Galvanic skin reactions associated with nonpresentation of an accustomed valued object in humans

Weil, M P; Katkin, Edward S.

doi:10.3758/bf03336359

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Amsel's (1958Amsel's ( , 1992 frustrative nonreward approach, appetitive stimuli (eg food) presented to deprived organisms should lead to a state of frustrative nonreward, given that actual consumption of the reward and satisfaction of the need is blocked or not possible. Supporting this, it has been shown that food stimuli presented to food-deprived participants in a state of nonreward potentiate the defensive startle reflex (Drobes et al 2001;Mauler et al 2006) and provoke negative arousal (Ditkoff and Ley 1974;Weil and Katkin 1969). Following from this, it could be predicted that the oral application of non-food compared to real food objects elicits a negative state of frustrative nonreward resulting in perceptual derogation of specifically the non-food objects, which would result in hunger-induced decrease of perceived size specifically for non-food objects by oral, but not by manual, haptic perception (cf perceptual defenceöMinard 1965; Postman et al 1948).…”

Section: 33mentioning

confidence: 86%

Mapping the Tip of the Tongue—Deprivation, Sensory Sensitisation, and Oral Haptics

Topolinski

Pereira²

2012

Perception

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the impact of food deprivation on oral and manual haptic size perception of food and non-food objects. From relevant theories (need-proportional perception, motivated perception, frustrative nonreward, perceptual defence, and sensory sensitisation) at least four completely different competing predictions can be derived. Testing these predictions, we found across four experiments that participants estimated the length of both non-food and food objects to be larger when hungry than when satiated, which was true only for oral haptic perception, while manual haptic perception was not influenced by hunger state. Subjectively reported hunger correlated positively with estimated object size in oral, but not in manual, haptic perception. The impact of food deprivation on oral perception vanished after oral stimulations even for hungry individuals. These results favour a sensory sensitisation account maintaining that hunger itself does not alter oral perception but the accompanying lack of sensory stimulation of the oral mucosa. Both oral and manual haptic perception tended to underestimate actual object size. Finally, an enhancing effect of domain-target matching was found, ie food objects were perceived larger by oral than by manual haptics, while non-food objects were perceived larger by manual than by oral haptics.

show abstract