Ah, the influence of headline grabbing journalism based on manipulating research data. There are a couple of points to bear in mind on this subject; While the study is well executed and the results properly validated it is also very narrow in its focus and does not support the broad hypothesis suggested by the title of the article. There is a large body of data available relating to effects of sensory distractions on taste and flavour both in food and drink, the extrapolation of the various findings will lead you to some conclusions. What you will not find are broad hypotheses giving overarching headlines. This is due to the logistical restrictions on producing properly reviewable data. Factor in the difficulty in experimenting with inebriation within BPS guidelines and the research becomes, by its very nature, quite situation specific. This paper is a very small piece in a large puzzle that is all. Individual perception filters, and more significantly NFC levels render these kind of studies theoretical signposts. I have spent the last couple of years conducting academic research into poly-modal perception in the drinks industry and while results have been interesting we are a long way from being able to make dramatic statements such as ‘music makes drinks taste sweeter’. That kind of tabloid journalism is not at all helpful. On a side note, the coffee supposition is quite telling – it’s incorrect to suggest that coffee acts as a particular diuretic agent. While coffee itself does cause mild diuresis the fact that the majority of a cup of coffee is water renders this largely irrelevant. The amount of coffee you would have to drink for the diuretic effect to become significant is very large indeed. It’s a good example of a scientific statement being half-understood and then repeated Chinese whisper style, I hope that doesn't happen with this study. I hope you all find what you are looking for. Nick
