ArticleChemical senses2020
Masking the Detection of Taste Stimuli in Rats: NaCl and Sucrose.
Article in Chemical senses, 2020. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chronic semaglutide alters ingestive behavior without impairing taste function in mice.Molecular metabolism · 2026Article
- Addition of low sodium does not increase sensitivity to glucose in wild-type mice, or lead to partial glucose taste detection in T1R3 knock-out mice.Physiology & behavior · 2024Article
- Sucrose, NaCl, and citric acid suppress the metallic sensation of FeSO4.Chemical senses · 2024Article
- Article
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
Abstract
While psychophysical and neurophysiological assessments of taste sensitivity to single chemical compounds have revealed some fundamental properties of gustatory processing, taste stimuli are rarely ingested in isolation. Arguably, the gustatory system was adapted to identify and report the presence of numerous chemicals ingested concurrently. To begin systematically exploring the detectability of a target stimulus in a background in rodents, we used a gustometer to train rats in a 2-response operant task to detect either NaCl (n = 8) or sucrose (n = 8) dissolved in water, and then tested the sensitivity of rats to the trained NaCl stimulus dissolved in a sucrose masker (0.3, 0.6, or 1.0 M, tested consecutively) versus sucrose, or the trained sucrose stimulus dissolved in a NaCl masker (0.04, 0.2, or 0.4 M) versus NaCl. Detection thresholds (EC50 values) were determined for the target stimulus dissolved in each concentration of the masker. Except for 0.04 M NaCl, all masker concentrations tested increased the target stimulus EC50. Target stimulus detectability decreased systematically as masker concentrations increased. The shift in liminal sensitivity for either target was similar when the threshold for the masker was considered. At least for these prototypical stimuli, it appears that the attenuating impact of a masker on the detection of a target stimulus depends on sensitivity to the masking stimulus. Further study will be required to generalize these results and extend them to more complex maskers, and to discern neural circuits involved in the detection of specific taste signals in the context of noisy backgrounds.
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.