ArticleChemical senses2024
Can humans smell tastants?
Article in Chemical senses, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Neural and Perceptual Effects of Stevia During Retronasal Occlusion.The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Article
- Retro nasal blockade reduces the neural processing of sucrose in the human brain.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2025Article
- Odor of Fatty Acids: Differences in Threshold and Perception Intensity Between Sexes.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Although studies have shown that olfaction may contribute to the perception of tastant, literature is scarce or circumstantial, especially in humans. This study aims to (i) explore whether humans can perceive solutions of basic prototypical tastants through orthonasal and retronasal olfaction and (ii) to examine what volatile odor compounds (VOCs) underlie this ability. Solutions of 5 basic tastants (sucrose, sodium chloride, citric acid, monosodium glutamate [MSG], quinine) dissolved in water, and 2 fatty acids (oleic and linoleic acid) dissolved in mineral oil were prepared. Triangle discrimination tests were performed (n = 41 in duplicate) to assess whether the tastant solutions can be distinguished from blanks (solvents) through ortho- and retronasal olfaction. Participants were able to distinguish all tastant solutions from blank through orthonasal olfaction. Only sucrose, sodium chloride, oleic acid, and linoleic acid were distinguished from blank by retronasal olfaction. Ethyl dichloroacetate, methylene chloride, and/or acetone were identified in the headspace of sucrose, MSG, and quinine solutions but not in the headspace of water, sodium chloride, and citric acid solutions. Fat oxidation compounds such as alcohols and aldehydes were detected in the headspace of the oleic and linoleic acid solutions but not the mineral oil. We conclude that prototypical tastant solutions can be discriminated from water and fatty acid solutions from mineral oil through orthonasal olfaction. Differences in the volatile headspace composition between blanks and tastant solutions may have facilitated the olfactory discrimination. These findings can have methodological implications for future studies assessing gustatory perception using these prototypical taste compounds.
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.