Taste Retargeting via Chemical Taste Modulators
Jas Brooks
University of Chicago
Chicago, USAjasbrooks@uchicago.edu

Noor Amin
University of Chicago
Chicago, USA
namin32@uchicago.edu

Pedro Lopes
University of Chicago
Chicago, USA
pedrolopes@uchicago.edu

Figure 1: Taste retargeting selectively changes taste perception using taste modulators—chemicals that temporarily alter the responseof taste receptors to foods and beverages. As our technique can deliver droplets of modulators before eating or drinking, it is the firstinteractive method to selectively alter the basic tastes of real foods without obstructing eating or impacting the food’s consistency. It
can be used, for instance, to enable a single food prop to stand in for many virtual foods. This VR user always eats pickled blackberries
but experiences more virtual tastes, such as (1) lemon by decreasing sweetness with lactisole, (2) strawberry by transforming sour tosweetness with miraculin, and (3) spider by suppressing bitter and sweet notes to highlight texture with zinc sulfate.
ABSTRACTINTRODUCTION

Prior research has explored modifying taste throughelectrical stimulation. While promising, such interfaces often
only elicit taste changes while in contact with the user’s
tongue (e.g., cutlery with electrodes), making them
incompatible with eating and swallowing real foods.
Moreover, most interfaces cannot selectively alter basic
tastes, but only the entire flavor profile (e.g., cannot
selectively alter bitterness). To tackle this, we propose taste
retargeting, a method of altering taste perception bydelivering chemical modulators to the mouth before eating.
These modulators temporarily change the response of taste
receptors to foods, selectively suppressing or altering basic
tastes. Our first study identified six accessible taste
modulators that suppress salty, umami, sweet, or bitter andtransform sour into sweet. Using these findings, wedemonstrated an interactive application of this techniquewith the example of virtual reality, which we validated in our
second study. We found that taste retargeting reduced theflavor mismatch between a food prop and other virtual foods.

Taste is a critical aspect of our experiences, from rich sensory
and hedonic experiences during eating, to guiding our dietarybehaviors. Human taste perception roughly encompasses
five basic tastes: sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami(savory). There has been a growing interest in interactive
food experiences, especially generating virtual tastes but also
modifying real tastes through sensory stimulation. Altering
taste perception has primarily been achieved by conducting
electricity through cutlery (“electrical taste” [48]), adjusting
the strength of the taste via electrolytes [43], or adding
seasonings to food [85]. Other approaches have exploredmodifying secondary aspects of the eating experience, suchas applying weight on the tongue [22], sound [37], perceived
texture [32], or scent [52].

Author Keywords

Taste; food interaction; multimodal; haptics; props; VR.
UIST '23, October 29-November 1, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA © 2023
Copyright is held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM. ACM
979-8-4007-0132-0/23/10…$15.00 https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606818

While these techniques are successful to some extent, theyshare fundamental limitations that prevent a broader
application of interfaces that can alter taste: most existing
taste interfaces can only elicit changes in taste perception
while the stimulation apparatus is in contact with the user’s
tongue (e.g., cutlery with built-in electrodes). In fact, mostprior techniques cannot alter basic tastes independently (e.g.,
the entire flavor profile is enhanced or suppressed), while
many others can only alter the taste of simple liquid solutions(e.g., salty water or broths) but not the taste of real foods.

Figure 2: Timeline of (a) the virtual foods the user tastes and (b) the taste retargeted props they actually eat.

In this paper, we propose a new method for modifying taste
perception of real foods during eating. This method, which
we call taste retargeting, is based on delivering small dropsof liquid taste modulators to the user’s mouth before eating
and drinking. Taste modulators are chemicals that alter the
response of specific taste receptors to flavor stimuli.
Modulators change the basic taste of the next bite or sip. For
instance, one of the modulators we identified, zinc sulfate,can decrease the sweetness of a candy. Modulators achieve
their taste effects by binding to taste receptor cells on theuser’s tongue and temporarily changing how this receptor
responds to certain tastes on a molecular level [53]. With
these effects, our technique produces selective changes to theuser’s perception of the five basic tastes. We leveraged
insights from basic science to identify six accessible taste
modulators: amiloride (salt suppression), clofibric acid(umami suppression), gymnemic acid (sweet suppression),lactisole (umami & sweet suppression), miraculin (sour-tosweet transformation), and zinc sulfate (sweet & bitter
suppression).
Broadly, taste retargeting enables selective alteration of areal food’s flavor. While its applications are wide (frominteractive dining experiences to dietary interventions) webelieve it lends itself well as a way to improve the efficacy
of food props in virtual experiences. Figure 1 illustrates how
taste retargeting allows pickled blackberries to act as arealistic prop for multiple virtual foods: (1) lemon by
decreasing the prop’s sweetness with lactisole, (2)strawberry by transforming sour to sweetness with
miraculin, and (3) spider by further suppressing the prop’s
bitter and sweet notes to highlight its texture with zinc
sulfate. Note that this VR user is always eating the same typeof pickled blackberries; yet, via the action of the modulators,
their taste experience approximates these other virtual foods.
We validated our technique through two user studies. After
identifying a set of six taste modulators, we investigatedchanges these evoked in basic taste perception. Our firststudy found that they could suppress salty, umami, sweet, or
bitter sensations and transform sour into sweet. Using thesefindings, we then designed the virtual reality experience,
depicted in Figure 1, to study the use of our technique in aninteractive context. We found that taste retargeting reduced

the flavor mismatch between a food prop and three otherdistinct virtual foods.
Finally, what sets taste retargeting apart from othertechniques is that the modulators can be deployed before theuser eats or drinks, leaving the user unobstructed whileeating, chewing, and swallowing and eliminating the needfor special eating devices, such as electrified cutlery.
WALKTHROUGH: ALTERING REAL FOODS

To illustrate our novel technique with an example
application, we designed a survival VR eating experience inwhich we retargeted three real foods (as props) to taste likevirtual foods using three modulators, depicted in Figure 2.
For this, we engineered a wearable device (i.e., small battery
and wireless). The device’s tubing attaches to the mouth’s
corners to deliver modulators to the user, allowing it tochange the taste of upcoming bites or sips from a food prop.
The experience includes three real foods as props: a bowl of
pickled blackberries, apple slices sprinkled with sugar, and alatte. Our device is loaded with three of our modulators:
lactisole, miraculin, and zinc sulfate. The user’s goal is toforage to replenish their health and stay hydrated. For clarity,
we describe the experience from a third-person perspective.
The user starts the experience by finding berries in a bush, asseen in Figure 3. As they grab a virtual blackberry, they graspa real, pickled blackberry. They then eat it, savoring thefamiliar taste of blackberries. Unfortunately, one berry does
not replenish their health completely, so they keep foraging.

Figure 3: The user eats a blackberry (pickled blackberry prop).

While the user forages through trees (Figure 4), our device
delivers lactisole droplets to suppress the prop’s sweetness
and retarget it to the next virtual food: a lemon. They thenspot a small lemon on a tree. Once they put it in their mouthand chew it, they recognize the sour flavor of the lemon. In
reality, the user ate another pickled blackberry.

Figure 7: (a) The user finds apple slices. (b) They eat the prop(sugar-coated apple) and taste the virtual sweet apple.
Figure 4: (a) The user grabs a lemon. (b) The same prop now
tastes like a sour lemon after suppressing sweetness.

Our device then delivers miraculin to transform the next
prop’s sourness into sweetness. As the user reaches out for a
virtual strawberry they came across, they grab the same
blackberry prop yet again. This time, it tastes sweeter,
approximating the strawberry’s taste (Figure 5).

Figure 5: (a) The user picks a strawberry. (b) The same prop
retargets by transforming the citric acid into sweetness.

Unfortunately, the user runs out of fruit to forage and musteat small spiders to heal. Our device drips zinc sulfate tosuppress the upcoming prop’s remaining sweet or bitternotes, removing almost all taste to highlight the prop’s
unique texture (the bumpiness of a blackberry). Thistransformation retargets the prop to match a plump spider,which the user finds and chews (Figure 6). With little taste
remaining, the texture comes through bursting and gushing
like a bug. This entire time, the user ate the same food prop
four times yet experienced the tastes of four distinct foods.

Suddenly, a powerful sandstorm kicks up (Figure 8), during
which our device drips zinc sulfate to suppress the granulatedsugar’s sweetness. The user must then eat the remaining slice
covered in sand. As they do, they notice the gritty texture ofsand, which comes from the granulated sugar that no longer
has a taste and is simply texture.

Figure 8: (a) A sandstorm kicks up and blows sand onto thesecond apple slice. (b) We suppress the prop’s sweetness torender the sand grit using the (now) tasteless granulated sugar.

Next, we depict that some modulators, and even the delivery
order of modulators, can produce even more complex effects.
The user stumbles across and searches an abandoned cabinfor hydration (Figure 9). They find an empty cup and grab it.
In reality, they grabbed a cup with a latte: our third food prop.
In the cabin, they find a coffee maker and press a button toprepare a small virtual latte to quench their thirst.

Figure 9: (a): The user sees a recently abandoned cabin. (b)They find an old, but working, latte machine and restore someof their hydration by (c) drinking a bit of latte (prop).
Figure 6: (a) They must eat a spider. (b) So, the prop retargets
by suppressing bitterness and the rest of the sweetness.

Later, our user comes across an abandoned campsite in thesands (Figure 7). They search for food and find apple slices:
our second real food prop. They eat a slice, tasting its
sweetness from the granulated sugar coating.

The user searches for more drinks while our device drips zinc
sulfate to suppress bitterness. The user finds virtual milk,
which they pour into their empty cup and drink. Without its
bitterness, the prop latte’s milky (umami) taste is brought
forward, retargeting the latte prop to a sip of milk.
While the user searches the kitchen cabinets, our device
delivers lactisole to create a taste “after-effect” specific toliquids known as sweet water taste [19]. This effect is wellknown and elicited by water following the removal oflactisole from the receptors. The sweet water taste effectresembles “after-images,” patterns that become visible after
looking away from an image being fixated on for too long[87]. We use this effect to retarget the user’s next sip. The
user finds syrup and adds it to the remains of their milk.
Lactisole’s sweet water taste effect adds sweetness, and theuser now savors virtual sweetened milk (Figure 10).

its taste [21]. Taste retargeting avoids this since modulators
are delivered in tiny amounts before eating or drinking.

Figure 10: (a) The user sees a bottle of syrup. Our device
retargets the prop to – initially – have sweetness, allowing theuser to add syrup to their milk and (b) taste the sweetened milk.

However, much like after images fade away, so does the
sweet water taste effect of lactisole. The user finds an old jug
of water in a sink. By then, the modulator returns to its
umami-suppressing behavior, and, with the latte’s bitter andumami notes now suppressed, it becomes nearly tasteless,approximating the taste of this stale water.
Moreover, the order of modulators can also produce different
experiences. Figure 11 depicts alternative experiences
depending on the interactive order of the modulators. If theuser finds syrup instead of milk (after drinking the initial lattein the abandoned kitchen), our device will deliver lactisole
instead of zinc sulfate. Due to lactisole’s sweet water taste
effect, this order will sweeten the latte instead of the milk.
Once this effect fades, the latte prop would lose its umami
notes (lactisole) and taste closer to a virtual coffee. Finally,
after zinc sulfate suppresses the prop’s bitterness, they would
experience the same stale water taste as in the first version.
From these three props and three modulators (six physicalingredients total), we produce 12 virtual food items.
Following, taste retargeting enables three real foods to standin for 12 virtual tastes, a four-fold gain in distinct tastes.
Contrast to naïve solution

At this point, the reader might wonder why use modulators
instead of simply adding additives with basic tastes (e.g.,sugary water to enhance sweetness or an acidic powder toenhance sourness). While this idea has some merit in theory,
it exhibits fundamental issues that taste retargeting avoids.
First, this naïve solution can only add tastes to food without
the ability to suppress or modify, which taste retargetingachieves. Second, sustaining this added taste requires
frequently and repeatedly delivering a solution or powder,which might result in bursts of the added taste that will
disrupt the experience. In contrast, taste retargeting producesa sustained, smooth change, as demonstrated in Study 1.
Moreover, adding powders or liquids while chewing or
drinking can unintentionally alter the foods texture or dilute

Figure 11: By swapping the order of two modulators (lactisoleand zinc sulfate), the tastes of two additional virtual foods areavailable: sweetened latte and coffee (bottom row).

In sum, taste retargeting is a technique that addresses theseissues and achieves selective taste modifications. Finally, ourtechnique can be paired with prior techniques, such as adding
inhaled odors, auditory feedback, or electrical stimulation.
CONTRIBUTION, BENEFITS, & LIMITATIONS

Our key contribution is taste retargeting, a technique that canselectively modify basic tastes of real foods during eating.
Taste retargeting stands out from other techniques because
modulators selectively affect taste receptors and can be
deployed before eating. These unique features lead to several
benefits. (1) The technique leaves the user unobstructed
while eating, chewing, and swallowing, eliminating the needfor special eating devices like electrified cutlery. (2) Taste
retargeting works for any real food, not just electrolytic
liquids, (3) without unintentionally changing the food’s
texture or diluting its taste. Moreover, (4) our techniquefeatures temporary and robust alterations. When used forfood props in VR, (5) taste retargeting reduces the flavor
mismatch between a food prop and distinctly flavored virtual
foods.
As the first exploration of a novel technique, its limitations
are significant to discuss, revealing future research
directions. (1) Taste retargeting is not currently suitable forshort taste alterations. Our Study 1 results provide
information on modulator offset times so that designers candesign their experiences around this limitation. Moreresearch is needed to modify or dose the modulators toaccelerate their offset time. (2) Some modulators may havetheir own taste (e.g., zinc sulfate). We provide potential
methods to address this issue (see Study 2’s Discussion). (3)As with any technique based on chemicals, there might becross-modulator interactions. Currently, only lactisole
diminishes the strength of miraculin’s effect [36], and we did
not notice additional cross-modulator interactions in ourpilots and studies. (4) Additional effects require uncovering
additional modulators. For instance, we chose ourmodulators because they are accessible and because most are
food-safe, which leaned towards suppression and notenhancement. (5) Taste retargeting is a taste technique anddoes not solve the smell or texture incongruencies of foodprops in VR. However, it is easily combinable with othertechniques that alter texture or smell. Also, in the case of VR
props, it is worth noting that taste retargeting requires someconsiderations with the prop since the technique only
modulates existing flavors. The prop’s initial flavor mustalready contain facets matching each virtual food. However,this is as much a limitation as a tradeoff, as taste retargetingprovides a key benefit in exchange: using readily available
foods as props with little to no preparation.
RELATED WORKThe work presented in this paper builds on the field of taste(gustatory) interfaces with an emphasis on modifying thetaste of existing foods rather than producing artificial or
virtual tastes. Additionally, we briefly review props forvirtual reality because our application example relies onusing real foods as props for VR.
Producing tastes

Literature on taste interfaces primarily concerns devices that
produce or deliver a taste sensation on its own, typically in a
virtual experience. In other words, the user is not eating real
food. We provide an overview of these devices.
Chemical taste interfaces. A common design for interfacesthat simulate a flavor involves chemical stimuli delivery. For
instance, the TasteScreen drips flavoring agents onto ascreen for the user to lick [41]. TTTV refines this concept byspraying taste solutions for each basic taste on a sarancovered screen [45]; the device sprays taste solutions on a2D picture of the intended food item [44]—unfortunately,
this is a one-off device that users cannot use in any other way(e.g., this would not work in VR, AR, etc.). Vi et al.
engineered a game interface that delivers basic taste stimuli(e.g., sugary water) to the user through a straw [81]. LOLLio
is an interactive device with a lollipop that provides a passive
sweet taste and that pumps citric acid into the mouth throughthe lollipop for sourness [47]. Even the method of chemicaldelivery alters taste perception, as shown in TastyFloats,
which levitated small foods to the mouth [82]. Finally, theFood Simulator applies a force to the user’s teeth while
pumping basic taste solutions into the mouth to roughly
simulate a food [25].
Thermal taste interfaces. Ranasinghe & Do [59] andSamshir et al. [63] developed thermal interfaces for sweet

stimulation, leveraging how the TRPM5 sweet receptor
responds to thermal stimulation. Both devices involved aPeltier element attached to a cooling system for which users
must stick their tongues out to touch the Peltier.
Electrical taste interfaces. Electrical stimulation of the
tongue is the most popular technique to induce taste
sensations in HCI. Ranasinghe et al. [58] leverage directelectrical stimulation of the user’s taste receptors to evoke
perceived taste sensations in a virtual cocktail experience.
Miyashita’s Norimaki Synthesizer device [43] combinesthese approaches by differentially exposing the user’s tongue
to combinations of five tastes. The taste compounds are
suspended in semi-permeable gels, for which electricalcurrents through each gel determine the intensity of theperceived taste.
While these interfaces aim to produce virtual tastes, ourmethod alters the existing taste of real foods and beverages.
Modifying the taste of existing foodResearchers have explored how to modify the perceived
tastes of real foods using different stimulation approaches.
Pseudo-taste interfaces. Considering that taste is also amultimodal experience, many have tackled altering taste byinfluencing secondary aspects of flavor perception such as
sound, smell, temperature, or texture [69, 71]. Narumi et al.
referred to the later as pseudo-gustatory or pseudo-taste
displays [52]. For instance, researchers have experimented
with audio to induce flavor changes. Some examples include,
Chewing jockey, which augments the texture of food via
auditory feedback [37], an auditory-augmented wine glass[42], or Auditory Seasoning Filters, which alters chewing
sounds, influencing perceived flavor and crispiness of potato
chips [31]. In a different vein, MetaCookie delivers inhaledsmells to influence the taste of a basic cookie [51, 52].
LeviSense added smells and lighting to influence the taste oflevitating food [80]. Similarly, TransFork diffuses odors
while the user holds their eating utensil close to their mouth[38]. Unfortunately, these techniques focus on orthonasal(inhaled odors) delivery instead of retronasal (exhaledodors), of which the later contributes more to flavor
perception through oral referral once food is in the mouth [6,8, 70]. Finally, researchers have also experimented withtactile and thermal modifications. Gravitamine Spice alters
the flavor of food by shifting the eating utensil’s center ofgravity [22]. Affecting tumbler uses thermal feedback aroundthe nostrils (when the beverage lid is held up for drinking) tomodify perceived flavor [75].
Chemical taste interfaces. Three devices have focused on
the modulation of flavor via seasoning, affecting both
olfactory and gustatory elements. Yaminabe YAMMY
modifies the flavor profile of a hot pot by dropping flavoring
agents into the pot according to the emotional associations ofa user’s email or photo [85]. GustaCine drops seasonings
onto a bowl of popcorn based on the emotional content of amovie [30]. These modifications to food items are
irreversible: once a seasoning is added, it cannot be removed.
Miyashita expands this approach by combining it with his
prior work, resulting in the TTTV2 [46], which sprays basic
taste solutions (“seasoning”) onto foods that serve as a
substrate (e.g., tofu, rice, or sliced bread). While more
controlled than prior seasoning-based approaches, current
demonstration examples focus on using bland foods as bases(e.g., cold tofu sprayed to taste like mapo tofu), may be prone
to non-uniform seasoning (e.g., only seasoning a particular
patch and not the food item in general), can only add taste to
the food item, and – like prior literature – modify the food’s
flavor profile irreversibly.
Electrical taste interfaces. The predominant approach toalter real food tastes is electrical stimulation. For instance,
Ranasinghe et al. developed electric cutlery that could
slightly increase the sourness or saltiness of unsalted mashedpotatoes and only slightly increase the sourness of unsalted
miso soup [57]. While these are promising they also havethree key limitations. (1) The foods or beverages altered areoften simple in taste profile (mashed potatoes, biscuits,
broth, sugary or salty water, etc.). Moreover, suppression
techniques only work for electrolyte liquids, as suppression
works through ionic migration [2, 3, 43]. This latter point
essentially prevents suppression of real foods that are notsoups or beverages. (2) Electrical stimulation is still typically
deployed through cutlery [12, 48, 49], which means theexperience stops once the utensil’s electrodes are no longer
in contact with the tongue (e.g., during chewing andswallowing). In contrast, Aoyama et al. showed thatelectrical galvanic tongue stimulation (with electrodes at thechin and back of the neck) can induce, inhibit, or enhance thefood’s taste intensity [2, 3]. Building off of this finding,
Ueno et al. [79] demonstrated such stimulation can produce
alterations to a beverage’s aftertaste in combination with andbeyond a utensil’s stimulation window. Unfortunately, thisleads to the fourth limitation: both Aoyama et al. and Ueno
et al. did not produce selective taste alterations. (4) Only theoverall taste intensity could be impacted instead ofindividual basic tastes like bitter or sweet.
State-of-the-art summary. To this day, taste and flavor
modification devices fail to selectively (e.g., at theindividual, basic taste level) alter taste perception during
eating and swallowing for any food and beverage item.
Redirection and props for virtual reality

Since we demonstrate our concept applied to retargeting thetaste of real foods as food props in VR, we succinctly
overview the fields of redirection and props for VR.
Redirecting techniques. At its core, redirection of human
movement involves offsetting a user’s virtual body to
produce a different virtual and real movement, helping
overcome the limitations of limited tracking spaces orprop-based haptics. Examples include redirected walking[60], haptic and hand retargeting [4, 35, 56], etc. In our case,taste retargeting applies the same core concept of redirection
but to flavor perception by altering the perceived taste offoods with modulators, circumventing the limitation of foodprops for virtual reality.
Props. Props are physical stand-ins for virtual objects
typically employed to enhance realism [13, 73, 77]. Virtual
eating experiences can also use food props: foods that serveas edible stand-ins for virtual foods. In its moststraightforward application, a food prop can match thevirtual counterpart (e.g., seeing and eating a lemon). For
instance, Aerobanquets RMX, an interactive gastronomy
experience, had diners wear VR headsets to eat real dishes
recontextualized in a whimsical virtual world [11]. However,preparing one prop per virtual food becomes cumbersome
and laborious as the number of foods increases. A useful prop
is one that can be reused for as many virtual items as possible.
This is difficult for foods due to their distinctive flavors (e.g.,lemon does not taste like a cucumber), the need for
replenishment after every bite, and the abundance of cues(e.g., the smell, size, weight, and texture of a lemon isdifferent from that of a cucumber). Weidner et al. exploredthis tension and demonstrated that one cannot simply
transform a “neutral” (nearly tasteless and odorless) foodinto a more complex food (e.g., a banana) using visuals andsmells alone [84]. Our technique advances food props byretargeting a food item’s taste into many.
Chemical Interfaces in Human-Computer Interaction

Smell and taste interfaces are often fundamentally chemicalinterfaces in that they stimulate these senses using chemical
stimuli like fragrance oils, flavoring agents, or foods. Recent
research in HCI has explored using chemicals to influence
human perception by identifying sensory mechanisms thatcan be stimulated with carefully selected compounds.
[7] demonstrated that an olfactory interface can be analternative to Peltier elements by selecting odor moleculesthat chemically stimulate the same receptors that respond totemperature to produce a temperature illusion. Chemical
Haptics extended this to identify chemical alternatives tovibromotors and electrotactile stimulation [39]. Research has
continued to explore these effects in haptics [20, 26]. Taste
retargeting sets itself apart by using chemicals to modulate
receptors (and, thus, alter their response to other stimuli)
instead of stimulating those receptors to produce a sensation.
MODULATORS USED FOR TASTE RETARGETTING

We propose interactively delivering taste modulators to alter
taste perception while eating or drinking. However, given thelack of prior work in using taste modulators for interactive
experiences, we had to identify and characterize a set ofmodulators that were accessible to realize our concept. Thus,
we provide an overview of our modulators, including
toxicological information. We specifically opted for easieraccess modulators (e.g., food safe, supplement, off-the-shelf,etc.), leading to modulators with suppressing or transforming
effects. However, other modulators exist (e.g., demonstrated

in mice or prescription medications) that might act asenhancers, which we discuss in Future Work.

any safety concerns and does not represent a risk of allergy
or toxicity to humans [76].

1. Gymnemic acids: sweet suppressor

Taste alteration mechanism: Of our modulators, miraculin is
the most recognizable as it is commercially advertised as a“party trick” [16]. Miraculin binds to human sweet taste
receptor hT1R2-hT1R3. While miraculin acts as an inhibitor
at neutral pH environments, it functions as a strong agonist
in the presence of acidic pH environments [36]. In otherwords, miraculin causes acidic stimuli to activate a sweet
taste receptor. This is why it is used as a “party trick” withacidic foods, such as making a lemon taste sweet. In addition,
the perceived sourness of acidic stimuli is diminished, withmostly the sweet signal reaching the primary taste area [86].
The exact mechanism of miraculin interaction with taste
receptors remains unknown. However, miraculin interacts
with lactisole, with psychophysical findings showing that
lactisole diminishes the pH-dependent sweet response
produced by miraculin [24, 36].

Gymnema acids allows us to achieve sweet suppression.
This is a chemical isolated from the leaves of Gymnema
sylvestre. This leaf powder is a commonly available as a
dietary supplement and thus food-safe; ours was purchasedfrom Best Naturals. We use a concentration of 1.0% w/v
based on Okamoto et al. [54].
Taste alteration mechanism: Of our chosen modulators, thismay be the most well-known, second only to miraculin. This
sweet suppression has been attributed to its triterpene
glycosides [5, 74]. More recently, Sanematsu et al. found thatthese gymnemic acids bind to the human sweet taste receptor
hT1R3 to produce its sweet-suppressing effect [64].
2. Clofibric acid: sweet and umami suppressor

Clofibric acid allows us to achieve simultaneous sweet &umami suppression. Clofibric acid (PubChem CID: 2797,
Catalog #: 21608) was purchased from Cayman Chemical
Company at its highest available purity (≥98%). We use adose of 51.45 mg, based on Kochem & Breslin [33], well
below its acute oral toxicity (LD50) of 897 mg/kg [90].
Taste alteration mechanism: Clofibric acid has been shown
to be an antagonist for the sweet taste receptor (hT1R2hT1R3), which also contributes to umami perception. In
other words, clofibric acid binds and inhibits this receptor’s
activity. This inhibition diminishes sweet and umami
perception in humans [33, 34, 40].
3. Lactisole: sweet and umami suppressor

Lactisole (PubChem CID: 16231, Catalog #: 18657) was
purchased from Cayman Chemical Company at its highest
available purity (≥98%). We use a dose of approximately
3.75 mg, based on Sclafani and Pérez [68]. This modulator
is approved for use in foods at levels up to 150 ppm(approximately 150 mg) per food item [9]. Lactisole is acommonly used sweet modulator in industrial foodprocessing [68]. The food industry typically uses lactisole to
avoid perceiving an increase in sweetness when additionalsugar is introduced for texture-purposes (e.g., softness).
Taste alteration mechanism: Lactisole achieves its sweet andumami suppression by blocking the activation of the hT1R2hT1R3 receptor [33, 34].
4. Miraculin: sweet modulator

Miracle berry tablets are a commonly available foodsupplement derived from berries (Synsepalum dulcificum,
known as “miracle fruit”). We source ours from the off-theshelf product mberry. We use 200 mg of miracle berry
dissolved in water. The key active ingredient, miraculin,
produces the taste alteration. Miraculin is not associated with1

https://github.com/humancomputerintegration/taste-retargeting

5. Zinc sulfate: sweet & bitter suppressor

Zinc sulfate (PubChem CID: 24424) is a chemical commonly
available in food supplements and has the U.S. Food andDrug Administration’s “Generally Regarded as Safe” status
for food and beverages. We source it from an off-the-shelfproduct by Triquetra Health. We use a dose of 4 mg derived
from pilots. Zinc sulfate’s acute oral toxicity (LD 50) is
1,538 mg/kg.
Taste alteration mechanism: Zinc sulfate is a sweet inhibitor[27, 28] and selective bitter inhibitor [29]. The exact
mechanisms by which zinc ions affect sweet and bitter taste
are still unknown, but Keast et al. suggests that they bind totaste receptors, altering their binding properties [27].
6. Amiloride: salty suppressor

Amiloride (PubChem CID: 16231, Catalog #: 14409) was
purchased from Cayman Chemical Company at its highest
available purity (≥98%). We use a dose of 1.722 mg, basedon Schiffman et al.’s [65]. This modulator’s acute oral
toxicity (LD50) of this modulator is 300 mg/kg [89].
Taste alteration mechanism: Amiloride has been used as a
specific inhibitor of sodium transport (reducing saltiness).
The psychophysical findings that amiloride reduces theintensity of taste perception of sodium and lithium salts is
consistent with its action in which the fluxes of sodium andlithium are molecularly blocked [65].
HARDWARE IMPLEMENTATION

To help the readers replicate our design, we provide thenecessary technical details bellow. We additionally provide
all source code, firmware, and hardware for our
implementation online.1 Figure 12 shows our complete andself-contained 3-channel prototype, including its battery,liquid-safe pumps, and reservoirs.

Modulators and taste solutions

Figure 12: (a) Our device is comprised of a printed circuitboard, pumps, vials, tubing, and cuffs. (b) High-level schematic.

Our device uses a Seeeduino Xiao ESP32C3 for its compact
size and integrated Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) radio. We
use the BLE to communicate with external devices, such as
a computer, a VR headset (e.g., Oculus Quest), or even amobile phone. To deliver the taste modulators, we used threemini peristaltic pumps (Takasago Fluidic Systems, RP-Q)
connected to thin silicone tubing (ID = 1 mm; OD = 2 mm)
via barbed connectors. Each tube is then connected to thinner
PTFE tubing (ID = 0.6 mm, OD = 1 mm) leading to themouth. We use silicone adhesive to connect silicone to
PTFE. All three tubes are then attached to 20-gauge (0.8 mm
thick, 8 mm loop diameter) lip cuffs to hook at the mouthcorners, which ensures the tubes stay in place. Both thehooks and final PTFE tubing are kept very thin to minimize
their interference during talking, drinking, and eating. The
peristaltic pumps’ mechanical compression of the tubing
serves a secondary function: maintaining pressure so thatusers cannot suck the modulator solution ahead of time.
This hardware is one of many ways to achieve taste
retargeting. For example, modulators could be sprayed onto
foods from a wrist-worn device or could be dynamicallycoated onto cutlery. However, we found our device tocurrently be the most compact and unobtrusive option.

We used the taste modulators detailed in Section 4: amiloride(0.1148 mg/mL), clofibric acid (3.43 mg/mL aka saturation),
gymnema powder (1.0% w/v), lactisole (0.25 mg/mL),
miraculin (13.33 mg/mL), and zinc sulfate (0.266 mg/mL).
We then used medium-intensity solutions of basic taste
stimuli (tastants) prepared according to Hoehl et al. [23]:8.00 g/L sodium chloride for salty, 48.00 g/L sucrose forsweet, 1.08 g/L caffeine for bitter, 2.40 g/L citric acid for
sour, and 4.00 g/L monosodium glutamate for umami. All
solutions used room-temperature filtered tap water as asolvent. Modulators’ effects were measured on taste(s) theyeffected in prior literature. Following this, we tested ninemodulator-tastant pairs: amiloride on salty, clofibric acid on
umami, gymnema powder on sweet, lactisole on sweet,
lactisole on umami, miraculin on sour, zinc sulfate on sweet,
and zinc sulfate on bitter.
Procedure

Participants performed a multi-sip, multi-attribute timeintensity test for each modulator-taste pairing, as depicted in
Figure 13. In other words, each participant drank a tastant at
the start, then the modulator, then the tastant six more times(multi-sip) and evaluated its taste each time (multi-attributetime-intensity). The examiner pre-poured all solutions (samevolume at 3 mL) and told participants that every tastant could
be different or identical to avoid any expectation bias.
Participants drank a cup each minute and were asked tomaintain a consistent sip size. For the modulator, participants
were asked to swish the solution in their mouth for 5 seconds
before swallowing to ensure proper coverage of the oralcavity. After each drink, they then rated the solution's taste
intensity across five attributes (salty, sweet, sour, bitter, andumami) using a Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10(the most).

STUDY 1: MEASURING THE EFFECT OF MODULATORS

Our first study sought to extend results from prior taste
modulator literature. Most literature on taste modulators
originates from their applications in industrial foods andmedicine, such as helping with taste disorders caused byradiotherapy. As a result, prior studies focused onunderstanding which basic taste a particular chemical alters
and to what degree. Following, our study aimed to measure
the strength and duration of a modulator's effect on arelevant basic taste within a 6-minute window. This study
was approved and determined to be exempt by our
Institutional Review Board (IRB22-0260).
Participants

We recruited eight participants (average age 26.38,
SD = 2.72) from our local institution. Six participants
identified as men, one as a woman, and one as non-binary.
We did not recruit participants with allergies or sensitivities
to any ingredients used in the study. Participants wereuntrained and only screened for a basic understanding oftaste-related descriptors (sweet, sour, bitter, salty, umami).
We compensated participants with 25 USD for their time.

Figure 13: Study protocol to measure the effect of a modulator
on a target basic taste over time.

We asked participants to refrain from eating and drinking forat least 30 minutes before a trial. Trials were randomized inorder, and participants had to wait at least 45 minutes
between trials to avoid any unintended effects across trials.
For this reason, we did not conduct repetitions, as the study
would be extremely long for participants.
Results

As reference ratings for the tastants vary across untrained
individuals, we used the relative change (difference between
a time point T and the reference TR) to determine themodulator’s impact on taste perception. We summarize theresults for each modulator below and illustrate their impact
in Figure 14.
Gymnemic acids (gymnema powder). The gymnema
powder solution suppressed sweetness the most effectively,
with a maximum relative change in the sweetness of –2.5.
The powder’s suppression effect slowly recovers with apositive trend toward the original taste.

Zinc sulfate reducing sourness. While some participants
mistook bitterness for sourness, sour-bitter confusion is welldocumented [55, 61]. When we account for this confusion,
this “sour” decrease pointed to the further efficacy of zinc
sulfate at suppressing bitterness over time.

Clofibric acid. Clofibric acid suppressed umami. On
average, the relative change in umami is –1.75, with an
overall downward trend. Due to the umami compound(monosodium glutamate), participants also rated a decreasein perceived saltiness with a maximal relative change of –1
around the 250-second mark. Finally, clofibric acid might
induce a sweet sensation on average +1.
Lactisole. Surprisingly, lactisole did not appear to strongly
affect the sweet solution despite prior literaturedemonstrating an effect (see Discussion). In contrast,
lactisole successfully suppressed the umami of an umami
solution. Lactisole-induced umami suppression steadilystrengthens over time, with a maximal relative change inumami intensity of –2.5 but no trend back towards neutral
within this timeframe. Lactisole also produced a sweet
sensation (+1.4) that faded after 200 seconds. A similar
phenomenon occurred for umami during the sweet solution.
Miraculin. Miraculin transformed sourness into sweetness.
However, this relationship is not one-to-one. While therelative change in sweet intensity stays largely at +2.6, therelative change in sour intensity decreased over time andplateaus around –1.7 between 150 and 250 seconds.
Zinc sulfate. Zinc sulfate suppressed the sweetness of asweet solution, with a maximal relative change in intensityof –2.2. However, unlike the gymnema powder, the sweet
suppression effect lasted longer, with no positive trend backtowards the original taste (neutral) in this timeframe. Zinc
sulfate also suppressed the bitterness of a bitter solution, witha maximal relative change in intensity of –2.5. As with its
effect on sweetness, the bitter suppression effect lasted long,starting off smaller (–1.8) and plateauing (–2.5) without apositive trend back to neutral within this timeframe.
Amiloride. Amiloride suppressed saltiness, though someparticipants also rated this as a decrease in perceived umami
despite the salty solution only containing sodium. If both therelative changes in saltiness and umami are summed,
amiloride’s maximal relative change in saltiness was –2.0.
Suppression is strongest around 100 and 300 seconds aftermodulator delivery, and the effects trended back to theoriginal taste soon after.
Discussion

Our study results mostly align with prior literature for each
modulator and the basic taste tested. We additionally discussa few results from the study in further detail.

Figure 14. Plots of the relative change in intensity of basic tastes
measured under the effect of each modulator. For clarity, webolded the polynomial fits for basic tastes that are relevant to
the modulator and taste solution of each plot.

Zinc sulfate’s change in mouthfeel. Participants sometimes
reported a brief (within the first 10-20 seconds) change inmouthfeel with zinc sulfate. This aligns with prior literaturesuggesting that zinc may bind to the salivary protein
responsible for oral lubrication, reducing salivation [28].

Lactisole and sweet water effect. While our results on theeffect of lactisole on a sweet solution may seem mild, they
point towards a secondary effect that lactisole has on liquids
like water—the sweet water effect. As seen by the bump in
the perceived sweetness for an umami solution, exposure tolactisole causes a “sweet water taste”, in which water tastes
sweet for some time after exposure (does not apply to solids)[1]. Most likely, the lactisole suppresses sweetness, but thesweet water taste initially counteracts this effect. For thisreason, we do not completely rule out lactisole’s well-known
sweet suppression but embrace the sweet water taste effectas another opportunity for taste retargeting.
Taste modulation onset. Given our study protocol, we did
not characterize each modulator’s effect during the first 59
seconds post-exposure. However, prior literature for each
modulator establishes that their effect is (1) noticeable and(2) comes into effect shortly after or immediately upon
exposure. Rated as “immediate effect” are lactisole [68], zinc
sulfate [27], miraculin [10], and gymnema sylvestre tea [83].
While clofibric acid’s effect was measured 75 seconds postexposure [33], our pilots suggested clofibric acid’s effect on
umami occurred almost immediately after exposure.
Likewise, while recent literature on amiloride suppression ofsaltiness was unclear on how quickly (<60 seconds) the
effect started [65], our pilots suggested the change wasnoticeable around 30 seconds after exposure.
STUDY 2: USE IN A VR INTERACTIVE APPLICATION

Our first study confirmed the effects of six modulators fromliterature and provided insights into their strength andduration. In our second study, we investigate taste retargetingused in an interactive application. Here, we apply taste
retargeting to help address an ongoing limitation in VR
eating experiences: the sensory mismatch between a foodprop and its virtual counterparts. This limitation presents acomplex challenge in which our technique could offer
considerable benefits. We hypothesized that the addition of
taste modulators would (H1) reduce the sensory mismatch
between a prop and each of its virtual counterparts and (H2)
make the taste of virtual foods more distinguishable. This
study was approved and determined to be exempt by our
Institutional Review Board (IRB22-0260).
Participants

We recruited 11 participants aged 22-60 years old (M = 29,
SD = 12.3) from our local institution. Five participants
identified as women and six as men. None of the participants
took part in Study 1. We screened out participants withknown allergies or sensitivities to foods or prone to motion
sickness. Participants were compensated with 25 USD.
Tasks

For this study, we adapted one portion of the VR experiencedescribe in our Walkthrough. Similar to the study design in[7], we designed the VR scene so that participants took atleast 40 seconds to find new food items. This gap ensured
that our device had time to drip the modulators. Any virtual
foods that users could interact with appeared at the closest

suitable location (but out of view) only after delivery wascomplete.
Participants entered a deserted forest and were tasked withforaging food to survive. As they teleported through theforest, they could find a blackberry, then a lemon, astrawberry, and – now that no other food was available – adead spider. For these transformations, we delivered lactisole(blackberry to lemon), miraculin (blackberry to strawberry),and finally, zinc sulfate (strawberry to spider). Before they
could eat any virtual item, participants had to “wash” anyvirtual food they found in a virtual pot of water. Only thencould the participant use their hand to grab the virtual foodfrom the pot, which aligned with a physical prop in the room.
Following, the participant always grabbed the same pickled
blackberry prop from a physical bowl. We did this to reducethe visual mismatch from tracking the real food item.
Apparatus

Participants wore a Wireless HTC VIVE with built-in
headphones. The tracking area was 5 × 5 meters. We added
a tracked table (using a VIVE tracker) to mark the prop bowl.
Participants wore an early prototype delivery system in a
backpack, with the same tubing outlets comfortably hookedat the mouth corners. Through pilots, we calibrated thedelivery system to go unnoticed by two authors. Our device
delivered solutions at a drip of 0.05 mL per 6 seconds toreduce perceiving the modulator solution’s taste anddelivery. For reference, humans swallow 0.46±0.31 mL ofsaliva every 60.8±39.0 seconds [62].
Conditions

Participants experienced the VR task once for each condition
in random order: with taste retargeting and without(baseline). In the baseline, participants received filteredwater instead of taste modulator solutions. It is important tonote that our participants were not informed in which
condition they were in (baseline acted as a sort of placebo).
Comparing these two conditions would then let us robustly
identify the taste modulators’ impact on virtual tastes.
Moreover, we did not include an electrical stimulation
condition or other taste displays, as current techniques
cannot produce the taste alterations described in this task.
Procedure

We took into consideration the experimental protocol
discussion from DeepTaste. In it, Nakano et al. reported thatsome participants said they would have experienced
something closer to the virtual food had they not seen theoriginal prop [50]. Following, we hid all food props from theparticipants’ view whenever they were not in VR to avoid
reducing the strength of manipulation in both conditions.
After a participant had finished the VR experience in one
condition, we provided a screenshot of each virtual food andasked the participant to rate how much each flavor matchedthe virtual food (flavor match) on a 7-point Likert in which
1 stood for “not at all” and 7 for “perfectly.” Next, weprovided participants with a visual analog scale used tocollect how different each food tasted compared to eachother. The VAS was a horizontal 1630-pixel length scale(presented on a 35.56 cm laptop screen) with no anchors. We
instructed participants to place four markers (one for each
virtual food) on the VAS, i.e., clustering them closer if they
were similar in flavor and spacing them further if different.
We refer to the average of the three smallest inter-fooddistances on the VAS as the average inter-flavor distance.
Participants could also provide open-ended feedback, which
we transcribed. Once a participant completed bothconditions, we asked them to pick which condition they
preferred and asked for feedback on their experience.

retargeting condition increased the perceived difference inflavor between all food items (M = 0.25, SD = 0.057)
compared to the baseline condition (M = 0.15, SD = 0.083).
As such, we found that taste retargeting nearly doubled theperceived difference in flavor between these virtual foods.

Quantitative Results

We conducted a two-way ANOVA. Figure 15 depicts our
main findings. We found a statistically significant effect of
the food item [F(3,75) = 27.08, p < 0.001] and condition[F(1,75) = 19.95, p < 0.001] on the flavor matching score. A
Tukey post-hoc test revealed that taste retargeting resulted inhigher matching on average than in the baseline condition.

Figure 16. The average inter-flavor distance between all four
food items for baseline and taste retargeting. The maximum
possible result would be a spacing of 0.33 between four foods.

Tactile stimulation. Although we did not design the study
to assess tactile effects, only 2 of 11 participants mentioned
noticing the delivery’s tactile stimulation.
Interference. All participants ate the food props without
reporting any discomfort or interference from the delivery
system’s hooks.
Qualitative Results

We collected and transcribed 60 minutes of comments. We
analyzed transcripts and identified three major topics (flavor
matching, distinct flavors, and incongruencies) and twominor topics (prop’s identity and limitations).

Figure 15: Flavor matching scores between conditions.

For visual clarity, we report the statistical differences frompost-hoc pair-wise comparisons that used BenjaminiHochberg-corrected t-tests in Table 1.
Preference. Of the eleven participants, ten preferred theexperience with taste retargeting and one preferred without.
baseline

taste retarget

taste retarget

baseline

blackberry lemon strawberry spider blackberry lemon strawberry
lemon

**

strawberry

**

n.s.

spider

****

**

**

blackberry

n.s.

*

**

lemon

n.s.

*

*

***

strawberry

*

n.s.

*

****

*

n.s.

spider

**

n.s.

n.s.

**

**

n.s.

****
n.s.

n.s.

Table 1: Summary of post-hoc pair-wise comparisons.

Distinct flavors. For the average inter-flavor distance, wenormalized the distance by the scale’s length (results in therange 0 to 0.33, where 0.33 is the maximal spacing between
all four items). A Shapiro-Wilk test showed that the averageinter-flavor distance did not show evidence of non-normality[W = 0.938, p > 0.05]. Following, we decided to use a oneway ANOVA. We found a statistically significant effect ofcondition on the average inter-flavor distance[F(1,16) = 9.0701, p < 0.01]. As seen in Figure 16, the taste

Flavor matching. Most participants commented that taste
retargeting led to better flavor matching to the intended
virtual taste. For instance, after both conditions, P2 believed
the taste retargeting condition was better than the baseline
and added that the change in taste surmounted the little
discrepancies left. “When I taste the lemon, I can feel thatit’s more sour, [...] I have illusion that makes me think, ‘it’slemon’” (P2). Likewise, P9 reported that the sourness of thelemon came out very noticeably with lactisole’s sweet
suppression and that, for the miraculin transformation, thevirtual strawberry was “very strawberry-like as if it were asweet strawberry.” Many participants commented on theretargeted spider (P1-7, P9-11). To illustrate this: P9, who
debated rating it a six or seven, voiced, “a seven would be
disingenuous because [they] never had a spider before, but it
was the energy for what a spider would taste like.” P1 had avisceral reaction to the spider in the taste retargeting
condition only, screaming loudly and rating it as six in flavor
matching. They later stated that the baseline "was okay, but
the [taste retargeting] time... perfect spider taste: it blocked
everything else and had just a little bitter [...] now I can brag
about, you know, eating a spider.”Distinct flavors. Five participants (P6, P4, P5, P9, P10)
stated that the flavors were clearly distinct with taste
retargeting, e.g., “they’re definitely much more spread out”
(P10). P9 stated, “[there] was more variance across the board

in what [they were] tasting […] felt like a more interesting
and fun experience to just have the tastes be more varied:
more sour sour, more sweet sweets, etc.”
Incongruencies. While taste retargeting improved the flavor
matching and distinct taste of the virtual foods, threeparticipants noted incongruencies with smell (P10) andtexture (P7, P8). P10 stated that the lemon’s citrus taste wasclearly present during taste retargeting, but there was also “ahint of some floral note [prop taste]” that would not typicallybe in a lemon. P7 noted that the blackberry’s texture was still
noticeable despite the flavors matching more in the taste
retargeting condition. Instead, P8 recognized the texture of
the blackberry when grabbing berries. Surprisingly, given
the differences between the virtual foods and prop, no further
incongruencies were reported.
Prop’s identity. While most participants were unsure if theprop was a blackberry (with some asking to have it revealed
after the study), they often did not discuss the prop itself. As
mentioned above, P7 and P8 were outliers that recognized
the prop as a blackberry from grasp or texture. In fact, P6
initially thought they knew the prop’s real identity but started
questioning themselves as the modulators kicked in, “When
I ate the blackberry, it felt like a perfect match, but later, [Iwas] less and less convinced it was a blackberry.”

represents only one of its possible applications. Alongside
opportunities for taste retargeting to potentially support
future immersive experiences (e.g., online co-creation offoods or reliving food memories [14]), we highlight four
potential scenarios where one might expect our technique tofind further applications.
Interactive dining experiences

Chefs (and researchers) have long sought to surprise andentertain diners through all their senses, leading to new
culinary approaches, like molecular gastronomy [72], digital
gastronomy [88], and interactive dining experiences [11].
While certain taste modulators are not new to haute cuisine(e.g., miraculin), their interactive delivery and theopportunities for taste retargeting are. Taste retargeting
could contribute to interactive dining experiences. For
instance, Figure 17 depicts a multi-course dinner with anelement of surprise: the diners use their smartphone torandomly pick a taste alteration via taste retargeting, yielding
different experiences for each person.

Limitations. Participants only stated two limitations withour chosen modulators. First, P2 reported that a very slightsweetness appeared before the strawberry, likely due to themiraculin taking effect on some leftover prop residue fromthe previous bites. Second, zinc sulfate’s taste was noticeable
to three participants (P4, P5, P8) during delivery, but all threestated it dissipated quickly and before they ate the food.
Discussion

Overall, the quantitative and qualitative results from Study 2
confirm both of our initial hypotheses. First, the addition of
taste modulators reduced the sensory mismatch between theblackberry prop and each of its virtual counterparts (H1), as
seen in Figure 15. Moreover, even if the flavor increased but
did not match perfectly, taste retargeting made the taste ofvirtual foods more distinct (H2), as seen in Figure 16. These
results are especially exciting because the complexity ofretargeting a prop increases as the prop undergoes additionaltransformations. Moreover, as previously mentioned, taste
retargeting modulates existing flavors. Thus, the prop’s
initial flavor profile must contain facets matching each
virtual food. This consideration is not so much a limitation
as a tradeoff, as taste retargeting provides a benefit inexchange: using readily available foods as props with little
to no preparation. Finally, future research might address zinc
sulfate’s taste (noted by three participants) with techniques
like mixture suppression (e.g., adding a sweetener todiminish the initial slight bitter taste of zinc sulfate).
FURTHER APPLICATIONSOur exploration of taste retargeting to reduce flavor
mismatching between a food prop and virtual foods

Figure 17: (a) Diners are served a course. (b) They use theirsmartphone to randomize a taste alteration and (c) eat theirdish. (d) Each person thus experiences a different flavor.
Speeding up recipe development

Developing new food products involves recipe development,a process like prototyping in design. Taste retargeting could
make recipe development faster and easier, as Figure 18
illustrates. Recipe developers could produce a single test andretarget it to different taste profiles. By previewing several
flavor possibilities from a single test, developers could savetime and effort, speeding up the recipe development process
like rapid prototyping for design.

Figure 18: (a) Traditional development requires producing
each recipe variation. (b) Taste retargeting could offer previewsof flavor variations using a single iteration.
Embodied understanding of foods

We imagine leveraging taste retargeting so that a user canuse their tongue to interactively understand the impact ofbasic tastes (or even compounds) on the flavor of any food,anywhere. For example, as illustrated in Figure 19, a user
wants to understand how the 110 mg of sodium and 20 g ofsugar – declared on their cookies’ nutritional label –contribute to the sensory experience. They use their phone toscan the beverage’s barcode, which accesses a database ofnutritional label contents and provides the quantities to ourdevice. By suppressing the sweetness, umami, or saltiness of
their beverage interactively, the user can directly experienceand understand how these quantities impact the flavor, rather
than reading abstract numbers. This interaction could also
lead to more playful experiences with everyday foods or
better nutritional education. We were inspired by Schroeder& Flannery-Schroeder’s class exercise using gymnema tea toexperience the contributions of basic tastes to flavor [67].

Figure 20: (a) Our device responds to the user drinking a sugary
carbonated beverage by suppressing its sweetness. (b) The user
no longer enjoys it and (c) casts the beverage aside.
FUTURE WORK

We believe this technique represents a novel step towards theselective taste alteration of real foods. Now that we know thattaste perception can interactively be altered with modulators,
future research may investigate the technique’s finer details.
Combining with existing techniques

As tasting represents a multimodal sensory experience, taste
retargeting may benefit from combinations with existing
techniques to complement with other aspects of flavor likesound, smell, temperature, or texture. For example, Weidner
et al.’s results around visual and olfactory modifications [84]or Kleinberger et al.’s Auditory Seasoning Filters [31] could
pair with taste retargeting to further reduce flavor
mismatching between a food prop and virtual foods. Finally,
taste sensors, like the TS-5000Z [44], might be able to further
measure the effects of modulators on basic taste solutions.
More delivery mechanisms

While our implementation focused on thin tubes delivering
modulators to the corners of the mouth, this is just one of themany ways to achieve taste retargeting. Future work could
investigate spraying modulators directly on the food (e.g.,combining with TTTV2 [46] or spraying from a wrist-worndevice), dynamically coating cutlery, or even integrating themodulators into an intro-oral device (e.g., a retainer).
More taste modulators

Figure 19: (a,b) A user scans their bag of cookies’ barcode and(c) explores how saltiness or sweetness contribute to the flavor.
They suppress the sweetness completely and (d) taste how the
20 g of sugar impacts the cookie.
Dietary interventions

Taste retargeting may also be a promising tool for dietaryinterventions, as sensory properties (taste, smell, sound)strongly influence food choice and intake [18]. As shown in
Figure 20, our device could decrease the sweetness or
saltiness of unhealthy foods to help users reduce their intakeof added sugars or ultra-processed foods. Already, Turner etal. demonstrated that gymnema sylvestre can reduce thedesire for high-sugar sweet foods [78]. Conversely, taste
retargeting could enhance the taste of healthier, yet lesspalatable, foods. For example, suppressing the bitterness ofvegetables to make them more appealing to individuals who
struggle to consume them regularly.

Given that this paper represents a first step towards using
modulators for interactive taste retargeting, we opted formodulators that were readily accessible to most HCI
researchers. While most of these modulators function as
suppressors, there are more experimental compounds to
explore in the future that act as enhancers. In literature,bortezomib enhances sourness for mice, and in IRBapproved pilots, we noticed that trace amounts of bortezomib
could drastically enhance the sourness of foods [53]—tofurther explore these, we recommend Deepankumar et al.’sreview for details on such compounds [15]. Future research
can also explore the identification of bitter enhancers, whichwere otherwise never a research goal in industry or
academia. Alternatively, collaborations with clinics could
investigate repurposing existing drugs that cause distortions
in taste perception [17, 66], including characterizing theiralteration and determining whether non-prescription levelsof these compounds can produce selective taste alterations.

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we proposed taste retargeting, a novel
technique for the selective alteration of taste perception usingchemical modulators. While previous research has exploredmodifying taste through electrical stimulation, theseapproaches are limited in altering flavor and are often only
effective when in contact with the user’s tongue. In contrast,
taste retargeting delivers chemical modulators to the mouth
before eating, temporarily suppressing or altering basic tastes
without obstructing the ability to eat, chew, and swallow.
Our first study identified six accessible taste modulators that
could suppress salty, umami, sweet, or bitter sensations andeven transform sour into sweet. Building on these findings,
we designed a virtual reality experience to demonstrate theeffectiveness of taste retargeting in an interactive VR
context, retargeting three real food props to 12 distinctly
flavored virtual foods. Our second study validated thetechnique and reduced the flavor mismatch between a foodprop and four distinct virtual foods.
Taste retargeting represents a significant step towards
exploring taste modulation in interactive contexts with real
foods. We believe this work points to an emerging directionin HCI, in which chemicals provide unique methods ofinterfacing with the human body to unlock new interactive
possibilities. We are excited to see how other researchers in
HCI, nutritional & food sciences, and health will build uponand extend our findings. Future research may explore newtaste modulators, smaller delivery systems, or evencombinations of our technique with existing methods torefine the fidelity and applications of taste retargeting.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This material is supported by the National Science
Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program underGrant No. DGE-1746045, No. 2047189, and No. 2212352.
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Foundation.

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]
[10]

[11]
[12]

[13]

Finally, we would like to kindly thank our colleague Alex
Mazursky for his support with our hardware design.
REFERENCES

[1]

[2]

[3]

Alvarado, C. et al. 2017. Differential modulation of
the lactisole ‘Sweet Water Taste’ by sweeteners.
PLOS ONE. 12, 7 (Jul. 2017), e0180787.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180787.
Aoyama, K. et al. 2017. Galvanic Tongue Stimulation
Inhibits Five Basic Tastes Induced by Aqueous
Electrolyte Solutions. Frontiers in Psychology. 8,(Dec.
2017),
2112.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02112.
Aoyama, K. et al. 2018. Taste controller: galvanic chinstimulation enhances, inhibits, and creates tastes. ACM
SIGGRAPH 2018 Emerging Technologies (Vancouver
British Columbia Canada, Aug. 2018), 1–2.

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

Azmandian, M. et al. 2016. Haptic Retargeting:
Dynamic Repurposing of Passive Haptics forEnhanced Virtual Reality Experiences. Proceedings ofthe 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, May
2016), 1968–1979.
Bartoshuk, L.M. 1974. After-dinner talk taste
illusions: some demonstrations. Annals of the New
York Academy of Sciences. 237, 1 Odors (Sep. 1974),
279–285.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.17496632.1974.tb49862.x.
Bojanowski, V. and Hummel, T. 2012. Retronasal
perception of odors. Physiology & Behavior. 107, 4(Nov.
2012),
484–487.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.03.001.
Brooks, J. et al. 2020. Trigeminal-based Temperature
Illusions. Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu HI
USA, Apr. 2020), 1–12.
Bult, J.H.F. et al. 2007. Investigations on multimodal
sensory integration: Texture, taste, and ortho- andretronasal olfactory stimuli in concert. Neuroscience
Letters.
411,
1
(Jan.
2007),
6–10.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2006.09.036.
Burdock, G. et al. 1990. 15. GRAS Substances. Flavor& Extract Manufacturers’ Association.
Capitanio, A. et al. 2011. Mixing Taste Illusions: The
Effect of Miraculin on Binary and Trinary Mixtures.
Journal of Sensory Studies. 26, 1 (2011), 54–61.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745459X.2010.00321.x.
Casalegno, M. 2022. Aerobanquets RMX.
Chacin, A. 2013. Sensory Pathways for the Plastic
Mind: A series of experimental devices that expand
sensory experiences through cross-modal computerinteraction. New School for Design.
Cheng, L.-P. et al. 2018. iTurk: Turning Passive
Haptics into Active Haptics by Making Users
Reconfigure Props in Virtual Reality. Proceedings ofthe 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (Montreal QC Canada, Apr.
2018), 1–10.
Covaci, A. et al. 2023. No Pie in the (Digital) Sky: CoImagining the Food Metaverse. Proceedings of the2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany, 2023),
ACM.
Deepankumar, S. et al. 2019. Insights on modulatorsin perception of taste modalities: a review. Nutrition
Research Reviews. 32, 2 (Dec. 2019), 231–246.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954422419000118.
D’Onfro, J. 2014. We Were Blown Away By The
Miracle Berry That Let Us Down Shots Of Vinegar.
Business Insider.
Doty, R.L. et al. 2008. Drug-Induced Taste Disorders.
Drug
Safety.
31,
3(2008),
199–215.

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

DOI:https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-20083103000002.
Forde, C.G. and de Graaf, K. 2022. Influence of
Sensory Properties in Moderating Eating Behaviors
and Food Intake. Frontiers in Nutrition. 9, (Feb.
2022),
841444.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2022.841444.
Galindo-Cuspinera, V. et al. 2006. A TAS1R receptorbased explanation of sweet “water-taste.” Nature. 441,
7091
(May
2006),
354–357.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04765.
Hamazaki, T. et al. 2022. Chemical-induced Thermal
Grill Illusion. 2022 IEEE Haptics Symposium(HAPTICS) (Mar. 2022), 1–6.
Heinzerling, C.I. et al. 2011. Individually Modified
Saliva Delivery Changes the Perceived Intensity ofSaltiness and Sourness. Chemosensory Perception. 4,4(Dec.
2011),
145–153.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-011-9099-z.
Hirose, M. et al. 2015. Gravitamine spice: a systemthat changes the perception of eating through virtual
weight sensation. Proceedings of the 6th Augmented
Human International Conference on - AH ’15(Singapore, Singapore, 2015), 33–40.
Hoehl, K. et al. 2010. Water quality and taste
sensitivity for basic tastes and metallic sensation.
Food Quality and Preference. 21, 2 (Mar. 2010), 243–
249.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2009.06.007.
Ito, K. et al. 2007. Microbial production of sensoryactive miraculin. Biochemical and BiophysicalResearch Communications. 360, 2 (Aug. 2007), 407–
411. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2007.06.064.
Iwata, H. et al. 2004. Food simulator: a haptic interface
for biting. IEEE Virtual Reality 2004 (Chicago, IL,
USA, 2004), 51–57.
Jiang, C. et al. 2021. Douleur: Creating Pain Sensation
with Chemical Stimulant to Enhance User Experiencein Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the ACM on
Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and UbiquitousTechnologies. 5, 2 (Jun. 2021), 66:1-66:26.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/3463527.
Keast, R.S.J. 2004. Oral Zinc Sulfate Solutions Inhibit
Sweet Taste Perception. Chemical Senses. 29, 6 (Jul.
2004),
513–521.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjh053.
Keast, R.S.J. 2003. The Effect of Zinc on Human Taste
Perception. Journal of Food Science. 68, 5 (Jun.
2003),
1871–1877.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13652621.2003.tb12345.x.
Keast, R.S.J. and Breslin, P.A.S. 2005. Bitterness
Suppression with Zinc Sulfate and Na-Cyclamate: A
Model of Combined Peripheral and Central Neural
Approaches to Flavor Modification. Pharmaceutical
Research. 22, 11 (Nov. 2005), 1970–1977.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-005-6136-0.

[30] Khot, R.A. and Yi, J.-Y. (Lois) 2020. GustaCine:
Towards Designing a Gustatory Cinematic
Experience. Proceedings of the FourteenthInternational Conference on Tangible, Embedded,and Embodied Interaction (Sydney NSW Australia,
Feb. 2020), 757–770.
[31] Kleinberger, R. et al. 2023. Auditory Seasoning
Filters: Altering Food Perception via Augmented
Sonic Feedback of Chewing Sounds. Proceedings ofthe 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (Hamburg, Germany, 2023),
ACM.
[32] Knoop, J.E. et al. 2013. Combinatory Effects of
Texture and Aroma Modification on Taste Perceptionof Model Gels. Chemosensory Perception. 6, 2 (Jun.
2013), 60–69. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078013-9141-4.
[33] Kochem, M. and Breslin, P.A.S. 2017. Clofibrate
inhibits the umami-savory taste of glutamate. PLOS
ONE.
12,
3
(Mar.
2017),
e0172534.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172534.
[34] Kochem, M. and Breslin, P.A.S. 2016. LipidLowering Pharmaceutical Clofibrate Inhibits Human
Sweet Taste. Chemical Senses. (Oct. 2016), bjw104.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjw104.
[35] Kohli, L. 2010. Redirected Touching: Warping Space
to Remap Passive Haptics. IEEE Symposium on 3D
User Interfaces (Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Mar.
2010), 129–130.
[36] Koizumi, A. et al. 2011. Human sweet taste receptor
mediates acid-induced sweetness of miraculin.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
108,
40
(Oct.
2011),
16819–16824.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016644108.
[37] Koizumi, N. et al. 2011. Chewing jockey: augmented
food texture by using sound based on the cross-modal
effect. Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment
Technology - ACE ’11 (Lisbon, Portugal, 2011), 1.
[38] Lin, Y.-L. et al. 2018. TransFork: Using Olfactory
Device for Augmented Tasting Experience with Video
See-through Head-mounted Display.
[39] Lu, J. et al. 2021. Chemical Haptics: Rendering Haptic
Sensations via Topical Stimulants. The 34th Annual
ACM Symposium on User Interface Software andTechnology (Virtual Event USA, Oct. 2021), 239–257.
[40] Maillet, E.L. et al. 2009. Phenoxy Herbicides andFibrates Potently Inhibit the Human Chemosensory
Receptor Subunit T1R3. Journal of Medicinal
Chemistry. 52, 21 (Nov. 2009), 6931–6935.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1021/jm900823s.
[41] Maynes-Aminzade, D. 2005. Edible Bits: Seamless
Interfaces between People, Data and Food. CHI ’05
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing
Systems. (2005).
[42] Mesz, B. et al. 2017. Let’s drink this song together:interactive taste-sound systems. (2017), 13–17.

[43] Miyashita, H. 2020. Norimaki Synthesizer: Taste
Display Using Ion Electrophoresis in Five Gels.
Extended Abstracts of the 2020 CHI Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu HI
USA, Apr. 2020), 1–6.
[44] Miyashita, H. 2020. Taste Display that Reproduces
Tastes Measured by a Taste Sensor. Proceedings of the
33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface
Software and Technology (Virtual Event USA, Oct.
2020), 1085–1093.
[45] Miyashita, H. 2021. TTTV (Taste the TV): Taste
Presentation Display for “Licking the Screen” using a
Rolling Transparent Sheet and a Mixture of Liquid
Sprays. Adjunct Proceedings of the 34th Annual ACM
Symposium on User Interface Software andTechnology (Virtual Event USA, Oct. 2021), 37–40.
[46] Miyashita, H. 2022. TTTV2 (Transform the Taste andVisual Appearance):Tele-eat virtually with aseasoning home appliance that changes the taste andappearance of food or beverages. 28th ACM
Symposium on Virtual Reality Software andTechnology (Tsukuba Japan, Nov. 2022), 1–2.
[47] Murer, M. et al. 2013. LOLLio: exploring taste as
playful modality. (2013), 299.
[48] Nakamura, H. and Miyashita, H. 2011. Augmented
gustation using electricity. Proceedings of the 2nd
Augmented Human International Conference on - AH
’11 (Tokyo, Japan, 2011), 1–2.
[49] Nakamura, H. and Miyashita, H. 2011.
Communication by change in taste. Extended
Abstracts of the 2011 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC,
Canada, 2011), 1999–2004.
[50] Nakano, K. et al. 2019. DeepTaste: Augmented
Reality Gustatory Manipulation with GAN-Based
Real-Time Food-to-Food Translation. 2019 IEEE
International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented
Reality (ISMAR) (Beijing, China, Oct. 2019), 212–
223.
[51] Narumi, T. et al. 2011. MetaCookie+. 2011 IEEE
Virtual Reality Conference (Singapore, Singapore,Mar. 2011), 265–266.
[52] Narumi, T. et al. 2011. Pseudo-gustatory display
system based on cross-modal integration of vision,
olfaction and gustation. 2011 IEEE Virtual Reality
Conference (Singapore, Singapore, Mar. 2011), 127–130.
[53] Ohishi, A. et al. 2017. Bortezomib alters sour taste
sensitivity in mice. Toxicology Reports. 4, (2017),
172–180.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2017.03.003.
[54] Okamoto, Y. 2004. Change in Gustatory Sensitivity
after an Oral Application of the Taste Modulator,
Gymnema sylvestre, R. Br. The Japan Society ofHome Economics.
[55] O’Mahony, M. et al. 1979. Confusion in the use of thetaste adjectives ‘sour’ and ‘bitter.’ Chemical Senses. 4,

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]
[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

4
(Dec.
1979),
301–318.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/4.4.301.
Poupyrev, I. et al. 1996. The go-go interaction
technique: non-linear mapping for direct manipulationin VR. Proceedings of the 9th annual ACM symposium
on User interface software and technology - UIST ’96(Seattle, Washington, United States, 1996), 79–80.
Ranasinghe, N. et al. 2019. Augmented Flavours:
Modulation of Flavour Experiences Through Electric
Taste Augmentation. Food Research International.
117,
(Mar.
2019),
60–68.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.05.030.
Ranasinghe, N. et al. 2017. Vocktail: A Virtual
Cocktail for Pairing Digital Taste, Smell, and Color
Sensations. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on
Multimedia Conference - MM ’17 (Mountain View,
California, USA, 2017), 1139–1147.
Ranasinghe, N. and Do, E.Y.-L. 2016. Virtual Sweet:
Simulating Sweet Sensation Using Thermal
Stimulation on the Tip of the Tongue. Proceedings ofthe 29th Annual Symposium on User Interface
Software and Technology - UIST ’16 Adjunct (Tokyo,
Japan, 2016), 127–128.
Razzaque, S. et al. 2001. Redirected Walking.
Eurographics 2001 (2001).
Robinson, J.O. 1970. The Misuse of Taste Names by
Untrained Observers. British Journal of Psychology.
61,
3(1970),
375–378.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.20448295.1970.tb01254.x.
Rudney, J.D. et al. 1995. The prediction of saliva
swallowing frequency in humans from estimates ofsalivary flow rate and the volume of saliva swallowed.
Archives of Oral Biology. 40, 6 (Jun. 1995), 507–512.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-9969(95)00004-9.
Samshir, N.A. et al. 2016. Thermal Sweet Taste
Machine for Multisensory Internet. Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Human AgentInteraction - HAI ’16 (Biopolis, Singapore, 2016),
325–328.
Sanematsu, K. et al. 2014. Molecular Mechanisms for
Sweet-suppressing Effect of Gymnemic Acids.
Journal of Biological Chemistry. 289, 37 (Sep. 2014),
25711–25720.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M114.560409.
Schiffman, S.S. et al. 1983. Amiloride reduces thetaste intensity of Na+ and Li+ salts and sweeteners.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 80,
19(Oct.
1983),
6136–6140.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.80.19.6136.
Schiffman, S.S. 2018. Influence of medications on
taste
and
smell.
World
JournalofOtorhinolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery. 4, 1(Mar.
2018),
84–91.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wjorl.2018.02.005.
Schroeder, J.A. and Flannery-Schroeder, E. 2005. Useof the Herb Gymnema sylvestre to Illustrate the

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

Principles of Gustatory Sensation: An Undergraduate
Neuroscience Laboratory Exercise. Journal ofundergraduate neuroscience education: JUNE: apublication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate
Neuroscience. 3, 2 (2005), A59-62.
Sclafani, A. and Pérez, C. 1997. CyphaTM [Propionicacid, 2-(4-methoxyphenol) salt] inhibits sweet taste inhumans, but not in rats. Physiology & Behavior. 61, 1(Jan.
1997),
25–29.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9384(96)003162.
Spence, C. 2023. Digitally enhancing tasting
experiences. International Journal of Gastronomy andFood Science. 32, (Jun. 2023), 100695.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2023.100695.
Spence, C. 2015. Multisensory Flavor Perception.
Cell.
161,
1
(Mar.
2015),
24–35.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.007.
Spence, C. et al. 2015. On tasty colours and colourful
tastes? Assessing, explaining, and utilizing
crossmodal correspondences between colours andbasic tastes. Flavour. 4, 1 (Dec. 2015), 23.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1186/s13411-015-0033-1.
Spence, C. and Youssef, J. 2018. Assessing the longterm impact of the molecular gastronomy movementon haute cuisine. International Journal of Gastronomy
and Food Science. 14, (Dec. 2018), 35–44.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2018.10.001.
Strandholt, P.L. et al. 2020. Knock on Wood:
Combining Redirected Touching and Physical Props
for Tool-Based Interaction in Virtual Reality.
Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu HI USA,
Apr. 2020), 1–13.
Suttisri, R. et al. 1995. Plant-derived triterpenoid
sweetness inhibitors. Journal of Ethnopharmacology.
47,
1
(Jun.
1995),
9–26.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8741(95)01248-C.
Suzuki, C. et al. 2014. Affecting tumbler: affecting our
flavor perception with thermal feedback. Proceedingsof the 11th Conference on Advances in ComputerEntertainment Technology (2014), 1–10.
Tafazoli, S. et al. 2019. Safety assessment of miraculin
using in silico and in vitro digestibility analyses. Foodand Chemical Toxicology. 133, (Nov. 2019), 110762.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.110762.
Teng, S.-Y. et al. 2018. PuPoP: Pop-up Prop on Palm
for Virtual Reality. Proceedings of the 31st Annual
ACM Symposium on User Interface Software andTechnology (Berlin Germany, Oct. 2018), 5–17.
Turner, S. et al. 2020. Consuming Gymnema sylvestre
Reduces the Desire for High-Sugar Sweet Foods.
Nutrients.
12,
4
(Apr.
2020),
1046.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12041046.
Ueno, S. et al. 2019. Controlling Temporal Change ofa Beverage’s Taste Using Electrical Stimulation.
Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]
[84]

[85]

[86]

[87]

[88]

[89]
[90]

Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow
Scotland Uk, May 2019), 1–6.
Vi, C.T. et al. 2020. LeviSense: A platform for themultisensory integration in levitating food and insights
into its effect on flavour perception. International
Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 139, (Jul. 2020),
102428.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102428.
Vi, C.T. et al. 2018. TasteBud: Bring Taste Back into
the Game. Proceedings of the 3rd International
Workshop on Multisensory Approaches to HumanFood Interaction - MHFI’18 (Boulder, CO, USA,
Nov. 2018), 1–5.
Vi, C.T. et al. 2017. TastyFloats: A Contactless Food
Delivery System. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM
International Conference on Interactive Surfaces andSpaces (Brighton United Kingdom, Oct. 2017), 161–
170.
Warren, R. et al. 1969. Inhibition of the Sweet Taste
by Gymnema sylvestre. Nature. 223, (Jul. 1969), 94.
Weidner, F. et al. 2023. Eating, Smelling, and Seeing:
Investigating
Multisensory
Integration
and(In)congruent Stimuli while Eating in VR. IEEE
Transactions on Visualization and Computer
Graphics.
(2023),
1–11.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2023.3247099.
Yagi, I. et al. 2009. Yaminabe YAMMY: aninteractive cooking pot that uses feeling as spices.
Proceedings of the International Conference on
Advances in Computer Enterntainment Technology ACE ’09 (Athens, Greece, 2009), 419.
Yamamoto, C. et al. 2006. Cortical representation of
taste-modifying action of miracle fruit in humans.
NeuroImage. 33, 4 (Dec. 2006), 1145–1151.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.08.00
9.
Zaidi, Q. et al. 2012. Neural Locus of Color
Afterimages. Current Biology. 22, 3 (Feb. 2012), 220–
224. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.12.021.
Zoran, A. et al. 2021. Cooking with computers: thevision of digital gastronomy. Gastronomy and Food
Science. Academic Press. 35–53.
2019. Amiloride (hydrochloride) Safety Data Sheet.
Cayman Chemicals.
2021. Clofibric Acid Safety Data Sheet. Cayman
Chemicals.