The effect of pH and ethanol on the astringent sub-qualities of red wine, and the implications for optimum grape maturity /

The first objective of this study was to identify appropriate sensory descriptors to assess the astringent sub-qualities of red wine. The influence of pH and ethanol on the sensation of astringency in red wine was evaluated, using a de-alcoholized red wine. A portion of the wine was adjusted to the pH values of 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 and 3.8, and another portion was adjusted to ethanol concentrations of 0%, 6%, 12%, and 15%. In addition, the pH 3.4 and 3.6 treatments were adjusted to an ethanol concentration of 12% and 15% all wines were then assessed sensorially and seventeen terms were identified, through panel discussion, to describe the mouth-feel and taste qualities: velvet, aggressive, silk/satin, dry, fleshy, unripe, pucker viscosity, abrasive, heat, chewy, acidity, grippy/adhesive, bitter, balance, overall astringency, and mouth-coat. Descriptive analysis profiling techniques were used to train the panel and measure the intensity of these attributes. It was found that decreasing pH values (averaged across all ethanol concentrations) showed an increase in the overall astringency of the wine. The combined treatments of ethanol and pH, real wine parameters (pH 3.4 and 3.6; 12% and 15% ethanol) did not have an effect on the perception of the astringent sub-qualities of the wine. A time intensity study was also included using the pH and ethanol adjusted wines, which showed that as the ethanol level of the wines increased so did the time to maximum intensity. The second objective was to identify appropriate sensory descriptors to evaluate the influence of grape maturity and maceration technique (grape skin contact) on the astringency sub-qualities of red vinifera wines from Niagara. The grapes were harvested across two dates, representing an early harvest and a late harvest. A portion of the Cabernet Sauvignon grapes wine was divided into three maceration treatments of oneweek maceration, standard two-week maceration, three-week maceration, and MCM. Another portion of both the early and late harvest Cabernet Sauvignon grapes were chaptalized to yield a final ethanol concentration of 14.5%. The wines were assessed sensorially and thirteen terms were identified, through panel discussion, to describe the mouth-feel and taste qualities: carbon dioxide, pucker, acidity, silk/chamois, dusty/chalky/powdery, sandpaper, numbing, grippy/adhesive, dry, mouthcoat, bitter, balance and, overall astringency. Descriptive analysis techniques were used to train the panel and measure the intensity of these attributes. The data revealed few significant differences in the mouth-feel of the wines with respect to maturity; which included differences in overall astringency and balance. There were varietal differences between Cabernet Sauvignon, Cabernet Franc, and Pinot Noir and differences for Cabernet Sauvignon wines due to the length and manner of maceration and as a result of chaptalization. Statistical analysis revealed a more complex mouth-feel for the Pinot Noir wines; and an increase in the intensity of the astringent sub-qualities as a result of the addition of sugar to the wines. These findings have implications for how processing decisions, such as optimum grape maturity and vinification methods may affect red wine quality.

Empathy and Emotion Processing in Mild Head Injury and Sub-clinical Psychopathy

The current study sought to investigate the nature of empathic responding and emotion processing in persons who have experienced Mild Head Injury (MHI) and how this relationship between empathetic responding and head injury status may differ in those with higher psychopathic characteristics (i.e., subclinical psychopathy). One-hundred university students (36% reporting having a previous MHI) completed an Emotional Processing Task (EPT) using images of neutral and negative valence (IAPS, 2008) designed to evoke empathy; physiological responses were recorded. Additionally, participants completed measures of cognitive competence and various individual differences (empathy - QCAE; Reniers, 2011; Psychopathy - SRP-III, Williams, Paulhus & Hare, 2007) and demographics questionnaires. MHI was found to be associated with lower affective empathy and physiological reactivity (pulse rate) while viewing images irrespective of valence, reflecting a pattern of generalized underarousal. The empathic deficits observed correlated with the individual’s severity of injury such that the greater number of injury characteristics and symptoms endorsed by a subject, the more dampened the affective and cognitive empathy reactions to stimuli and the lower his/her physiological reactivity. Importantly, psychopathy interacted with head injury status such that the effects of psychopathy were significant only for individuals indicating a MHI. This group, i.e., MHI subjects who scored higher on psychopathy, displayed the greatest compromise in empathic responding. Interestingly, the Callous Affect component of psychopathy was found to account for the empathic and emotion processing deficits observed for individuals who report a MHI; in contrast, the Interpersonal Manipulation component emerged as a better predictor of empathic and emotion deficits observed in the No MHI group. These different patterns may indicate the involvement of different underlying processes in the manifestation of empathic deficits associated with head injury or subclinical psychopathy. It also highlights the importance of assessing for prior head injury in populations with higher psychopathic characteristics due to the possible combined/enhanced influences. The results of this study have important social implications for persons who have experienced a concussion or limited neural trauma since even subtle injury to the head may be sufficient to produce dampened emotion processing, thereby impacting one’s social interactions and engagement (i.e., at risk for social isolation or altered interpersonal success). Individuals who experience MHI in conjunction with certain personality profiles (e.g., higher psychopathic characteristics) may be particularly at risk for being less capable of empathic compassion and socially-acceptable pragmatics and, as a result, may not be responsive to another person’s emotional well-being.