Literature DB >> 22815522

Determinants of taste preference and acceptability: quality versus hedonics.

Gregory C Loney1, Ginger D Blonde, Lisa A Eckel, Alan C Spector.   

Abstract

Several methods exist for reliably determining the motivational valence of a taste stimulus in animals, but few to determine its perceptual quality independent of its apparent affective properties. Individual differences in taste preference and acceptability could result from variance in the perceptual qualities of the stimulus leading to different hedonic evaluations. Alternatively, taste perception might be identical across subjects, but the processing of the sensory signals in reward circuits could differ. Using an operant-based taste cue discrimination/generalization task involving a gustometer, we trained male Long-Evans rats to report the degree to which a test stimulus resembled the taste quality of either sucrose or quinine regardless of its intensity. The rats, grouped by a characteristic bimodal phenotypic difference in their preference for sucralose, treated this artificial sweetener as qualitatively different-compared to sucralose-avoiding rats, the sucralose-preferring rats found the stimulus much more perceptually similar to sucrose. Although the possibility that stimulus palatability may have served as a discriminative cue cannot entirely be ruled out, the profile of results suggests otherwise. Subsequent brief-access licking tests revealed that affective licking responses of the same sucralose-avoiding and -preferring rats differed across concentration in a manner approximately similar to that found in the stimulus generalization task. Thus, the perceived taste quality of sucralose alone may be sufficient to drive the observed behavioral avoidance of the compound. By virtue of its potential ability to dissociate the sensory and motivational consequences of a given experimental manipulation on taste-related behavior, this approach could be interpretively valuable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22815522      PMCID: PMC3422882          DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.6036-11.2012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Neurosci        ISSN: 0270-6474            Impact factor:   6.167


  27 in total

Review 1.  The history of the "Davis Rig".

Authors:  J C Smith
Journal:  Appetite       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 3.868

2.  Taste mixtures: is mixture suppression related to compression?

Authors:  L M Bartoshuk
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  1975-05

Review 3.  Opioid modulation of taste hedonics within the ventral striatum.

Authors:  A E Kelley; V P Bakshi; S N Haber; T L Steininger; M J Will; M Zhang
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2002-07

4.  Bitter taste of saccharin and acesulfame-K.

Authors:  John Horne; Harry T Lawless; Ward Speirs; Domenic Sposato
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.160

5.  T2Rs function as bitter taste receptors.

Authors:  J Chandrashekar; K L Mueller; M A Hoon; E Adler; L Feng; W Guo; C S Zuker; N J Ryba
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2000-03-17       Impact factor: 41.582

6.  Oral sucrose stimulation increases accumbens dopamine in the rat.

Authors:  Andras Hajnal; Gerard P Smith; Ralph Norgren
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2003-08-21       Impact factor: 3.619

7.  A high-throughput screening procedure for identifying mice with aberrant taste and oromotor function.

Authors:  John I Glendinning; Jodi Gresack; Alan C Spector
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 3.160

Review 8.  Brain mechanisms of sweetness and palatability of sugars.

Authors:  Takashi Yamamoto
Journal:  Nutr Rev       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 7.110

9.  Paradoxical adaptation to taste mixtures.

Authors:  H Lawless
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  1982-07

10.  Female rats show a bimodal preference response to the artificial sweetener sucralose.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Richard A Clare
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2004-07       Impact factor: 3.160

View more
  10 in total

1.  Experience-Dependent c-Fos Expression in the Mediodorsal Thalamus Varies With Chemosensory Modality.

Authors:  Kelly E Fredericksen; Kelsey A McQueen; Chad L Samuelsen
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2019-01-01       Impact factor: 3.160

2.  Cocaine decreases saccharin preference without altering sweet taste sensitivity.

Authors:  Jennifer K Roebber; Sari Izenwasser; Nirupa Chaudhari
Journal:  Pharmacol Biochem Behav       Date:  2015-03-24       Impact factor: 3.533

Review 3.  The neuroscience of sugars in taste, gut-reward, feeding circuits, and obesity.

Authors:  Ranier Gutierrez; Esmeralda Fonseca; Sidney A Simon
Journal:  Cell Mol Life Sci       Date:  2020-01-31       Impact factor: 9.261

4.  Nicotine affects ethanol-conditioned taste, but not place, aversion in a simultaneous conditioning procedure.

Authors:  Gregory C Loney; Ricardo Marcos Pautassi; Delna Kapadia; Paul J Meyer
Journal:  Alcohol       Date:  2018-03-02       Impact factor: 2.405

5.  Bitter-Induced Salivary Proteins Increase Detection Threshold of Quinine, But Not Sucrose.

Authors:  Laura E Martin; Kristen E Kay; Ann-Marie Torregrossa
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2019-07-17       Impact factor: 3.160

6.  Examination of the perception of sweet- and bitter-like taste qualities in sucralose preferring and avoiding rats.

Authors:  A-M Torregrossa; G C Loney; J C Smith; L A Eckel
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2014-12-10

7.  Brief Exposures to the Taste of Ethanol (EtOH) and Quinine Promote Subsequent Acceptance of EtOH in a Paradigm that Minimizes Postingestive Consequences.

Authors:  Gregory C Loney; Paul J Meyer
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2018-01-29       Impact factor: 3.455

8.  Breadth of tuning in taste afferent neurons varies with stimulus strength.

Authors:  An Wu; Gennady Dvoryanchikov; Elizabeth Pereira; Nirupa Chaudhari; Stephen D Roper
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2015-09-16       Impact factor: 14.919

9.  An open-source lickometer and microstructure analysis program.

Authors:  Martin A Raymond; Thomas G Mast; Joseph M Breza
Journal:  HardwareX       Date:  2018-06-20

10.  Stability of individual differences in sucralose taste preference.

Authors:  Sam Z Bacharach; Donna J Calu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-14       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.