ArticleChemosensory perception2015
Perceptual mapping of chemesthetic stimuli in naïve assessors.
Article in Chemosensory perception, 2015. 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.
- Visualization of the relationship between electrogustometry and whole mouth test using multidimensional scaling.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Perception of chemesthetic stimuli in groups who differ by food involvement and culinary experience.Food quality and preference · 2015Article
- Perceptual Qualities of Ethanol Depend on Concentration, and Variation in These Percepts Associates with Drinking Frequency.Chemosensory perception · 2015Article
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
Chemesthetic compounds, responsible for sensations such as burning, cooling, and astringency, are difficult stimuli to work with, especially when the evaluation task requires retasting. Here, we developed a protocol by which chemesthetic compounds can be assessed using sorting. We compared the performance of two cohorts of untrained assessors on this task, one with nose clips and the other without. Similarity matrices were analyzed using multidimensional scaling (MDS) to produce perceptual maps for the two cohorts. Overall, the groupings from the nose open cohort tended to follow a biological basis, consistent with previous findings that suggest compounds that activate a common receptor will elicit similar sensations. The nose-open and nose-pinched cohorts generated significantly different maps. The nose-pinched cohort had a higher variance in the MDS solution than the nose-open group. While the nose-open cohort generated seven clusters, the nose-pinched cohort generated only two clusters, seemingly based on the ready identification of chemesthetic sensations or not. There was less consensus regarding the attributes used to describe the samples in the nose-pinched cohort than in the nose-open cohort as well, as this cohort collectively generated more attributes but fewer were significant in regression.
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.