sweetness depends on more than total sugar mass. Concentration in the oral phase, spatial distribution, dissolution, food breakdown, viscosity, aroma, temperature, and other sensory cues can all alter the sweetness profile. Controlled gel studies have shown different sweetness with the same average sucrose concentration when its spatial distribution changes.
Why does texture affect taste?
Texture changes how food is processed in the mouth. Chewing, fracture, mixing with saliva, flow, lubrication, and bolus formation determine when and how tastants contact taste receptors. Texture can also modify aroma release and trigger learned expectations that influence multisensory perception.
Is mouthfeel the same as texture?
They overlap, but mouthfeel is broader. Texture includes mechanical and structural properties such as hardness, thickness, graininess, and crispness. Mouthfeel includes these plus sensations related to lubrication, coating, astringency, carbonation, temperature, and other oral tactile or trigeminal experiences.
Does thicker food taste less sweet?
Sometimes a thicker matrix reduces perceived taste intensity, but not always. The result depends on the formulation, thickener, concentration, oral processing, and other sensory cues. Research supports a matrix-specific effect rather than a universal rule.
Why can low-sugar food feel thinner or less satisfying?
Sucrose provides bulk and influences water behavior, viscosity, crystallization, and structure. A high-intensity sweetener can replace sweetness with very little mass, so the product may need separate formulation work to restore body or mouthfeel. A change in liking after sugar reduction can therefore reflect a physical change in the food rather than a simple desire for more sweetness.
Does smoothness make food sweeter?
Smoothness can contribute to sweetness expectations and may alter the integrated sensory experience, but it does not guarantee greater perceived sweetness. Sweetness–smoothness associations are context-dependent and interact with composition, aroma, viscosity, lubrication, and familiarity.
Can changing texture help reduce sugar?
It can in some products. Studies using layered gels and structured confections show that manipulating the spatial and temporal delivery of sucrose can increase perceived sweetness or maintain it after a reduction in total sucrose. The effect is specific to the tested food system and cannot be translated into one universal reduction percentage.
Does liking a certain sugary texture mean someone is addicted to sugar?
No. Texture preference and sweetness liking are ordinary sensory and learned preferences. They are not diagnostic evidence of substance addiction, food addiction, an eating disorder, or another clinical condition.
Related Articles
References
Allan, M. C., Johanningsmeier, S. D., Nakitto, M., Guambe, O., Abugu, M., Pecota, K. V., & Yencho, G. C. (2024). Baked sweetpotato textures and sweetness: An investigation into relationships between physicochemical and cooked attributes. Food Chemistry: X, 21, 101072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2023.101072
Davis, E. A. (1995). Functionality of sugars: Physicochemical interactions in foods. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 62(1 Suppl), 170S–177S. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/62.1.170S
Di Monaco, R., Miele, N. A., Cabisidan, E. K., & Cavella, S. (2018). Strategies to reduce sugars in food. Current Opinion in Food Science, 19, 92–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2018.03.008
Foster, K. D., Grigor, J. M. V., Cheong, J. N., Yoo, M. J. Y., Bronlund, J. E., & Morgenstern, M. P. (2011). The role of oral processing in dynamic sensory perception. Journal of Food Science, 76(2), R49–R61. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.02029.x
Kistler, T., Pridal, A., Bourcet, C., & Denkel, C. (2021). Modulation of sweetness perception in confectionary applications. Food Quality and Preference, 88, 104087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2020.104087
Koç, H., Vinyard, C. J., Essick, G. K., & Foegeding, E. A. (2013). Food oral processing: Conversion of food structure to textural perception. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 4, 237–266. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-030212-182637
Liu, D., Deng, Y., Sha, L., Hashem, M. A., & Gai, S. (2017). Impact of oral processing on texture attributes and taste perception. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 54(8), 2585–2593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197-017-2661-1
Mehta, A., Kumar, L., Serventi, L., Schlich, P., & Torrico, D. D. (2023). Exploring the textural dynamics of dairy and plant-based yoghurts: A comprehensive study. Food Research International, 171, 113058. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2023.113058
Mosca, A. C., van de Velde, F., Bult, J. H. F., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., & Stieger, M. A. (2010). Enhancement of sweetness intensity in gels by inhomogeneous distribution of sucrose. Food Quality and Preference, 21(7), 837–842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.04.010
Mosca, A. C., van de Velde, F., Bult, J. H. F., van Boekel, M. A. J. S., & Stieger, M. A. (2012). Effect of gel texture and sucrose spatial distribution on sweetness perception. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 46(1), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2011.10.009
Neiers, F., Alkan, D., Amiri-Rigi, A., Brandão, E., Ellouze, I., Grigoriadis, A., et al. (2026). Food formulation: Rheological and tribological determinants of oral processing and flavor perception. Food Research International, 228, 118377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2026.118377
Pereira, L. J., & van der Bilt, A. (2016). The influence of oral processing, food perception and social aspects on food consumption: A review. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 43(8), 630–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12395
Pistolas, E., & Wagemans, J. (2023). Crossmodal correspondences and interactions between texture and taste perception. i-Perception, 14(2), 20416695231163473. https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695231163473
Pu, D., Shan, Y., Wang, J., Sun, B., Xu, Y., Zhang, W., & Zhang, Y. (2024). Recent trends in aroma release and perception during food oral processing: A review. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 64(11), 3441–3457. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2132209
Ramsey, I., Liu, J., Swiegers, J. H., & Oladokun, O. (2025). From sweetness to mouthfeel: A review on overcoming sensory barriers in sugar-free beverages. International Journal of Food Science, 2025, 2345722. https://doi.org/10.1155/ijfo/2345722
Stieger, M. A. (2011). Texture-taste interactions: Enhancement of taste intensity by structural modifications of the food matrix. Procedia Food Science, 1, 521–527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.profoo.2011.09.079
Theunissen, M. J. M., & Kroeze, J. H. A. (1995). The effect of sweeteners on perceived viscosity. Chemical Senses, 20(4), 441–450. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/20.4.441
Tournier, C., Sulmont-Rossé, C., Semon, E., Vignon, A., Issanchou, S., & Guichard, E. (2009). A study on texture–taste–aroma interactions: Physico-chemical and cognitive mechanisms. International Dairy Journal, 19(8), 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idairyj.2009.01.003
Upadhyay, R., Aktar, T., & Chen, J. (2020). Perception of creaminess in foods. Journal of Texture Studies, 51(3), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/jtxs.12509
Wang, Q. J., Mielby, L. A., Junge, J. Y., Bertelsen, A. S., Kidmose, U., Spence, C., & Byrne, D. V. (2019). The role of intrinsic and extrinsic sensory factors in sweetness perception of food and beverages: A review. Foods, 8(6), 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8060211
Wolinska-Kennard, K., Schönberger, C., Fenton, A., & Sahin, A. W. (2025). Mouthfeel of food and beverages: A comprehensive review of physiology, biochemistry, and key sensory compounds. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 24(4), e70223. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.70223