530 



HANDBOOK OF PHYSIOLOGY 



NEUROPHYSIOLOGY I 



+ 100^ 



! + 50^ 



S-50^ 



-100^ 



Stimulus Concentration 



FIG. i8. Preponderance of pleasant' or unpleasant' judg- 

 ments in relation to the concentration of taste solution. Ordmale 

 gives per cent 'pleasant' minus per cent unpleasant.' The 

 abscissa is proportional to the concentration, the full length of 

 the base line standing for 40 per cent cane sugar, i . 1 2 per 

 cent tartaric acid, 10 per cent NaOl and 0.004 per cent quinine 

 sulphate (all by weight). [From Engel, as reproduced in 

 Woodworth (200).] 



suits showed no impulse discharge following intra- 

 venous injection of taste stimuli (Beidler, L. M., 

 personal communication). Further electrophysiologi- 

 cal studies of 'intravenous taste' are called for. 



Sherrington (190) has noted that stimulation of the 

 contact sense organs often initiates a chain of responses 

 culminating in consummatory behavior. Taste along 

 with tactile stimulation of the mouth leads directly 

 to the retention, chewing and swallowing of food or 

 its expulsion. Strong affective or hedonic tone ap- 

 pears to he a basic property of 'nonprojicient' receptor 



stimulation as compared with the more neutral conse- 

 quences of distance receptor stimulation. 



Troland (196) divided receptor stimulation into 

 classes of innate biological utility. These were 

 nociception, associated with deleterious agents; bene- 

 ception, with stimuli of biological utility; and neutro- 

 ception, with stimuli of relatively neutral character. 

 Different tastes might fall in either the beneceptor 

 or nociceptor classes. These three classes correspond 

 closely to the neutral, unpleasant or pleasant affectiv-e 

 lone aroused by sensory stimulation (202). 



Intensity as well as taste quality is a determiner of 

 hedonic rating as shown in figure 18 (73). Quinine 

 is mostly unpleasant and is increasingly so with in- 

 crease in stimulus concentration. Sucrose is mostly 

 pleasant but acid and salt are intermediate, showing 

 a rise in pleasantness to a maximum and then a fall 

 with increase in concentration. These hedonic curves 

 appear to resemble the preference cur\es found in 

 animal studies (.see fig. 16), particularh for salt and 

 quinine. Hedonic ratings of more complex tastes and 

 flavors can be obtained with human subjects by 

 means of rating scales, paired comparison judgments 

 and other similar tests. These have had wide practical 

 application in the food industry and the armed forces 

 for assessing the palatability of food and rations. Such 

 ratings can be reliable predictors of the actual accep- 

 tance in the field (171). 



Acceptability of food by man, of course, is deter- 

 mined not alone by taste. Food habits, cultural con- 

 ditioning, immediate social pressures or other com- 

 plex psychological factors play a significant role in 

 acceptability. Acceptability is not a property of food. 

 The acceptance of food is a response of the organism, 

 and taste as one component in flavor may play an 

 important role in determining this response. 



REFERENCES 



1. Abbott, P. S. T/ie Effect of Temperature on Taste in the 

 While Rat (Thesis). Providence, R. I. : Brown University, 



'953- 



2. Abrahams, H., D. Kr.^k.auer and K. M. D.allenbach. 

 Am. 3. Psychol. 49: 462, 1937. 



3. Adler, a. ^Isckr. ges. Neurol. Psychiat. 149: 208, 1934. 



4. Allara, E. Arch. ital. anat. e embriol. 42 ; 506, 1 939. 



5. Allara, E. Riv. bid. 44: 209, 1952. 



6. Allen, F. and M. Weinberg. Quart. J. Exper. Physiol. 



15:385. I925- 



7. Allen, W. F. J. Comp. Neurol. 35; 275, 1923. 



8. Allison, J. B. j'. Gen. Physiol. 15: 621, 1932. 



9. Allison, J. B. and W. H. Cole. J. Gen. Physiol. 17: 

 803, 1934. 



10. Andersson, B., S. Landgren, L. Ols.son and '\'. Zotter- 

 MAN. Acta physiol. scandinav. 21: 105, 1950. 



11. .\rev, L. B., M. J. Tremaine and F. L. Monzingo" 

 Anat. Rec. 64: 9, 1935. 



12. Bacharach, E. Z^schr. Biol. 84; 335, 1926. 



13. Bacshaw, M. H. and K. H. Pribram. J. .Neurophvsiol . 16: 



499. '953- 



14. B.aradi, a. F. and G. H. Bourne. .Xalure, London 168: 



977. ■95"- 



15. Bare, J. K. J. Comp. & Physiol. Psychol. 42: 242, 1949. 

 r6. Beattv, R. M. .\nd L. H. Cragg. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 57: 



■■!347. '935- 



17. Beebe-Center, J. G. .\ND D. VVaddell. J. Psychol. 26: 



5' 7. ■948. 



18. Beidler, L. M. J. .\europhysiol . 16: 595, 1953. 



19. Beidler, L. M. J. Gen. Physiol. 38: 133, 1954. 



20. Beidler, L. M. In; Chemistry oj .\atural Food Flavors, 

 edited by J. H. Mitchell, Jr., N. J. Leinen, E. M. Mrsik 



