To like or not to like: Neural substrates of subjective flavor preferences

Bosch, I. van den; Dalenberg, Jelle R.; Renken, Remco; Langeveld, Astrid W.B. van; Smeets, Paul A.M.; Griffioen-Roose, Sanne; Horst, ter Gert; Graaf, C. de; Boesveldt, Sanne

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.04.010

Cited by 30 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, considering the criticism of Bonferroni being too conservative with large numbers of tests and similar expected effects across tests (non-independence) (see e.g., Perneger, 1998), we also report results that did not survive this additional Bonferroni correction. For regions other than those of a-priori interest, we report clusters significant at a stricter statistical threshold of p < 0.001 uncorrected and a cluster extent k > 12, in line with other studies in the field (e.g., Martin et al, 2010; Demos et al, 2012; Seo et al, 2013; Stice et al, 2013; Van den Bosch et al, 2014). …”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 90%

Activation in inhibitory brain regions during food choice correlates with temptation strength and self-regulatory success in weight-concerned women

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food choices constitute a classic self-control dilemma involving the trade-off between immediate eating enjoyment and the long term goal of being slim and healthy, especially for weight-concerned women. For them, decision-making concerning high (HE) and low energy (LE) snacks differs when it comes to the need for self-control. In line, our first study aim was to investigate which brain regions are activated during food choices during HE compared to LE energy snacks in weight-concerned women. Since it is particularly difficult to resist HE snacks when they are very tasty, our second aim was to investigate in which brain regions choice-related activation varies with the food's tastiness. Our third aim was to assess in which brain regions choice-related activation varies with individual differences in self-regulatory success. To this end, 20 weight-concerned women indicated for 100 HE or LE snacks whether they wanted to eat them or not, while their brains were scanned using fMRI. HE snacks were refused more often than equally-liked LE snacks. HE snack choice elicited stronger activation in reward-related brain regions [medial to middle orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), caudate]. Highly tasty HE snacks were more difficult to resist and, accordingly, activation in inhibitory areas (inferior frontal gyrus, lateral OFC) was negatively associated with tastiness. More successful self-controllers showed increased activation in the supplementary motor area during HE food choices. In sum, the results suggest that HE snacks constitute a higher reward for weight-concerned women compared to (equally-liked) LE snacks, and that activation during food choice in brain regions involved in response inhibition varied with tastiness and individual differences in self-regulatory success. These findings advance our understanding of the neural correlates of food choice and point to new avenues for investigating explanations for self-regulatory failure.

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 90%

Activation in inhibitory brain regions during food choice correlates with temptation strength and self-regulatory success in weight-concerned women

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In humans, applying taste stimulants via the oral route and using functional brain MRI, insights on the cerebral localization of human taste perception could be gained: the anterior insula and adjoining frontal opercular cortex seem to represent the primary taste cortex, and caudal parts of the orbitofrontal cortex form the secondary taste cortex [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30]. A coordinatebased meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies contrasting food tastes with tasteless solutions, confirmed insular areas as location of primary gustatory cortex.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…At regular time intervals (15,30,45 and 60 min after administration of the test solution), additional blood samples were taken. The blood samples were collected on ice into tubes containing EDTA (6 μmol/L), a protease inhibitor cocktail (Complete ® , EDTA-free, 1 tablet/50 mL blood; Roche, Mannheim, Germany) and a dipeptidylpeptidase IV inhibitor (10 μL/mL; Millipore Corporation, St. Charles, Missouri, USA).…”

Section: Blood Sampling and Laboratory Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Gut Taste Stimulants Alter Brain Activity in Areas Related to Working Memory: a Pilot Study

Meyer‐Gerspach¹,

Suenderhauf

Bereiter³

et al. 2016

Neurosignals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Aims: Taste perception is one of the most important primary oral reinforcers, driving nutrient and energy intake as well as toxin avoidance. Taste receptors in the gastrointestinal tract might as well impact appetitive or aversive behavior and thus influence learning tasks and a close relation of neural taste processing and working memory networks seems plausible. Methods: In the present pilot study, we determined the effects of five taste qualities “bitter” (quinine), “sweet” (glucose), “sour” (citric acid), “salty” (NaCl) and “umami” (monosodium glutamate, MSG) on working memory processing using functional MRI and their effect on plasma insulin and glucose levels. On six separate occasions, subjects received one of the following test substances dissolved in 200 mL tap water via a nasogastric tube (to circumvent the oral cavity): 1) 2g citric acid corresponding to 52 mM, 2) 2g NaCl; 171 mM, 3) 0.017g quinine; 0.26 mM, 4) 1g monosodium glutamate; 30 mM, 5) 25g glucose; 694 mM and 6) 200 mL tap water (placebo). Results: The taste qualities “bitter” and “umami” significantly altered brain activation patterns in the primary gustatory cortex as well as in subcortical structures, previously reported to be involved in emotional learning and memory. In contrast, glucose did not reveal any statistically significant brain activation difference. Working memory performance was not different over the six treatments. Plasma insulin and glucose levels were not affected by the different taste substances (MSG, quinine, NaCl and citric acid). Conclusions: in this pilot trial, we demonstrate that acute intragastric administration of different taste substances does not affect working memory performance in humans. However, “umami” and “bitter” have effects on brain areas involved in neural working memory, overpowering the effects of “sweet”, “salty” and “sour” reception.

show abstract

“…Other neuroimaging studies confirmed the high effects on taste and flavor perception by different extrinsic cues such as the appearance of the foodstuff, packaging design, brand name, geographical origin, price, subjective flavor preferences (McClure et al, 2004 ; Plassmann et al, 2008 ; Kühn and Gallinat, 2013 ; Okamoto and Dan, 2013 ; Van den Bosch et al, 2014 ) and also the simple evocation of the odor or product name (Royet et al, 2013a ; Bensafi et al, 2014 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 81%

An fMRI study on the influence of sommeliers' expertise on the integration of flavor

Pazart

Comte

Magnin

et al. 2014

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Flavors guide consumers' choice of foodstuffs, preferring those that they like and meet their needs, and dismissing those for which they have a conditioned aversion. Flavor affects the learning and consumption of foods and drinks; what is already well-known is favored and what is new is apprehended. The flavor of foodstuffs is also crucial in explaining some eating behaviors such as overconsumption. The “blind” taste test of wine is a good model for assessing the ability of people to convert mouth feelings into flavor. To determine the relative importance of memory and sensory capabilities, we present the results of an fMRI neuro-imaging study involving 10 experts and 10 matched control subjects using wine as a stimulus in a blind taste test, focusing primarily on the assessment of flavor integration. The results revealed activations in the brain areas involved in sensory integration, both in experts and control subjects (insula, frontal operculum, orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala). However, experts were mainly characterized by a more immediate and targeted sensory reaction to wine stimulation with an economic mechanism reducing effort than control subjects. Wine experts showed brainstem and left-hemispheric activations in the hippocampal and parahippocampal formations and the temporal pole, whereas control subjects showed activations in different associative cortices, predominantly in the right hemisphere. These results also confirm that wine experts work simultaneously on sensory quality assessment and on label recognition of wine.

show abstract

To like or not to like: Neural substrates of subjective flavor preferences

Cited by 30 publications

References 57 publications

Activation in inhibitory brain regions during food choice correlates with temptation strength and self-regulatory success in weight-concerned women

Activation in inhibitory brain regions during food choice correlates with temptation strength and self-regulatory success in weight-concerned women

Gut Taste Stimulants Alter Brain Activity in Areas Related to Working Memory: a Pilot Study

An fMRI study on the influence of sommeliers' expertise on the integration of flavor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About