ArticleNutrients2019
Repeatability of Taste Recognition Threshold Measurements with
Article in Nutrients, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of techniques for the evaluation of taste sensitivity.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Altered eating experience during GLP-1 receptor agonist therapy: a sensory-liking-wanting framework for food preference and nutritional behaviour.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Association between Genetic Variation in theNutrients · 2023Article
- Nutrition claims influence expectations about food attributes, attenuate activity in reward-associated brain regions during tasting, but do not impact pleasantness.Brain and behavior · 2023Article
- Association of phenylthiocarbamide perception with anthropometric variables and intake and liking for bitter vegetables.Genes & nutrition · 2022Article
- Article
- The Adaptive Olfactory Measure of Threshold (ArOMa-T): a rapid test of olfactory function.Chemical senses · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Taste perception, although vital for nutrient sensing, has long been overlooked in sensory assessments. This can, at least in part, be attributed to challenges associated with the handling of liquid, perishable stimuli, but also with scarce efforts to optimize testing procedures to be more time-efficient. We have previously introduced an adaptive, QUEST-based procedure to measure taste sensitivity thresholds that was quicker than other existing approaches, yet similarly reliable. Despite its advantages, the QUEST procedure lacks experimental control of false alarms (i.e., response bias) and psychometric function slope. Variations of these parameters, however, may also influence the threshold estimate. This raises the question as to whether a procedure that simultaneously assesses threshold, false-alarm rate, and slope might be able to produce threshold estimates with higher repeatability, i.e., smaller variation between repeated measurements. Here, we compared the performance of QUEST with a method that allows measurement of false-alarm rates and slopes,
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.