Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28392628›Full record

ArticleFood quality and preference2017

Perceptual and Affective Responses to Sampled Capsaicin Differ by Reported Intake.

Alissa A Nolden, John E Hayes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Food quality and preference, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Oral somatosensory alterations and salivary dysfunction in head and neck cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Effect of Piperine on Saltiness Perception.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Alissa A NoldenSensory Evaluation Center, Department of Food Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.
John E HayesSensory Evaluation Center, Department of Food Science, College of Agricultural Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

Penn State Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR002014 · NCATS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI KRASCHNEWSKI, JENNIFER L. · 2016 to 2025
$33.7M
NRSA Training CoreTL1TR002016 · NCATS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI THOMAS, GAIL D. · 2016 to 2025
$3.4M
Penn State Clinical and Translational Science InstituteTL1TR000125 · NCATS · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV HERSHEY MED CTR · PI SINOWAY, LAWRENCE I · 2012 to 2015
$550k
TRPV1 expression, oral burn and capsaicin desensitization in humansF31DC014651 · NIDCD · PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY, THE · PI NOLDEN, ALISSA ALLEN · 2015 to 2016
$60k
NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR000125NCATS NIH HHS TL1 TR002016NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002014NIDCD NIH HHS F31 DC014651
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study was conducted to a) generate suprathresold dose-response functions for multiple qualities evoked by capsaicin across a wide range of concentrations, and b) revisit how intensity ratings and liking may differ as a function of self reported intake. Individuals rated eight samples of capsaicin for perceived burn and bitterness, as well as disliking/liking. Measures of reported preference for chili peppers, chili intake frequency, prior experience and personality measures were also assessed. Here, we confirm prior findings showing that burn in the laboratory differs with reported chili intake, with infrequent consumers reporting more burn. We extend these findings by exploring how capsaicin perception varies by reported liking, and measures of variety seeking. We also address the question of whether differences in burn ratings may potentially be an artifact of differential scale usage across groups due to prior experience, and not chronic desensitization, as is typically assumed. By using generalized scaling methods and recalled sensations, we conclude the differences observed here and elsewhere are not likely due to differences in how participants use rating scales.

Indexed as

capsaicinchemesthesischili pepper intakegeneralized scalingmemorypersonalitypsychophysics

Identifiers

PMID28392628
PMCPMC5383096

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.