[ If there’s one thing neurogastronomy can teach us, it’s that
when it comes to food, sometimes it’s better to rack our brains.]
[[link removed]]

PORTSIDE CULTURE

WHAT IS NEUROGASTRONOMY?  
[[link removed]]


 

Sebastian Dieguez
September 1, 2022
Alimentarium
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ If there’s one thing neurogastronomy can teach us, it’s that
when it comes to food, sometimes it’s better to rack our brains. _

While everything that glitters is not gold, everything we eat
stimulates our five senses and, naturally, our brains. ,
©Shutterstock/80’s Child

 

What makes a dish stand out? On the face of it, this question does not
lend itself to an objective or scientific answer. Of course, we could
talk about the quality of the products used, the chef’s expertise,
an urge to take a calculated risk to surprise guests but not baffle
them, or about a pleasant atmosphere in a tasteful decor... But in the
end, as with aesthetic preferences, it is pretty clear that it is not
easy to rationalise our culinary pleasures either, as they are often
based on a je ne sais quoi or some sort of ‘alchemy in cooking’.
In other words, science and gastronomy do not necessarily go hand in
hand.

The origins of neurogastronomy

Yet, the connection between these two disciplines has never been
stronger. It is nothing new either, as illustrated in the widely read
Physiologie du goût (The Physiology of Taste) by Jean Anthelme
Brillat-Savarin, !rst published in 1825 and still in print today. This
book is regarded as the precursor to what we now call
‘neurogastronomy’, as Brillat-Savarin, a town lawyer, theorised on
the growing interest in a scientific approach to taste, based on the
premise that the human diet went far beyond its restorative role
necessary for survival. The pleasure derived from a good meal not only
helps unite societies, but also brings this activity akin to carnal
desire and a predilection for discovery. Brillat-Savarin made no
mention of psychology, nor of course of neurosciences as they barely
existed at that time, but his observations brought to light a very
simple fact that we all may well have noticed from time to time:
Eating influences our way of thinking. “[Gastronomy] also considers
the action of food or aliments on the moral of man, on his
imagination, his mind, his judgment, his courage, and his perceptions,
whether he is awake, sleeps, acts, or reposes.”1

From the oven to the brain

The fact that eating (well, poorly, a lot, a little or not at all)
influences our behaviour, our mood and our decisions seems so
self-evident that very few people have actually taken the trouble to
evaluate the consequences. A study of the sentences handed out in an
Israeli court, for example, found that judges were much more lenient
after their lunch break than just before it (2), for which the obvious
explanation lies in another quote from Brillat-Savarin: “They saw
that a full stomached individual was very different from a fasting
one.”3

    

In fact, other researchers have been able to measure the impact of
food on the brain simply by showing pictures of enticing dishes to
famished volunteers lying in a scanner or by wafting appetising smells
around them. The results are spectacular: It is as if the mere thought
of eating brings the entire brain to the boil! Under any other
circumstances, we would expect such signals to cause metabolic
activity to vary by 1 to 2% at most, yet here researchers observed an
almost immediate increase of up to 24%.4 This could partly explain the
new trend for ‘food porn’ or ‘gastropornography’, which
involves taking photos of food and sharing them with the community of
foodies on social media!

So, what exactly is ‘taste’? We generally use this term in its
emotional, hedonistic sense, to describe the tendency of food or drink
to produce a pleasant sensation, to be delicious. Here, researchers
had to contend with this everyday use of the word ‘taste’, albeit
somewhat ambiguous. On the one hand, we think of taste as one of the
five distinct senses Aristotle classified alongside smell, touch,
sight and hearing. On the other hand, the ‘taste’ of food seems to
go beyond the simple activation of taste receptors embedded in our
tongues, enabling us to distinguish between sweetness, saltiness,
bitterness and sourness, the four ‘primary tastes’ to which we now
add umami, a taste typical of Japanese food with a high glutamate
content. In reality, as Brillat-Savarin rightly noted, it seems that
this second aspect of ‘taste’ is primarily a result of our sense
of smell, and that these two senses are inextricably linked in our
appreciation of food and drinks. So as not to get bogged down in
linguistics, specialists use the term ‘savour’ when referring to
the perception of food based on olfaction and gustation (among others
things... as we will see below).

The birth of modern neurogastronomy

This observation led Gordon Shepherd, a neurobiologist, to suggest the
term neurogastronomy in 2006 (5) to refer to the specific study not of
the senses as such and of how the brain depicts them, but more
globally of all the neurobiological mechanisms involved in the
detection and appreciation of savours, what these mechanisms teach us
about human behaviour, and how we can apply them in the kitchen.

The key theory of neurogastronomy is therefore that savour originates
in the brain rather than in the food itself. It also takes a
multimodal approach, not only focusing on the senses of taste and
smell, but all the other senses too, as well as motricity.
Brillat-Savarin had already emphasised this point: Flavour is not
imparted passively. We are the ones who spear food on our plates onto
our forks, put it in our mouths, chew, savour and swallow it, and then
appraise it. According to Gordon Shepherd, this results in the
creation of ‘odour images’ in our brains, just like we have visual
‘mental images’ which enable us to recognise faces and imagine
places. Furthermore, while neurological damage can impair sight,
language and memory, there are also lesser-known clinical examples of
brain injuries causing changes in food behaviour.

   ‘Gourmand syndrome’

There is a clinical dimension to neurogastronomy. While investigating
behavioural disorders resulting from neurological conditions such as
strokes, epilepsy or brain tumours, neurologists have occasionally
observed changes in eating behaviour. Some specific conditions may
lead to ‘classic’ disorders such as anorexia or bulimia but, in
rare cases, they may also put an end to them. For example, a
36-year-old woman, who had been suffering from anorexia for a number
of years, recovered normal eating habits after suffering a brain
injury with a haematoma in the right frontal lobe. Stranger still,
this part of the brain is associated with what neuropsychologists
Marianne Regard and Theodor Landis have coined ‘gourmand
syndrome’. This ‘benign’ eating disorder appears after an
epileptic seizure, a traumatic brain injury, a tumour, a deformity or
a stroke located in the anterior parts of the right hemisphere, and
patients develop an obsession with food, and in particular gourmet
food, almost overnight. They instantly become discerning foodies,
developing a passion for cooking, no longer appreciating the mediocre
food they used to eat but rather choosing to eat in the best
restaurants, and talking incessantly about haute cuisine. One patient
even resigned from his job as a political journalist to become a food
columnist! Such metamorphoses are diffcult to explain, but the
association between food disorders, a passion for fine food, and the
right hemisphere suggests that certain regions of the brain are
specialised in the vital and complex activity of eating. The frontal
and temporal lobes in particular are strongly connected with the
limbic system, which controls the visceral, metabolic and emotional
functions enabling the body to defend itself and survive. The frontal
lobe helps us resist temptation and override impulsive urges, while
the right hemisphere is involved in pleasure, aesthetics and
satisfaction. All these factors show not only the complexity of our
eating behaviour, but also the extent to which this behaviour is
dependent on a delicate balance which, if upset, can lead to various
forms of impairment.

Nothing could be simpler than deciding if something tastes ‘good’
or ’bad’, yet these impressions are the fruit of an
extraordinarily complex process we are only just beginning to
understand. This process is based on a strange psychological illusion.
We get the impression that we perceive taste, in the broadest sense of
the term, in our mouths, yet we do in fact perceive taste in our nasal
cavities, via a subconscious mechanism known as retronasal olfaction.
When we wish to smell food, we generally place it under our noses and
then sniff it, breathing in deeply. This is known as orthonasal
olfaction. However, it is after we have chewed food, releasing its
juices and molecules into our mouths, that as we breathe out, volatile
odorous compounds are sent back to the nasal cavity through the back
of the mouth. The roof of the nasal cavity has a mucous membrane
called the olfactory epithelium, which comprises neurons that are
sensitive to odorous molecules. These neurons are directly connected
to a tiny olfactory bulb... inside the cranium, in the brain!

The olfactory bulb gathers the numerous signals sent by the epithelium
receptor neurons and integrates them in a cerebral activation pattern,
a sort of odour ‘map’ or ‘image’ that represents the
particular mix of odorous molecules specific to each morsel of food.
The olfactory bulb then projects this map towards various other
structures of the brain, including the amygdala, a structure directly
involved in our emotions, and the orbitofrontal cortex (located just
above our eyes), a major hub grouping together bundles from other
sensory systems. These include sight, touch (in our mouths too, with
information about the temperature and texture of the food) and taste
(which thereby takes a completely different route to that of the sense
of smell), together with sensations coming from the viscera, and the
homeostatic processes regulating hunger and thirst. They also include
bundles from regions controlling memory and emotions, as well as the
mechanisms governing inhibition and decision- making. In short, at
this stage, as the episode of Marcel Proust’s madeleine so perfectly
illustrates, simple odorous molecules reach and become part of an
individual’s identity. Consequently, an aroma is never ‘neutral’
as it is always influenced by the context and the visual appearance of
dishes, as well as by each person's preferences, appetite, mood,
beliefs and memories.

We cannot see this complex layered process, so we get the impression
that we perceive everything in our mouths, the place where we have put
the food or drink. Yet, an important part of what we are sensing
actually comes from our nasal cavities. Quite a handy evolutionary
perk! After all, if we want to stay alive, we cannot just eat anything
and everything: We rely on our brains sending commands to the muscles
in our mouths to either spit something out or swallow it!

From neurogastronomy to gastrophysics

That’s all very well and good, but how exactly does it help us
prepare the perfect risotto or choose the best appetisers? This is
exactly the kind of criticism some researchers have voiced against
Shepherd’s neurogastronomy. In-depth understanding of the
neurophysiological processes responsible for our experience of savours
may well provide an essential basis for grasping the mechanisms at
play in gastronomy. It reveals, for example, how the sense of smell
plays more of a role than taste, even if both remain inextricably
linked, and especially how our other senses, the state of our bodies,
our moods and even our beliefs can influence savour. Images of brain
activity demonstrate how the price of a bottle of wine can influence
our appraisal of it, or why we can be ‘tricked’ by a fizzy drink
bearing the label of its competitor.

Miguel Sánchez Romera, part-neurologist, part-chef, briefly ran a
restaurant in Manhattan (6) showcasing the concept of
‘neurogastronomy’, but this knowledge remains difficult to
transpose into delicious recipes.(4)  Generally speaking,
neurosciences have had much less of an impact on gastronomy than
physics and chemistry had in their contribution to what was called
‘molecular gastronomy’. This movement emerged during a 1992
congress and focused on the science behind egg mayonnaise. It gave
scientific foundation to the little tricks picked up from our
grandmothers and helped improve them, and also led to the invention of
all sorts of new processes – spherification, fumigation,
concentration, distillation and other thermal shock treatments –
designed to please, amuse, surprise and impress.7 There’s nothing
‘neuro’ about that.

The British psychologist Charles Spence preferred to call the study of
the variable elements that contribute to the pleasure we feel when
eating as ‘gastrophysics’. This ‘new science of eating’
strives to provide a quantitative measurement of the factors that
ordinarily form a whole in our experience of savours, by separating
them and experimenting with them one by one, from every possible
angle.

Multimodality on the menu

Charles Spence feels the observations and applications of
‘neurogastronomy’ are too restrictive.8 In his opinion, rather
than analysing the olfactory cortex of rodents or feeding liquids
through a tube to people lying in a scanner, we need a science that is
as close as possible to the eating experience and the reality of
contemporary dining. The aim is twofold: Firstly, to gain a better
understanding of the complexity of our relationships with savours and
food. This involves determining how the senses differ from each other,
how they interact and how they are influenced by external factors.
Secondly, to use this knowledge to develop new culinary concepts, try
bold new recipes and combinations and inject fresh ideas into the food
industry and into marketing techniques. As far as applications are
concerned, this research could also generate new ways of helping
patients suffering from eating disorders and of managing the obesity
epidemic currently affecting the modern world. It could also provide
new tools for developing taste awareness in young children or for
supporting elderly people whose perception of savours, hunger or
thirst may be impaired.

That’s a tall order! So far, Charles Spence and his fellow
researchers, including Michelin-starred chefs such as Heston
Blumenthal, who runs the famous Fat Duck restaurant just outside
London, (9) have carried out numerous experiments showing the extent
to which the colour of food, the sound of its crunchy texture, the
background music, the shape, weight or colour of the tableware, the
names and prices of the dishes on the menu, the choice of presentation
and a host of other factors can influence our judgement of savours and
our culinary pleasure in general. This approach follows on from other
research into multimodal perception, which for a long time focused
mainly on the interactions between sight, touch and hearing, largely
ignoring the senses of taste and smell.

    

This recent research pays particular attention to the importance of
our expectations when we sit down to eat and to knowing the extent of
the element of surprise. Could you be tempted by a salmon sorbet?
Probably only if the conditions are right and you are up for it! Who
can deny that a seafood platter tastes better when we are eating it on
a seafront terrace? Heston Blumenthal’s restaurant provides guests
with headphones playing the sound of seagulls and waves crashing on
the beach while you eat. Scientists call this experience
‘super-additive interaction’: Taste is enhanced when it is paired
with the atmosphere with which it is usually associated.

This is basically ‘sensory design’, whereby nothing is left to
chance, as our brains are made in such a way that every piece of
information can, even subconsciously, influence a meal, in particular
within the orbitofrontal cortex, where our sensations, our
expectations and beliefs, and our judgements converge and may well
mislead us.

The future of eating

Will this ‘gastrophysics’ research eventually lead to the creation
of the ‘perfect meal’, as Charles Spence hopes it will? Are we not
in danger of moving too far away from the basic needs of ordinary
people, who do not always have the means to treat themselves to such
rare moments of discovery in high-end restaurants? Now is more a time
for reflecting on how we can feed a growing, globalised and
multicultural population healthily, against a backdrop of considerable
ecological and economic challenges. There is no doubt that scientific
gastronomy will also need to take these trends into account, as
changes to our diet and our preferences are inevitable.

Scientists, gastronomes and chefs, from supermarkets to the
Michelin-starred restaurants, will have to join forces to satisfy
everybody’s needs in an uncertain future. Even if the relationship
between science and gastronomy has been somewhat overcooked, let’s
not forget that kitchens have always been laboratories, where
creativity, experimentation and discovery are granted as much
importance as in research institutes. From the invention of a new
sauce to the design of a product’s packaging, a scientific and
multidisciplinary approach can help rationalise and improve all
sectors of the long chain of steps human food undergoes, up to the
crucial point where, since the dawn of time, humans have joined
together to share a good meal.

* gastronomy
[[link removed]]
* neurogastronomy
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit portside.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 



########################################################################

[link removed]

To unsubscribe from the xxxxxx list, click the following link:
[link removed]