Received: 2 December 2021 Revised: 24 March 2022 Accepted: 19 August 2022

DOI: 10.1111/joss.12786

Journal of

SHORT COMMUNICATION Sensory Studies

Use of perceived weights for scale familiarization in a PROP

taster classification procedure

Neeta Y. Yousaf | Yintong Zheng | Jiakun Yi | Beverly J. Tepper

Department of Food Science and Center for

Sensory Sciences and Innovation, School of Abstract
Environmental and Biological Sciences,
Labeled magnitude scales are commonly used in sensory testing especially in PROP-
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New
Jersey, USA tasting studies. Frequently, subjects are asked to complete a familiarization task
before the test begins to check if they understand the scale and can use it effectively.
Correspondence
Beverly J. Tepper, Department of Food A variety of familiarization tasks have been used, but validation studies are sparse. In
Science and Center for Sensory Sciences and
the present study, subjects assessed the “heaviness” of five weights held in the hand
Innovation, School of Environmental and
Biological Sciences, Rutgers University, New and were then classified by PROP status using a standard screening protocol with
Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA.
NaCl as a reference standard. Results showed that perceived heaviness increased
Email: btepper@sebs.rutgers.edu
with increasing weight, and this was independent of PROP status. When the mean of
Funding information
the two highest weights was used as the reference standard in the PROP screening
USDA HATCH Act Funds; New Jersey
Agricultural Experiment Station, Grant/Award protocol, subjects were classified similarly. Weight estimation is effective as a general
Number: 10180
familiarization task and can also be used as an external (nontaste) standard in PROP
screening.

Practical Applications
Subjects benefit from practice using labeled magnitude scales before they are asked
to rate samples or products. The weight estimation task described here is easy for
subjects to understand and use and quick to administer. This procedure can be used
as a general familiarization task in sensory testing and as part of a PROP screening
procedure.

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N super-tasters) often differ in their perceptions of other bitter stimuli,

Sensitivity to the bitterness of 6-n-propylthrouracil (PROP) is con-
trolled, in part, by the bitter-taste gene, TAS2R38 (Kim et al., 2003).
Variation in this gene accounts for three common phenotypes: PROP
non-tasters, who perceive no bitterness or weak intensity from PROP;
medium tasters who perceive moderate bitterness; and super-tasters
who experience extreme bitterness from this compound (Bufe
et al., 2005). Individuals in the extreme groups (i.e., non-tasters and
Neeta Y. Yousaf and Yintong Zheng contributed equally and share to first authorship.
as well as sweet, astringent, pungent and fatty foods and beverages
(Dinnella et al., 2018; Donovan, Keller, & Tepper, 2016; Melis
et al., 2020; Nolden, McGeary, & Hayes, 2020; Pickering, Simun-
kova, & DiBattista, 2004; Robino et al., 2022). Although many studies
report that super-tasters dislike and avoid foods with these qualities
(Bakke & Vickers, 2011; Dinehart, Hayes, Bartoshuk, Lanier, &
Duffy, 2006; Pickering et al., 2004; Scott, Burgess, & Tepper, 2019;
Tepper, 2008; Tepper et al., 2009; Ullrich, Touger-Decker, O'Sullivan-
Maillet, & Tepper, 2004; Zhao & Tepper, 2007), other studies show
weak or no influence of PROP status on food acceptance behaviors

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Sensory Studies published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.

J Sens Stud. 2022;e12786. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joss 1 of 6

https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12786
2 of 6 Journal of
Sensory Studies
(de Wijk, Dijksterhuis, Vereijken, Prinz, & Weenen, 2007; Hayes, Sulli-
van, & Duffy, 2010; Masi, Dinnella, Monteleone, & Prescott, 2015;
Spinelli et al., 2018). Despite the lack of consensus in this literature,
PROP screening remains a popular marker for individual differences in
oral sensations with broad implications for sensory and consumer sci-
ence, nutrition and health (Tepper, Banni, Melis, Crnjar, & Tomassini
Barbarossa, 2014).
Typical screening methods include the use of single or multiple
solutions, PROP-impregnated filter papers and edible strips (Tepper
et al., 2017). The most common scales for PROP screening are the
labeled magnitude scale (LMS) (Green et al., 1996), where the top of
the scale is anchored with the phase “strongest imaginable oral sensa-
tion” and the general labeled magnitude scale (gLMS; Duffy, Peter-
son, & Bartoshuk, 2004), a modification of the LMS, where the top of
the scale is anchored with the phrase “strongest imaginable sensation
of any kind.”
A variety of strategies have been used to familiarize subjects with
these scales and to provide practice in using them correctly. Subjects
may be asked to rate the intensity of remembered sensations such as
the sourness of a lemon, the brightness of the sun, or the burning sen-
sation of whole chili pepper (Bajec & Pickering, 2008; Green &
Hayes, 2004; Porubcan & Vickers, 2005). Subjects may also be pre-
sented with actual stimuli and asked to rate the perceived heaviness
of visually identical weights (Delwiche, Buletic, & Breslin, 2001;
Keast & Roper, 2007; Pickering & Robert, 2006; Webb, Bolhuis, Cicer-
ale, Hayes, & Keast, 2015) or to judge the intensities of audible tones
(Delwiche et al., 2001; Hayes et al., 2010; Hayes, Bartoshuk, Kidd, &
Duffy, 2008).
The idiosyncratic use of scales is a well-known phenomenon in
sensory testing. To minimize these effects, weights and tones are fre-
quently used as cross-modal stimuli, that is, as an outside check on
appropriate use of the scale. Weights and/or tones have also been
used to adjust or standardize the ratings prior to data analysis
(Delwiche et al., 2001; Hayes et al., 2010; Keast & Roper, 2007;
Porubcan & Vickers, 2005). As pointed out by Barthoshuk, Duffy, Luc-
china, Prutkin, and Fast (1998) and later by Prutkin et al. (2000), “max-
imum” intensity may not be perceived in the same way by nontasters
and super-tasters given their divergent sensory experiences in every-
day life. Consequently, the two groups may use scales in fundamen-
tally different ways (Barthoshuk, Duffy, Lucchina, Prutkin, &
Fast, 1998; Prutkin et al., 2000). Using magnitude estimation scaling,
Bartoshuk, Duffy, & Miller (1994) first introduced the use of sodium
chloride (NaCl) as a reference standard in PROP screening and classifi-
cation protocols and later suggested that tones were superior to NaCl
for this purpose (Barthoshuk et al., 1998). The reliability of NaCl as a
reference standard remains a controversial topic in the field (Hayes
et al., 2008; Hayes et al., 2010; Prutkin et al., 2000). Nevertheless,
NaCl is widely deployed as a reference standard by different
researchers and laboratories across the globe (Tepper et al., 2017).
To the best of our knowledge, only Ditschun and Guinard (2002)
examined different physical stimuli as control standards in a PROP-
classification study. The stimuli included five levels of gray shades
(visual), sandpaper grit (tactile), and honey-water mixture viscosity on
the fingertips (kinesthetic). Results showed that ratings for the
YOUSAF ET AL.
physical stimuli did not co-vary with PROP ratings suggesting they
were independent of PROP bitterness. Moreover, NaCl was compara-
ble to the physical stimuli in classifying subjects into taster groups. A
limitation of the study was that the authors used the mean ratings
across all three physical stimuli in their comparisons which did not
permit examination of the individual stimuli.
The objectives of the current study were twofold to determine if
subjects could reliably judge increasing heaviness of weights pre-
sented in random order as a familiarization task and whether PROP
nontasters, medium tasters, and super-tasters rated the weights in a
similar way. We hypothesized that weight intensity perception would
not be related to PROP taster status classification. The outcomes of
this study would confirm that judging perceived weights is a suitable
familiarization task that is not influenced by PROP status.
2 | M A T E R I A L S A N D M ET H O D S
2.1 | Subject recruitment
Healthy volunteers 18–65 years of age were recruited from Rutgers
University using an email distribution list. Subjects completed a basic
health questionnaire and were excluded if they reported any taste or
smell dysfunction, chronic diseases, or use of medications that altered
taste or smell function or if they were pregnant or nursing. In our lab-
oratory, subjects are pre-screened for PROP taster status as an initial
step in qualifying for taste and food preference studies. The subjects
screened here were recruited in three waves and went on to partici-
pate in one of the ongoing studies. The protocol was reviewed and
approved by the Rutgers Institutional Review Board for the Protection
of Human Subjects. All subjects provided written consent before they
participated in the study and were compensated for their participa-
tion. All activities were completed in one 15-min session.
2.2 | Rating scale
The 100-mm LMS was used for both the weight estimation task and
PROP screening. The scale was anchored with the phrases “barely
detectable” on one end and “strongest imaginable” on the other end,
with label descriptors “weak,” “moderate,” “strong,” and “very strong”
placed at semi-log intervals along the length of the scale according to
Green et al. (1996). For the weight estimation, subjects were
instructed to judge the heaviness of the samples relative to their pre-
vious experiences with a weight held in one hand. For the PROP
screening, subjects judged each sample relative to their experiences
with other oral stimuli.
2.3 | Weight estimation procedure
The weight stimuli were five visually identical, opaque amber polypro-
pylene bottles (VWR 16186-316) filled with 225, 380, 558, 713, or
870 g of sandbox sand. The weight series was the same as that used
YOUSAF ET AL. Journal of
Sensory Studies
by Delwiche et al. (2001), except that we dropped the highest weight
sample (999 g) because pilot testing showed that the heaviest bottle
was cumbersome for subjects to handle with one hand (see below).
The subjects were not blindfolded during the study and could view
the samples. However, the bottles were capped so the subjects could
not see the contents and were labeled with a three-digit
randomized code.
Subjects were asked to extend their dominant hand, palm facing
upward, and the researcher placed the bottle on their outstretched
hand. The subject was then asked to assess the weight of the bottle
and place a mark on the LMS scale corresponding to the heaviness
(intensity) of the weight. The samples were presented to the subjects
in randomized order and there was a 1 min break in between samples.
2.4 | PROP taster screening and classification
The subjects were then screened and classified according to PROP
taster status using the paper disk method (Zhao, Kirkmeyer, &
Tepper, 2003), which has previously been tested for validity and reli-
ability (Carta et al., 2017; Melis et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2003). Sub-
jects placed a filter paper disk impregnated with 1.0 mol/L NaCl on
the tip of the tongue until it was thoroughly wet (approximately 30 s).
They rated the taste intensity of the disk using the LMS. This proce-
dure was repeated with a second paper disk impregnated with
50 mmol/L PROP (6-n-propyl-2-thiouracil, P3755, Sigma-Aldrich).
Subjects were instructed to rinse with spring water at room tempera-
ture before and in between tasting each paper disk.
According to our standard procedures, subjects were categorized
as nontasters if they rated the PROP disk <15 mm on the LMS; they
were categorized as super-tasters if they rate the PROP disk >67 on
the LMS. All others are classified as medium tasters. NaCl ratings do
not vary with PROP status in this method. Therefore, NaCl ratings are
used as a reference standard to clarify the taster status of subjects
who give borderline ratings to PROP. This strategy is based on the
rationale that nontasters give higher ratings to NaCl than to PROP,
medium tasters give equivalent ratings to both stimuli and super-
tasters give higher ratings to PROP than NaCl.
2.5 | Data collection and analysis
All data were collected electronically using RedJade software (Curion
Insights, Redwood City, CA) while subjects sat in individual testing
booths. The ballot (File S1) was presented to the subjects on a screen,
and subjects used a mouse to record their ratings. For each sample, a
new ballot was presented. Once a participant submitted their rating
for a given sample, they could not return to alter their ratings.
XLSTAT (Addinsoft, New York, NY) was used to conduct data
analysis. Normality testing was conducted using Shapiro-Wilk's test,
while homogeneity of variances was tested using Levene's test. A
two-way ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of PROP
taster status on the intensity ratings of NaCl and PROP samples
3 of 6
with PROP taster status and sample as main factors. A repeated
measures ANOVA was conducted to examine the effect of PROP
taster status on the intensity rating of each of the weights. In this
model, the between subject factor was PROP taster status, the
within-subjects factor was weight rating, and the interaction term
was weight*PROP taster status. Duncan's test was used to assess
post hoc differences. Effect size was reported based on partial eta
squared, ƞ2p.
Perceived weight data for all subjects were log-transformed and
used to calculate a power function representing changes in perceived
weight with increases in physical weight. Regression analysis was
used to assess the strength of this relationship. All other data analysis
was conducted on untransformed data.
Several methods were considered to establish the reference stan-
dard for PROP classification using the perceived weights. These
included the mean perceived weight across all the bottles (samples 1–
5), the mean of the three heaviest weights (558, 713, and 870 g), and
the mean of the two heaviest weights (713 and 870 g). Since the
mean of the two heaviest weights produced the best results, this was
selected as the reference standard. Pearson's correlation coefficients
were also calculated to assess relationships between PROP intensity
ratings and the weight standard. Finally, concordance between PROP
classifications using the NaCl standard and the weight standard was
assessed using Kendall's correlation coefficient.
3 | RE SU LT S
3.1 | Subject characteristics and PROP
classifications
Eighty-five subjects qualified for the study and completed the proto-
col. More females than males participated. The classification of sub-
jects by PROP status is shown in Figure 1. As expected, there were no
significant differences in NaCl ratings across PROP taster groups.
Mean (± SEM) NaCl ratings for each group were as follows:
nontasters = 24.7 ± 3.4, medium tasters = 30.3 ± 3.2, and super-
tasters = 36.0 ± 3.6 (p = .100, n.s.). Mean PROP ratings were higher
for super-tasters (84.7 ± 2.2) as compared to medium tasters
(41.3 ± 2.4) who in turn had higher mean ratings than nontasters
(5.7 ± 0.8; F[2,84] = 292.98, p < .0001, R2 = .877). There were 22 non-
tasters, 35 medium tasters, and 28 super-tasters identified in this
study. Subject characteristics are shown in Table 1.
3.2 | Weight estimation task
3.2.1 | All subjects
The perceived heaviness of the bottles for all subjects increased sig-
nificantly from a mean of 5.7 ± 0.6 mm on the scale for the 225 g
weight to a mean of 31.1 + 1.7 mm on the scale for the 870 g weight
(F[4,328] = 141, p < .0001, ƞ2p = 0.63). The 713 and 870 g weights
4 of 6 Journal of YOUSAF ET AL.
Sensory Studies

F I G U R E 2 Mean heaviness ratings (error bars represent ± SEM)

F I G U R E 1 Classification of subjects by PROP taster group based
on the paper disk method (Zhao et al., 2003). There were no
differences in the perception of the NaCl standard across taster
groups. Significant differences in PROP ratings were observed among
all three taster groups (p < .05) and are indicated by different
superscript letters
for sand-filled bottles of different weights as a function of PROP
taster group. Ratings of perceived heaviness increased as the sample
weight increased. Weights marked with different superscripts are
significantly different (p < .05) in mean heaviness ratings. For all three
taster groups, the perceived heaviness of the 713 and 870 g weights
were significantly higher than the perceived heaviness of the 225 g
weight. There were no differences in how the weights were rated by
taster group

TABLE 1 Subject Characteristics

Female (n = 68) Male (n = 17) All (n = 85)

Taster status
Non-taster 15 7 22
Medium-taster 27 8 35
Super-taster 26 2 28
Age (years) 25.4 ± 1.3 26.6 ± 2.8 25.6 ± 1.2

were perceived to be significantly heavier than the 225 g weight

(p < .05 by Duncan's post hoc test). The slope of the power function
for all subjects was n = 1.1 (R2 = .99).

F I G U R E 3 Subjects reclassified by PROP taster group using the

3.2.2 | PROP taster groups
As shown in Figure 2., there were no differences in the perceived
heaviness of the weights as a function of PROP status (p = .573, n.s.).
mean of the two highest weights (713 and 870 g) as the reference
standard instead of NaCl. The PROP data are same as shown in
FIGURE 2. Significant differences in PROP ratings were observed
among all three taster groups (p < .05) and are indicated by different
superscript letters

3.3 | Use of perceived weights as a reference
standard for PROP classification
The mean values for the two highest weights (713 g and 870 g) were
calculated for each taster group. Results showed that the mean values
did not differ across taster groups (25.3 ± 2.3, 30.8 ± 2.3, and
27.0 ± 2.9 for nontasters, medium-tasters and super-tasters, respec-
tively). Substituting the mean heaviness of the two highest weights
for the mean NaCl ratings in the PROP classification protocol resulted
in the same the taster groups except for one nontaster who was re-
classified as a medium taster. The groupings are shown graphically in
Figure 3.
Pearson's correlation analysis did not reveal significant correla-
tions between the mean heaviness of the two highest weights and
PROP intensity ratings (r = .031, p = .782). Concordance analysis
revealed that the correlation between PROP classifications using NaCl
versus mean heaviness of the weights was high with Kendall's correla-
tion coefficient = .98.
4 | DI SCU SSION
This study showed that subjects can reliably judge increasing heavi-
ness of weights held in the palm of the hand, suggesting that a weight
YOUSAF ET AL. Journal of
Sensory Studies
estimation task is a quick and easy procedure to familiarize subjects
with the LMS. Although cross-modal stimuli are often used in psycho-
physical testing, they are most often employed for practice using the
scales or to standardize sensory ratings before the data are analyzed.
Few studies analyzed and reported the data from the practice ratings
as (Ditschun & Guinard, 2002) did for physical stimuli, including a
visual gray scale, sandpaper grit and mixture viscosity, with the latter
two perceived by the fingertips. However, Ditschun and Guinard
(2002) presented mean values across all three physical measures
which did not allow for the separate evaluation of each stimulus type.
We showed that a weight estimation task alone can be used for this
purpose. Finally, we showed that if the mean heaviness ratings for the
two highest weights were substituted for NaCl in our standard
screening protocol, it would produce the same PROP classifications.
Notably, we observed no relationship between the PROP ratings
and the weight judgments suggesting the two variables were indepen-
dent, a finding similar to that reported by Ditschun and Guinard
(2002). However, this is not always the case, as other researchers
have found PROP ratings and weights to be correlated (Delwiche
et al., 2001). The reasons for these discrepant findings are unclear. As
pointed out by Tepper et al. (2017), a range of factors can influence
PROP ratings and PROP classification schemes including individual
differences in age, gender, smoking status, and body weight.
Undoubtedly, other unidentified sources of variation also play a role
and need to be further investigated.
The present findings provide sensory scientists with a brief and
simple task for acclimating subjects to the LMS as well as an alternate
(nontaste) reference standard for PROP classifications. These proce-
dures should be repeated with the gLMS and other scales to deter-
mine if they are equally effective with alternate scaling techniques.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study supported by USDA-HATCH funds administered through
the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (Project # 10180).
DATA AVAI LAB ILITY S TATEMENT
Data available on request from the authors.
ORCID
Neeta Y. Yousaf https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1918-7074
Beverly J. Tepper https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5033-6632
RE FE R ENC E S
Bajec, M. R., & Pickering, G. J. (2008). Thermal taste, PROP responsive-
ness, and perception of oral sensations. Physiology & Behavior, 95(4),
581–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.08.009
Bakke, A., & Vickers, Z. (2011). Effects of bitterness, roughness, PROP
taster status, and fungiform papillae density on bread acceptance.
Food Quality and Preference, 22(4), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.foodqual.2010.11.006
Barthoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., Lucchina, L. A., Prutkin, J., & Fast, K.
(1998). PROP (6-n-Propylthiouracil) supertasters and the saltiness of
NaCl. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 855, 793–796.
Bartoshuk, L. M., Duffy, V. B., & Miller, I. J. (1994). PTC/PROP tasting:
Anatomy, psychophysics, and sex effects. Physiology & Behavior, 56(6),
1165–1171.
5 of 6
Bufe, B., Breslin, P. A., Kuhn, C., Reed, D. R., Tharp, C. D., Slack, J. P., …
Meyerhof, W. (2005). The molecular basis of individual differences in
phenylthiocarbamide and propylthiouracil bitterness perception. Cur-
rent Biology, 15(4), 322–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.
01.047
Carta, G., Melis, M., Pintus, S., Pintus, P., Piras, C. A., Muredda, L., …
Tomassini Barbarossa, I. (2017). Participants with normal weight or
with obesity show different relationships of 6-n-propylthiouracil
(PROP) taster status with BMI and plasma endocannabinoids. Scientific
Reports, 7(1), 1361. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01562-1
de Wijk, R. A., Dijksterhuis, G., Vereijken, P., Prinz, J. F., & Weenen, H.
(2007). PROP sensitivity reflects sensory discrimination between cus-
tard desserts. Food Quality and Preference, 18(4), 597–604. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.01.016
Delwiche, J. F., Buletic, Z., & Breslin, P. A. S. (2001). Covariation individ-
uals' sensitivities to bitter compounds: Evidence supporting multiple
receptor/transduction mechanims. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(5),
761–776.
Dinehart, M. E., Hayes, J. E., Bartoshuk, L. M., Lanier, S. L., & Duffy, V. B.
(2006). Bitter taste markers explain variability in vegetable sweetness,
bitterness, and intake. Physiology & Behavior, 87(2), 304–313. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.10.018
Dinnella, C., Monteleone, E., Piochi, M., Spinelli, S., Prescott, J.,
Pierguidi, L., … Moneta, E. (2018). Individual variation in PROP status,
fungiform papillae density, and responsiveness to taste stimuli in a
large population sample. Chemical Senses, 43(9), 697–710. https://doi.
org/10.1093/chemse/bjy058
Ditschun, T. L., & Guinard, J. (2002). Comparison of new and existing
methods for the classification of individuals according to 6-n-
Propylthiouracil (PROP) taster statu. Journal of Sensory Studies, 19,
149–170.
Donovan, J. D., Keller, K. L., & Tepper, B. J. (2016). A brief task to assess
individual differences in fat discrimination. Journal of Sensory Studies,
31(4), 296–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/joss.12212
Duffy, V. B., Peterson, J. M., & Bartoshuk, L. M. (2004). Associations
between taste genetics, oral sensation and alcohol intake. Physiology &
Behavior, 82(2–3), 435–445. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.
04.060
Green, B. G., Dalton, P., Cowart, B., Shaffer, G., Rankin, K., & Higgins, J.
(1996). Evaluating the “labeled magnitude scale” for measuring sensa-
tions of taste and smell. Chemical Senses, 21(3), 323–334.
Green, B. G., & Hayes, J. E. (2004). Individual differences in perception of
bitterness from capsaicin, piperine and zingerone. Chemical Senses,
29(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjh005
Hayes, J. E., Bartoshuk, L. M., Kidd, J. R., & Duffy, V. B. (2008). Supertast-
ing and PROP bitterness depends on more than the TAS2R38 gene.
Chemical Senses, 33(3), 255–265. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/
bjm084
Hayes, J. E., Sullivan, B. S., & Duffy, V. B. (2010). Explaining variability in
sodium intake through oral sensory phenotype, salt sensation and lik-
ing. Physiology & Behavior, 100(4), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.physbeh.2010.03.017
Keast, R. S., & Roper, J. (2007). A complex relationship among chemical
concentration, detection threshold, and suprathreshold intensity of
bitter compounds. Chemical Senses, 32(3), 245–253. https://doi.org/
10.1093/chemse/bjl052
Kim, U. K., Jorgenson, E., Coon, H., Leppert, M., Risch, N., & Drayna, D.
(2003). Positional cloning of the human quantitative trait locus under-
lying taste sensitivity to phenylthiocarbamide. Science, 299(5610),
1221–1225. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1080190
Masi, C., Dinnella, C., Monteleone, E., & Prescott, J. (2015). The impact of
individual variations in taste sensitivity on coffee perceptions and
preferences. Physiology & Behavior, 138, 219–226. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.physbeh.2014.10.031
Melis, M., Sollai, G., Mastinu, M., Pani, D., Cosseddu, P., Bonfiglio, A., …
Barbarossa, I. T. (2020). Electrophysiological responses from the
6 of 6 Journal of
Sensory Studies
human tongue to the six taste qualities and their relationships with
PROP taster status. Nutrients, 12(7), 12072017. https://doi.org/10.
3390/nu12072017
Melis, M., Yousaf, N. Y., Mattes, M. Z., Cabras, T., Messana, I., Crnjar, R., …
Tepper, B. J. (2017). Sensory perception of and salivary protein
response to astringency as a function of the 6-n-propylthioural (PROP)
bitter-taste phenotype. Physiology & Behavior, 173, 163–173. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.01.031
Nolden, A. A., McGeary, J. E., & Hayes, J. E. (2020). Predominant qualities
evoked by quinine, sucrose, and capsaicin associate with PROP bitter-
ness, but not TAS2R38 genotype. Chemical Senses, 45(5), 383–390.
https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjaa028
Pickering, G. J., & Robert, G. (2006). Perception of mouthfeel sensations
elicited by red wine are associated with sensitivity to 6-n-propothiour-
acil. Journal of Sensory Studies, 21, 249–265.
Pickering, G. J., Simunkova, K., & DiBattista, D. (2004). Intensity of taste
and astringency sensations elicited by red wines is associated with
sensitivity to PROP (6-n-propylthiouracil). Food Quality and Preference,
15(2), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-3293(03)00053-3
Porubcan, A. R., & Vickers, Z. M. (2005). Characterizing milk aftertaste:
The effects of salivation rate, PROP taster status, or small changes in
acidity, fat, or sucrose on acceptability of milk to milk dislikers. Food
Quality and Preference, 16(7), 608–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
foodqual.2005.01.007
Prutkin, J., Duffy, V. B., Etter, L., Fast, K., Gardner, E., Lucchina, L. A., …
Bartoshuk, L. M. (2000). Genetic variation and inferences about per-
ceived taste intensity in mice and men. Physiology & Behavior, 69,
161–173.
Robino, A., Concas, M. P., Spinelli, S., Pierguidi, L., Tepper, B. J.,
Gasparini, P., … Dinnella, C. (2022). Combined influence of TAS2R38
genotype and PROP phenotype on the intensity of basic tastes, astrin-
gency and pungency in the Italian taste project. Food Quality and Pref-
erence, 95, 104361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2021.104361
Scott, N. O., Burgess, B., & Tepper, B. J. (2019). Perception and liking of
soups flavored with chipotle chili and ginger extracts: Effects of PROP
taster status, personality traits and emotions. Food Quality and Prefer-
ence, 73, 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.11.009
Spinelli, S., De Toffoli, A., Dinnella, C., Laureati, M., Pagliarini, E.,
Bendini, A., … Monteleone, E. (2018). Personality traits and gender
influence liking and choice of food pungency. Food Quality and Prefer-
ence, 66, 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2018.01.014
Tepper, B. J. (2008). Nutritional implications of genetic taste variation: The
role of PROP sensitivity and other taste phenotypes. Annual Review of
Nutrition, 28, 367–388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.nutr.28.
061807.155458
YOUSAF ET AL.
Tepper, B. J., Banni, S., Melis, M., Crnjar, R., & Tomassini Barbarossa, I.
(2014). Genetic sensitivity to the bitter taste of 6-n-propylthiouracil
(PROP) and its association with physiological mechanisms controlling
body mass index (BMI). Nutrients, 6(9), 3363–3381. https://doi.org/
10.3390/nu6093363
Tepper, B. J., Melis, M., Koelliker, Y., Gasparini, P., Ahijevych, K. L., &
Tomassini Barbarossa, I. (2017). Factors influencing the phenotypic
characterization of the oral marker, PROP. Nutrients, 9(12), 9121275.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu9121275
Tepper, B. J., White, E. A., Koelliker, Y., Lanzara, C., d'Adamo, P., &
Gasparini, P. (2009). Genetic variation in taste sensitivity to 6-n-
propylthiouracil and its relationship to taste perception and food
selection. Annals of the new York Academy of Sciences, 1170, 126–139.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.03916.x
Ullrich, N. V., Touger-Decker, R., O'Sullivan-Maillet, J., & Tepper, B. J.
(2004). PROP taster status and self-perceived food adventurousness
influence food preferences. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa-
tion, 104(4), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2004.01.011
Webb, J., Bolhuis, D. P., Cicerale, S., Hayes, J. E., & Keast, R. (2015). The
relationships between common measurements of taste function. Che-
mosensory Perception, 8(1), 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-
015-9183-x
Zhao, L., Kirkmeyer, S. V., & Tepper, B. J. (2003). A paper screening test to
assess genetic taste sensitivity to 6-n-propylthiouracil. Physiology &
Behavior, 78(4–5), 625–633. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(03)
00057-X
Zhao, L., & Tepper, B. J. (2007). Perception and acceptance of selected
high-intensity sweeteners and blends in model soft drinks by pro-
pylthiouracil (PROP) non-tasters and super-tasters. Food Quality and
Preference, 18(3), 531–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2006.
07.004
SUPPORTING INF ORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the Support-
ing Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Yousaf, N. Y., Zheng, Y., Yi, J., &
Tepper, B. J. (2022). Use of perceived weights for scale
familiarization in a PROP taster classification procedure.
Journal of Sensory Studies, e12786. https://doi.org/10.1111/
joss.12786