Table 1.
Approaches to flavour pairing according to Spence [31]. This table highlights the suggested division of food-beverage pairing approaches into two main categories, with examples of each, and relevant comments, where appropriate.
| Paring Approach | Specific Approach | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Cognitive/intellectual | ||
| conventional | By far the most comments approach to pairing | |
| complexity | Plached as cognitive/intellectual Category on the assumption that complexity cannot be directly perceived | |
| quality | Placed as cognitive/intellectual category on the assumption that quality cannot be directly perceived | |
| process | E.G., pairing wine and cheese because both reply on fermentation | |
| Shared molecules | While the FPH put forward as a means of predicting perceptual similarity, its failure means that FPH can only meaningfully exist as a cognitive/intellectual reason to pair elements | |
| Perceptual | ||
| similarty | This approach to pairing is addressed by the FPH | |
| Contrast | ||
| Harmony | ||
| Emergence | ||
| Modulation-suppression | Typically this approache to pairing involves the suppression of an undesirable elements in the tasting experience | |
| Modulation-enhancement |
FHP: Flavour pairing hypothesis.