Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) is considered to be a contributor to diabetes and the epidemic of obesity in many countries. The popularity of non-caloric carbonated soft drinks as an alternative to SSBs may be a factor in reducing the health risks associated with SSBs consumption. This study focuses on the perceptual discrimination of SSBs from artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs). Fifty-five college students rated 14 commercially available carbonated soft drinks in terms of sweetness and likeability. They were also asked to recognize, if the drinks contained sugar or a non-caloric artificial sweetener. Overall, participants showed poor accuracy in discriminating drinks' sweeteners, with significantly lower accuracy for SSBs than ASBs. Interestingly, we found a dissociation between sweetener recognition and drink pleasantness. In fact, in spite of a chance-level discrimination accuracy of SSBs, their taste was systematically preferred to the taste of non-caloric beverages. Our findings support the idea that hedonic value of carbonated soft drinks is dissociable from its identification and that the activation of the pleasure system seems not to require explicit recognition of the sweetener contained in the soft drink. We hypothesize that preference for carbonated soft drinks containing sugar over non-caloric alternatives might be modulated by metabolic factors that are independent from conscious and rational consumers' choices.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 January 2016.
All research outputs
#17,783,561
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,492
of 29,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,858
of 396,346 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#373
of 477 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,847 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 396,346 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 477 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
