ArticleExperimental brain research2004
Chemosensory additivity in trigeminal chemoreception as reflected by detection of mixtures.
Article in Experimental brain research, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chemosensory information processing between keratinocytes and trigeminal neurons.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2014Article
- Hydrogen bonding between solutes in solvents octan-1-ol and water.The Journal of organic chemistry · 2010Article
- Activation of olfactory and trigeminal cortical areas following stimulation of the nasal mucosa with low concentrations of S(-)-nicotine vapor--an fMRI study on chemosensory perception.Human brain mapping · 2009Article
- Workgroup report: Indoor chemistry and health.Environmental health perspectives · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A series of experiments probed into the degree of chemosensory detection additivity exhibited by mixtures of ethyl propanoate and heptanoate in terms of their trigeminal detectability via nasal pungency (i.e., irritation) and eye irritation. Nasal pungency was tested in subjects lacking a functional sense of smell (i.e., anosmics) to avoid olfactory biases. First, we built concentration-detection functions for each chemical and sensory endpoint. Second, we used the data from the functions to prepare mixtures of the two compounds in complementary proportions, and suitable single-chemical standards, all of which should be equally detectable under a rule of complete additivity, i.e., independence of detection. Third, we compared the experimentally obtained detectability with that expected under such rule. The outcome revealed that, at a low detectability level (but still above chance), the mixtures showed complete additivity for both trigeminal endpoints. At a high detectability level (but below perfect detection), the mixtures showed complete additivity for nasal pungency but less than complete additivity for eye irritation. In the context of previous studies, the results consolidate a picture of higher degree of detection additivity at perithreshold levels in trigeminal than in olfactory chemoreception. The outcome presents another line of evidence suggesting broader chemical tuning in chemesthesis compared to olfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.