Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Pediatric Letter to the Editor
  • Published:

Reply to Finistrella et al

International Journal of Obesity volume 36, page 85 (2012)Cite this article

Finistrella et al.1 recommend that children with problems in visuospatial and/or motor skills should not be included in sensory testing. We agree with that remark. In referring to children's limited motor skills, we just pointed out that children's motor skills should be considered when designing the test. We chose test equipment that is suitable for the children, such as small cups instead of big ones. The limiting factor is the size of a child's hand, rather than a motoric impairment.2

Finistrella et al.1 also recommended that stimuli should be randomly placed to avoid bias due to spatial layout. For the threshold test, it is not possible to arrange the stimuli at random, because we have to avoid adaptation. For that reason, test concentrations have to be presented in ascending order. For the preference test, a random presentation of stimuli would be possible, but we decided to keep the set-up as simple as possible as to minimize measurement error caused by complex instructions to be observed diligently by different field teams in 16 different locations. The sensory perception module was embedded in a highly demanding examination protocol, addressing various other medical and behavioral aspects. In this environment, a random presentation of stimuli did not seem to be feasible. Furthermore, the decision-making process should not be influenced from where the sample is placed in the end (e.g., right or left), as the decision is an upstream process.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Finistrella V, Morino G, Curcio G, Manco M . Children's taste perception and cognitive development. Int J Obes 2011; (this issue).

  2. Guinard J-X . Sensory and consumer testing with children. Trends Food Sci Technol 2000; 11: 273–283.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Suling M, Hebestreit A, Peplies J, Bammann K, Nappo A, Eiben G et al. Design and results of the pretest of the IDEFICS study. Int J Obes (Lond) 2011; 35 (Suppl 1): S30–S44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Liem DG, Zandstra EH . Motivating instructions increases children's sensory sensitivity. Food Qual Preference 2010; 21: 531–538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Visser J, Kroeze JHA, Kamps WA, Bijleveld CMA . Testing taste sensitivity and aversion in very young children: development of a procedure. Appetite 2000; 34: 169–176.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Knof K, Lanfer A, Bildstein MO, Buchecker K, Hilz H . Development of a method to measure sensory perception in children at the European level. Int J Obes (Lond) 2011; 35 (Suppl 1): S131–S136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Liem DG, Mars M, de Graaf C . Consistency of sensory testing with 4- and 5-year-old children. Food Qual Preference 2004; 15: 541–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Plattig K-H (ed) Sensory Analysis of Foods. Elsevier Applied Sciences Publishers: London, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Lanfer A, Knof K, Gianvincenzo B, Veidebaum T, Papoutsou S, de Henauw S et al. Taste preferences in association with dietary habits and weight status in European children: results from the IDEFICS study. Int J Obes 2011; e-pub ahead of print 16 August 2011; doi:10.1038/ijo.2011.164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Bioprocess Engineering and Food Technology, ttz Bremerhaven, Bremerhaven, Germany

    K Knof & M Shrestha

  2. Bremen Institute for Prevention Research and Social Medicine, University Bremen, Bremerhaven, Germany

    A Lanfer & W Ahrens

  3. Department of Food Technology/Food Economy, University of Applied Sciences Bremerhaven, Bremerhaven, Germany

    H Hilz

Authors
  1. K Knof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A Lanfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M Shrestha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H Hilz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. W Ahrens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K Knof.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Knof, K., Lanfer, A., Shrestha, M. et al. Reply to Finistrella et al. Int J Obes 36, 85 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2011.180

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2011.180

Search

Advanced search

Quick links