Abstracts - Association for Chemoreception Sciences

#P229 POSTER SESSION V:
HUMAN TASTE PSYCHOPHYSICS;
OLFACTION RECEPTORS; TASTE DEVELOPMENT
Are individuals with elevated food liking scores (‘foodies’)
hypergeusic?
Nadia K Byrnes, Alissa L Allen, Emma L Feeney, Rachel J Primrose,
John E Hayes
Department of Food Science University Park, PA, USA
The public believes that foodies are supertasters (and vice versa),
consistent with reports that chefs and wine experts report greater
bitterness from propylthiouracil (PROP). However, the two
reports that test this hypothesis conflict. Minski et al. reported
‘high food interest’ individuals (‘foodies’) rated quinine, sodium
chloride and PROP as more intense than those with average or
low food interest in a laboratory study (n=100), while Pickering
et al. failed to find any difference in the bitterness of PROP
impregnated discs sent via mail (n>900). These studies also
differ in how high food affect individuals were identified: via a
ratio of affective ratings for all foods to pleasant non-food item
versus a difference score of mean liking for all foods minus mean
liking for all non-foods. Here, we explore this question in 246
subjects who completed a generalized hedonic survey (i.e. food
& nonfood items) and whole mouth ratings for sucrose, quinine,
and PROP. We characterized subjects as high affect using both
approaches. Regardless of the categorization method, sucrose,
quinine, and PROP intensity ratings did not differ by group in
ANOVA. When groups were predicted in logistic regression
(‘do higher taste ratings predict being a foodie?’) there was no
evidence supporting this hypothesis. Adding the personality trait
Sensation Seeking as a covariate did not alter these conclusions.
We did find evidence of lower Sensation Seeking scores
among foodies (as defined via the difference score), but further
inspection suggests this was due to a small increase in the mean
liking of pleasant non-food items when mean food liking was
flat. These data fail to support the hypotheses that a) hypergeusic
individuals show higher food related affect or that b) higher food
affect predicts heightened taste response. Acknowledgements:
funds from the Pennsylvania State University and NIH grant
DC0010904.
#P230 POSTER SESSION V:
HUMAN TASTE PSYCHOPHYSICS;
OLFACTION RECEPTORS; TASTE DEVELOPMENT
Effects of Food Neophobia on Salivary ph, Cortisol and
Adrenal Level
August Capiola, Bryan Raudenbush, Amanda Schultz
Wheeling Jesuit University Wheeling, WV, USA
Food neophobics (individuals reluctant to try novel foods)
and food neophilics (individuals with an overt willingness
to try novel foods) differ in several physiological aspects.
Phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) tasting ability, a genetic
predisposition, differs among the two groups with more food
neophobics possessing this inherited trait. Food neophobics
salivate less when presented with novel foods and have higher
physiological stress responses to novel foods (increased pulse,
GSR, and respirations). The present study assessed salivary
pH, adrenal level and cortisol level in food neophobics, food
neophilics and an average group, to determine whether such
salivary flow and physiological stress reactions could partially be
explained by such variables. Salivary mouth swab samples were
obtained from 117 participants, who also completed the Food
Neophobia Scale (FNS) to assess level of food neophobia. A
significant MANCOVA result was found, F=2.47, p=.03. Further
analysis revealed food neophobics had significantly higher levels
of salivary cortisol compared to food neophilics and the average
group, F(2,102)=7.53, p=.001. The finding that higher levels
of the stress hormone cortisol are present in food neophobic’s
saliva supports past research indicating a greater physiological
stress reaction to novel food stimuli in these individuals. Future
research should assess whether exposure to novel foods can
decrease the level of salivary cortisol in food neophobics, as a
way of promoting a more varied and healthful diet.
#P231 POSTER SESSION V:
HUMAN TASTE PSYCHOPHYSICS;
OLFACTION RECEPTORS; TASTE DEVELOPMENT
The NIH Toolbox Brief Gustation Assessment Protocol
Susan E. Coldwell 1 , Valerie B. Duffy 2 , Linda Bartoshuk 3 ,
James W. Griffith 4 , Howard J. Hoffman 5
1
University of Washington School of Dentistry Seattle, WA, USA,
2
University of Connecticut College of Agriculture and Natural
Resources Storrs, CT, USA, 3 University of Florida College of Dentistry
Gainesville, FL, USA, 4 Northwestern University Feinberg School of
Medicine Evanston, IL, USA, 5 National Institutes of Health, National
Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Bethesda,
MD, USA
NIH Toolbox developed standardized, brief assessments for
sensory, motor, cognitive and emotional function that are
designed for use in longitudinal studies, epidemiological
research, and clinical trials. The sensory battery consists of
brief assessments of gustation, olfaction, vision, audition, pain,
and vestibular balance; all six can be administered within 30
minutes, including 6 minutes for the assessment of gustation.
The Gustation Assessment begins with instructions in use of the
general Labeled Magnitude Scale by rating of remembered lights
(dimly lit restaurant, well-lit room, brightest light ever seen).
Four taste trials are then delivered: 1 mM Quinine HCl applied
to the anterior tongue, 1 M NaCl applied to the anterior tongue,
1 mM Quinine HCl whole mouth (sip and spit), and 1 M NaCl
whole mouth. Rinsing with water is done between trials. As
part of the NIH Toolbox national norming study, the Gustation
Assessment was given to 1843 English-speakers and 240 Spanishspeakers.
These included 494 subjects aged 12 to 15 years and
509 aged 15 to 19 years. For 172 subjects, the battery was given
twice to establish test-retest reliability. Preliminary intraclass
correlations (ICC) indicate that the test is reliable for whole
mouth ratings (ICC = 0.54 for Quinine and 0.57 for NaCl) and
reliable for NaCl on the anterior tongue (ICC = 0.42). Quinine
ratings for the anterior tongue were less reliable (ICC = 0.29),
POSTER PRESENTATIONS
Abstracts are printed as submitted by the author(s).
119