Sweetness Perception: Why the Same Sugar Can Taste Different
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 29, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Quick answer: why can the same sugar taste different?
The same sugar can taste more or less sweet because sweetness is a perception created by a sensory system, not a laboratory reading of sugar grams. Sucrose molecules can be identical while the experience changes with concentration, temperature, aroma, texture, viscosity, other tastes, color, expectations, recent tasting history, and the person doing the tasting. A major review of sweetness perception concludes that both properties inside the food and cues surrounding it can alter perceived sweetness; Wang and colleagues reviewed these intrinsic and extrinsic influences across food and beverage research.
That does not mean sugar content is irrelevant. Increasing sucrose concentration usually increases perceived sweetness. It means the relation is not one-to-one once sugar is embedded in a real food or drink. Two products can contain the same sugar yet deliver it to the mouth differently, pair it with different aromas and tastes, and create different expectations before the first sip or bite.
The most useful formula is: sugar concentration and release create the chemical input; taste receptors and neural pathways detect that input; the food matrix and the other senses modify the signal; learning and expectation help interpret it; and individual biology determines how strongly a given person responds. For the receptor-to-brain mechanism itself, see Why Does Sugar Taste Sweet? Receptors, Brain Signals, and Perception.
Sweetness perception is not the same thing as sugar content
Sugar content is a chemical or nutritional quantity. Sweetness is a sensory judgment. The two are related, but they are not interchangeable. A food can contain more sugar yet fail to taste proportionally sweeter, and two foods with similar sugar content can produce noticeably different sweetness. Trumbo and colleagues emphasize that measuring sweetness in foods, beverages, and diets is a distinct problem from measuring sugars because the sensory intensity depends on formulation, context, and the person evaluating it.
This distinction matters whenever people try to infer a product's sugar content by taste. Human perception is not a calibrated sugar meter. Sweetness can be strengthened by aroma or expectation, weakened by sourness or bitterness, altered by serving temperature, and changed by how quickly sugar reaches receptors. The label and the palate therefore answer different questions.
It also matters for comparisons among sugar types. Sucrose is the familiar reference point for table sugar, but brown, cane, raw, and other sugars may carry aromas, minerals, moisture, crystal-size differences, or processing residues that change the overall flavor experience even when sucrose remains the dominant sweet molecule. For the ingredient map, see Types of Sugar: White, Brown, Cane, Raw, and Other Sugars, and for sucrose itself see Sucrose: What It Is and How It Differs From Glucose and Fructose.
What does “the same sugar” actually mean?
There are several ways two foods can contain “the same sugar,” and they are not sensory equivalents. They may use the same molecule, such as sucrose. They may contain the same number of grams per serving. They may have the same sucrose concentration in a liquid. Or they may contain the same sucrose concentration but differ in aroma, acidity, texture, color, or temperature. Only the last comparison comes close to isolating perception from chemistry.
If 10 grams of sucrose is dissolved in 100 milliliters of water and another 10 grams is dispersed through a dense food matrix, the mouth does not encounter the same stimulus over time. Dissolution, diffusion, chewing, saliva, viscosity, and swallowing change how fast molecules reach taste receptors. If the serving sizes differ, equal grams also do not mean equal concentration. Good sweetness comparisons therefore control the physical stimulus before attributing a difference to psychology.
This is one reason sensory science uses standardized concentrations, controlled temperatures, repeated presentations, and psychophysical scales. Everyday experience combines chemical, physical, neural, and cognitive variables at once.
The sensory chain: from sucrose molecule to perceived sweetness
1. Sugar must be available to the taste system
Taste begins when soluble compounds contact taste receptor cells. The U.S. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders explains that taste cells are organized in taste buds and send information through gustatory nerves to the brain; NIDCD's overview of taste also stresses that what people call flavor depends on taste together with smell and other sensory inputs.
In a thin beverage, dissolved sucrose can be available quickly. In a solid or viscous food, the rate and spatial pattern of release can differ. This changes the time course of receptor stimulation even when the recipe contains the same sweetener.
2. Sweet receptors detect the chemical signal
The canonical human sweet receptor is the TAS1R2–TAS1R3 complex. Its activation initiates signaling in sweet-responsive taste cells and contributes to communication with sensory nerves. A detailed neuroscience review describes receptor activation, intracellular signaling, depolarization, and ATP release; von Molitor and colleagues summarize the sweet-taste signaling cascade. For the dedicated receptor-level explanation, see Sweet Taste Receptors: How Humans Detect Sugar and Sweeteners.
3. The brain receives more than a sugar signal
By the time a person reports “this tastes very sweet,” the experience already includes information about aroma, temperature, touch, texture, other tastes, and expectations. Perception is an integrated outcome. This is why changing one sensory channel can change a sweetness rating while leaving the sucrose molecule untouched.
Concentration matters, but perceived sweetness is not perfectly linear
Within a controlled system, more sucrose generally produces stronger sweetness. Yet psychophysical response curves are not simple rulers. Sensory intensity can compress at higher concentrations, and interactions become more complex when sweet compounds are mixed with other tastes or embedded in food matrices. The practical result is that doubling sugar does not guarantee that a person will report exactly twice the sweetness.
Relative sweetness is also not a universal constant across all people or all concentrations. In a controlled psychophysical study, Peng and colleagues found individual differences in detection and discrimination for sucrose and fructose, with evidence that sensitivity to one sugar did not simply predict sensitivity to the other. This is a useful warning against treating “sweetness sensitivity” as one fixed trait.
Temperature can change how sucrose tastes
Temperature is one of the clearest demonstrations that identical sucrose can generate different sweetness. In classic controlled experiments, Bartoshuk and colleagues found that the perceived sweetness of sucrose solutions depended on temperature as well as concentration. Lower-concentration solutions became sweeter as temperature increased, while the temperature effect became smaller at higher concentrations.
That finding does not support a universal rule that “warm is sweeter” for every food. Temperature also changes aroma release, texture, viscosity, fat structure, and the speed at which a product melts or dissolves. Ice cream, chocolate, coffee, tea, yogurt, and a simple sucrose solution are different sensory systems. The established point is narrower and stronger: temperature can modify sweetness perception, and the direction and size of the effect depend on concentration and food context.
This explains a familiar experience: a formulation evaluated cold can seem differently balanced when served warm, even if no sugar was added or removed. The changing perception may come from direct taste-temperature effects plus secondary changes in aroma and texture.
The temperature mechanism now has its own evidence map in Temperature and Sweetness: Why Hot and Cold Foods Taste Different. It separates direct gustatory effects from aroma, texture, expectation, and real-food matrix effects.
Aroma can make a food seem sweeter without adding sugar
Smell is a major component of flavor. Certain aromas are learned and experienced as congruent with sweetness, such as vanilla, caramel, fruit, or confectionery notes. When such an aroma is integrated with a sweet taste, people can rate the combined experience as sweeter than the taste signal alone. A 2023 comprehensive review by Zhang and colleagues summarizes evidence for odor-induced sweetness enhancement and the conditions under which multisensory combinations can strengthen sweetness. For the dedicated evidence on this aroma effect, see Sugar and Smell: How Aroma Changes Perceived Sweetness.
The effect is associative and context-dependent. An aroma does not become molecular sugar, and not every pleasant smell increases sweetness. Congruence, intensity, prior learning, the food matrix, and the method used to present the odor all matter. That is why vanilla may enhance sweetness in one product yet have a smaller effect in another.
This also helps explain why equal-sugar beverages can taste different after a change in flavoring. If one version carries an aroma strongly associated with ripe fruit or dessert, the integrated flavor can be judged sweeter even when sucrose concentration is held constant.
Sourness, bitterness, saltiness, and umami can change the sweetness signal
Foods rarely deliver one basic taste in isolation. Taste qualities interact. In controlled mixture experiments, Green and colleagues found systematic suppression among sweetness, sourness, saltiness, and bitterness, with sucrose sweetness often acting as a strong suppressor while also being suppressed to varying degrees by other components.
A more targeted human experiment showed that citric acid can suppress sucrose sweetness even when the two stimuli are presented in a way that argues against a simple chemical explanation. Junge, Andersen, and Kidmose reported evidence consistent with a central perceptual mechanism for citric-acid suppression of sucrose sweetness.
This is why the same amount of sugar can seem less sweet in a tart lemonade than in plain sugar water. The acid has not erased the sucrose. It has changed the sensory competition and integration. Bitter compounds can create similar balancing effects, which is especially relevant to coffee, cocoa, citrus peel, tonic-style drinks, and some plant foods. For the dedicated sweet–bitter interaction, see Sugar and Bitterness: Why Sweetness Can Change Bitter Taste.
Texture and viscosity change how sweetness is delivered
Texture is not only a mouthfeel issue. It changes the temporal and spatial delivery of tastants. A thin liquid can distribute dissolved sugar rapidly across the oral cavity. A thick gel, custard, sauce, or fat-rich matrix may release tastants and aromas differently. The Wang et al. review identifies texture and viscosity among the intrinsic factors that can alter sweetness perception.
Two products can therefore contain the same concentration of sucrose on paper while differing in the effective stimulus that reaches taste receptors moment by moment. Chewing, melting, lubrication, saliva mixing, and swallowing all contribute. When a reformulated product “loses sweetness” after a texture change, the cause can be sensory delivery rather than missing sugar.
The reverse is also possible. Food structure can be engineered to make sweetness more salient or to release it at a particular stage of eating. The important distinction is between the chemical quantity of sugar and the dynamics of its sensory availability.
Color can alter expected sweetness and sometimes perceived sweetness
People begin predicting flavor before food enters the mouth. Color is one of the strongest visual cues. Red, pink, orange, brown, pale, or transparent foods carry learned expectations that depend on product category and culture. The multisensory sweetness review by Wang and colleagues documents evidence that food color and other visual features can influence sweetness judgments.
Expectation can work in several ways. A color associated with ripe fruit may prime a sweeter prediction. A dark color may suggest caramel, chocolate, roasting, or bitterness depending on context. If the actual taste matches the prediction, perception can feel more coherent. If it violates the prediction, the mismatch itself becomes salient.
Color effects are not universal laws. “Red equals sweeter” is too crude. The same color can imply strawberry in one context, chili in another, and no meaningful sweetness cue in a third. Category knowledge and learned associations determine what the cue means.
The dedicated visual-perception node is Color and Sweetness: How Appearance Changes Taste Expectation, which separates color–taste correspondence, pre-tasting expectation, and changes in reported sweetness after tasting.
Packaging, labels, servingware, and context can shape the sweetness experience
Perception begins before ingestion. Packaging color, product name, brand, serving vessel, price, and descriptive language can create expectations about intensity and quality. The same sensory review that documents intrinsic factors also identifies extrinsic cues around the food as contributors to sweetness judgments. Wang et al. propose treating sweetness as a multisensory integration problem rather than isolating the tongue from the eating environment.
These effects are psychologically real but variable. A label cannot force a person to taste sweetness that is not supported by the stimulus. Instead, expectations can bias attention, interpretation, and the weighting of ambiguous sensory evidence. Effects are often larger when the stimulus is near a perceptual boundary than when the chemical difference is enormous.
This is also why blind tasting and branded tasting can produce different judgments. Removing the package removes a source of prediction. The tasting becomes a different perceptual task.
Recent tasting history changes the reference point
Perception is comparative. A moderately sweet drink may taste intense after something unsweetened and weak after a concentrated dessert. Short-term sensory adaptation and contrast can change the internal reference against which the next stimulus is judged. This does not require a permanent change in taste receptors.
The broader claim that long-term exposure to sweetness creates an ever-stronger “sweet tooth” is much less secure. A systematic review of human studies found heterogeneous and equivocal evidence; Appleton and colleagues reported that controlled studies often showed reduced sweet preference after higher short-term exposure and very limited longer-term effects.
An updated review reached a similar conclusion. Mela and Risso found that the balance of human evidence did not support the simple idea that exposure to sweet foods and drinks reliably drives greater generalized liking for sweetness. That makes slogans such as “your taste buds will reset in exactly two weeks” scientifically stronger than the evidence supports.
Individual biology helps explain why two people taste the same sugar differently
People differ in detection thresholds, perceived intensity, liking, and the way they integrate sensory cues. Some of this variability reflects genes; some reflects development, experience, environment, and measurement noise. There is no single “sweetness gene” that determines a person's entire response.
A genome-wide study across multiple cohorts found evidence that genetic variation contributes to sweet perception and intake, while also indicating involvement beyond the classic peripheral sweet-receptor genes. Hwang and colleagues therefore support a distributed view of individual variation rather than a one-receptor explanation.
Twin research adds another layer. In two cohorts, Armitage and colleagues found both genetic and unshared environmental influences on sweet liking and related traits. The finding is useful precisely because it resists a simple nature-versus-nurture story: biology and individual experience both matter.
Within-person differences can also be substance-specific. Peng et al. found that a person's sensitivity to sucrose did not automatically generalize to fructose. So even the phrase “this person is a strong sweet taster” can hide important detail about which stimulus, which concentration, and which task was measured.
Smell and taste disorders can change sweetness and flavor
A sudden or persistent change in how foods taste can have medical causes, especially when it accompanies altered smell, infection, medication changes, oral problems, head injury, or other symptoms. NIDCD notes that many people who believe they have a taste problem actually have an olfactory problem, because smell contributes so much to flavor.
That clinical issue is different from normal day-to-day variation in sweetness perception. This article explains ordinary sensory mechanisms; it does not diagnose taste or smell disorders. A persistent unexplained change in taste or smell is a reason to seek appropriate health evaluation rather than trying to infer the cause from sugar preference alone.
Sweetness intensity, liking, craving, and reward are different constructs
A food can taste very sweet and still be disliked. Another can taste only moderately sweet and be strongly preferred. Sweetness intensity asks how strong the sensation is. Liking asks how pleasant it is. Preference compares alternatives. Craving is a motivational state. Habit concerns learned behavior. Reward learning concerns how outcomes and cues shape future behavior. These constructs can interact, but they are not synonyms.
This distinction prevents a common mistake: treating a strong sweetness rating as proof of a “sugar addiction.” Sensory intensity is not a diagnosis, and a preference for sweet foods does not establish a substance-use disorder. The target of this article is perception: why an identical or similar sugar stimulus can be experienced differently.
Why familiar foods provide good examples
Coffee
Sugar added to coffee does more than contribute a sweet taste. It changes the balance between sweetness, bitterness, acidity, aroma, and learned expectations. A spoonful of sucrose can seem more powerful in one roast or brew than another because the background sensory system is different. This is why sweetness should be understood as part of flavor balance, not as an isolated number.
Tea
The same amount of sugar can seem different in hot versus iced tea because temperature, dilution, aroma, bitterness, and serving context all change. If ice melts, the chemistry changes too, so a fair “same sugar” comparison must separate sensory effects from actual dilution.
Yogurt and dairy desserts
Acidity can suppress sweetness while aroma and texture modify the integrated flavor. A thicker product may also release taste and aroma differently from a thin drink. Two yogurts with equal added sucrose can therefore differ in perceived sweetness if their acidity, viscosity, flavoring, or temperature differs.
Fruit-flavored drinks
Fruit-associated aromas and colors can increase expected sweetness. Acids push in the opposite direction. A formulation can therefore contain the same sucrose concentration yet taste sweeter or less sweet depending on how those cues combine.
Cane and less-refined sugars
When a sugar carries noticeable molasses, caramel, vegetal, or mineral-associated notes, people may describe the whole flavor as “richer” or “sweeter” even when the difference is partly aroma and expectation rather than a larger sweet-taste signal. The English Hub's Cane Sugar Taste: Flavor, Color, Texture, and Naturalness Expectations separates those layers in detail.
Why sweetness can change across the course of a single bite or sip
Sweetness has a time course. The first contact, peak intensity, decline, aftertaste, and lingering flavor need not be identical. Sugar dissolution and transport continue while the food is chewed or melts. Aroma release changes with temperature and oral processing. Other tastes can rise or fade at different rates.
This temporal structure matters when comparing sugar with high-intensity sweeteners, but it also matters for sucrose itself across matrices. A liquid can deliver a rapid, clean sweetness peak; a solid food may build more slowly; a cold food may change as it warms in the mouth. A single number such as “7/10 sweet” compresses a dynamic experience into one judgment.
Expectation does not mean imagination
Calling sweetness a constructed perception does not mean the experience is imaginary. Perception is the normal biological process by which a nervous system turns physical signals into experience. Light wavelengths do not contain “redness,” and sucrose crystals do not contain a conscious sensation of “sweet.” In both cases, the organism generates a percept from sensory input.
Expectations participate in that process because the brain uses prior information to interpret incoming signals. When a person sees a red drink, smells vanilla, recognizes a familiar brand, or remembers how a food usually tastes, those cues form predictions. The final percept reflects the interaction between prediction and evidence from the mouth and nose.
The strength of expectation effects varies. Clear chemical differences can dominate. Ambiguous stimuli leave more room for contextual cues. This is why controlled sensory testing strips away some information when the goal is to isolate a particular variable.
Evidence status: what is established, what is context-dependent, and what remains uncertain
Established
Sweetness depends on chemical stimulation of a gustatory system and neural processing; smell contributes strongly to flavor; sucrose intensity changes with concentration; temperature can alter sucrose sweetness under controlled conditions; other tastes can suppress or reshape sweetness; aroma, color, texture, and extrinsic cues can influence sweetness judgments; and people show substantial individual differences. These conclusions are supported by official sensory guidance, controlled psychophysics, and reviews including NIDCD, Wang et al., and Trumbo et al..
Established but highly context-dependent
Odor-induced sweetness enhancement, visual expectation effects, texture effects, and packaging effects are reproducible phenomena, yet their size and direction depend on the specific food, cue, concentration, prior learning, and experimental design. The evidence supports the mechanisms, not a universal recipe such as “add vanilla and everything will taste 20 percent sweeter.”
Limited or contested
Claims that reducing sweet foods permanently “resets” taste buds on a fixed schedule, that high sweetness exposure inevitably creates a generalized sweet tooth, or that one can infer sugar grams from subjective sweetness are not supported as general rules. The systematic review by Appleton et al. and the updated review by Mela and Risso show why exposure-to-preference claims require careful qualification.
Practical meaning: how to compare sweetness more intelligently
If you want to know whether two products are chemically sweeter because of sugar, compare equal serving volumes or weights, check the actual formulation, and control temperature. If you want to know whether they are perceptually sweeter, taste them under the same conditions. Those are different experiments.
For a more controlled home comparison, use the same cup, the same serving temperature, similar sip size, and alternating order. Avoid tasting immediately after a very sweet, sour, bitter, spicy, or strongly aromatic food. Rinse with water and give the palate time. Even then, the result describes your perception under those conditions, not a universal ranking.
For cooking and product development, the practical lesson is that sweetness can sometimes be increased perceptually without proportionally increasing sugar, for example through congruent aroma, texture design, or changes in flavor balance. But the effect must be tested in the actual product. Sensory enhancement is not a guarantee and should not be used to conceal inaccurate nutrition information.
For everyday eating, a simpler lesson is enough: trust your perception as an experience, not as an analytical instrument. If a drink tastes sweeter today, that experience is real. It does not by itself prove that the recipe contains more sugar.
Common myths about sweetness perception
“If two foods contain the same grams of sugar, they must taste equally sweet.”
No. Equal grams do not guarantee equal concentration, release, temperature, acidity, aroma, texture, or serving context. Those variables can change the sensory signal.
“Sweetness is detected only by the tongue.”
Sweet taste receptors are central to gustation, but the flavor people experience also depends heavily on smell and somatosensory information. NIDCD explicitly distinguishes taste from the broader flavor experience.
“Vanilla adds sugar-like sweetness by itself.”
Vanilla aroma can enhance perceived sweetness in some contexts through learned crossmodal association, but aroma is not sucrose and the effect is formulation-dependent. Zhang et al. review the evidence and its limitations.
“Cold always makes food less sweet.”
Temperature can change sweetness, but the effect depends on concentration and matrix. Bartoshuk et al. found a concentration-dependent temperature effect in sucrose solutions; complex foods add aroma and texture changes on top of that.
“Cutting sugar resets the taste buds on a fixed timetable.”
The evidence does not support a universal reset schedule. Short-term adaptation and contrast are real, while longer-term generalized changes in sweet preference remain inconsistent across studies. Appleton et al. and Mela and Risso provide the clearest evidence summaries.
Frequently asked questions
Why does sugar taste sweeter in some drinks than others?
Because the drink changes more than the sugar. Concentration, acidity, bitterness, aroma, temperature, viscosity, carbonation, and expectations can all change the final sweetness percept. If the drinks also differ in serving size or dilution, the chemical sugar stimulus may differ as well.
Can the same amount of sugar taste different hot and cold?
Yes. Controlled research shows temperature can alter perceived sucrose sweetness, especially at lower concentrations. In real foods and drinks, temperature also changes aroma release and texture, so several mechanisms can operate at once.
Can smell really make something taste sweeter?
Yes, for some odor-food combinations. Sweet-congruent aromas can enhance sweetness perception through multisensory integration and learned association. The size of the effect varies by aroma, product, intensity, and person.
Does color change sweetness?
Color can change expected sweetness and can influence perceived sweetness in some contexts. The effect depends on what the color means in that product category and what the person has learned from past experience.
Why does lemon reduce the sweetness of sugar?
Citric acid adds sourness and can suppress sucrose sweetness perceptually. Controlled human research by Junge and colleagues supports a central mechanism for this suppression rather than a purely chemical interaction.
Why do two people disagree about how sweet the same food is?
They can differ in sensory sensitivity, genetics, prior experience, expectations, attention, and liking. Hwang et al., Peng et al., and Armitage et al. all provide evidence for meaningful individual variation.
Does tasting less sugar make foods taste sweeter later?
It can change immediate contrast and a person's experience, but evidence for a predictable long-term generalized increase in sweet sensitivity or a permanent “reset” is limited. Human studies of sweetness exposure and later preference are heterogeneous and do not support a simple universal rule.
Can I estimate sugar content by how sweet a food tastes?
Not reliably. Perceived sweetness is influenced by too many non-sugar variables. Use the nutrition label, recipe, or analytical data for sugar quantity; use taste to describe sensory experience.
Is sweetness perception the same as a sweet tooth?
No. Sweetness perception concerns detection and perceived intensity. A “sweet tooth” usually refers to liking or preference for sweet foods. Those constructs can correlate in some people but should not be treated as identical.
The central idea
The same sugar can taste different because the brain never receives “sugar grams” as a direct conscious readout. It receives changing sensory signals from a food in context. Chemistry sets the stimulus; the mouth determines access; receptors and nerves transmit information; aroma, texture, temperature, color, and other tastes reshape the pattern; expectation and learning interpret it; and individual biology changes sensitivity.
Sweetness perception is therefore best understood as an interaction between molecule, food matrix, sensory environment, and person. That framework explains why a spoonful of sucrose can seem strong in one drink, muted in another, different when cold, richer with a congruent aroma, and more or less intense to another person—without requiring the sugar molecule itself to become a different substance.
Related Articles
Temperature and Sweetness: Why Hot and Cold Foods Taste Different — the dedicated evidence map for temperature-sensitive sweet perception.
References
Appleton, K. M., Tuorila, H., Bertenshaw, E. J., de Graaf, C., & Mela, D. J. (2018). Sweet taste exposure and the subsequent acceptance and preference for sweet taste in the diet: systematic review of the published literature. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 107(3), 405–419. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqx031
Armitage, R. M., Iatridi, V., Gaysina, D., Tuorila, H., Yeomans, M. R., Kaprio, J., & Zellers, S. (2025). Genetic and Environmental Influences on Sweet Taste Liking and Related Traits: New Insights from Twin Cohorts. Behavior Genetics, 55(5), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-025-10232-2
Bartoshuk, L. M., Rennert, K., Rodin, J., & Stevens, J. C. (1982). Effects of temperature on the perceived sweetness of sucrose. Physiology & Behavior, 28(5), 905–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(82)90212-8
Green, B. G., Lim, J., Osterhoff, F., Blacher, K., & Nachtigal, D. (2010). Taste mixture interactions: suppression, additivity, and the predominance of sweetness. Physiology & Behavior, 101(5), 731–737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2010.08.013
Hwang, L.-D., Lin, C., Gharahkhani, P., Cuellar-Partida, G., Ong, J.-S., An, J., Gordon, S. D., Zhu, G., MacGregor, S., Lawlor, D. A., Breslin, P. A. S., Wright, M. J., Martin, N. G., & Reed, D. R. (2019). New insight into human sweet taste: a genome-wide association study of the perception and intake of sweet substances. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 109(6), 1724–1737. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqz043
Junge, J. Y., Andersen, G. H., & Kidmose, U. (2023). Suppression of sweetness: evidence for central mechanism for suppression of sweetness from sucrose by citric acid. Chemical Senses, 48, bjad036. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjad036
Mela, D. J., & Risso, D. (2024). Does sweetness exposure drive ‘sweet tooth’? British Journal of Nutrition, 131(11), 1934–1944. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114524000485
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders. Taste Disorders. https://www.nidcd.nih.gov/health/taste-disorders
Peng, M., Hautus, M. J., Oey, I., & Silcock, P. (2016). Is there a generalized sweetness sensitivity for an individual? A psychophysical investigation of inter-individual differences in detectability and discriminability for sucrose and fructose. Physiology & Behavior, 165, 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.08.004
Trumbo, P. R., Appleton, K. M., de Graaf, K., Hayes, J. E., Baer, D. J., Beauchamp, G. K., Dwyer, J. T., Fernstrom, J. D., Klurfeld, D. M., Mattes, R. D., & Wise, P. M. (2021). Perspective: Measuring Sweetness in Foods, Beverages, and Diets: Toward Understanding the Role of Sweetness in Health. Advances in Nutrition, 12(2), 343–354. https://doi.org/10.1093/advances/nmaa151
von Molitor, E., Riedel, K., Krohn, M., Hafner, M., Rudolf, R., & Cesetti, T. (2021). Sweet Taste Is Complex: Signaling Cascades and Circuits Involved in Sweet Sensation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 667709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.667709
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
Zhang, D., Lao, F., Pan, X., Li, J., Yuan, L., Li, M., Cai, Y., & Wu, J. (2023). Enhancement effect of odor and multi-sensory superposition on sweetness. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 22(6), 4871–4889. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.13245