Restaurant Noise Can Alter Food Taste

Noise can make food taste more bland, but also increase the perception of its crunchiness. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

A noisy restaurant can distract you from your dinner conversation. But all that clatter may also drown out the taste of your food, making it more bland. That's according to a study in the journal Food Quality and Preference. [A.T. Woods et al., "Effect of background noise on food perception"]

Researchers recruited 48 college students, and fitted them with headphones playing either loud white noise, soft white noise, or nothing at all. Then the participants closed their eyes and chomped on snack foods like Pringles and cookies.

Turns out the students listening to blaring static rated the chips as less salty and the cookies as less sweet—even though they were tasting the same foods as the other groups.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Previous studies have shown that sound can interfere with how the brain processes smell; the researchers say the same could be true for taste. Or, loud noise could simply divert attention from the food's flavor.

But it's not all bad news for loud restaurants. In a second study, students rated crunchy foods as crunchier in the presence of loud white noise—perhaps because it tuned them into the sound of their food. The researchers say this study may explain why airline food ain't earning any Michelin stars. Me, I think there's a little more to it than the engine noise.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe