Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:31:06.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Salty, bitter, sweet and sour survive unscathed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2008

David A. Booth
David A. Booth
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, West Midlands B15 2TT, United Kingdom. [email protected]://psychology.bham.ac.uk/staff/davidbooth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Types of sensory receptor can only be identified by multidimensional discrimination of a familiar version of a sensed object from variants that disconfound putative types. By that criterion, there is as yet no evidence against just the four classic types of gustatory receptor, for sodium salts, alkaloids, sugars, and proton donors.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 76 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Booth, D. A. (1994) Recognition of objects by physical attributes. Continuing Commentary on: G. R. Lockhead, Psychophysical scaling: Judgments of attributes or objects? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17:759–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, D. A. (1995) Cognitive processes in odorant mixture assessment. Chemical Senses 20:639–43.Google Scholar
Booth, D. A. (2005) Perceiving the texture of a food: Biomechanical and cognitive mechanisms and their measurement. In: Food colloids: Interactions, microstructure and processing, ed. Dickinson, E., pp. 339–55. Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Booth, D. A. & Freeman, R. P.J. (1993) Discriminative measurement of feature integration in object recognition. Acta Psychologica 84:1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, D. A., Freeman, R. P. J. & Kendal-Reed, M. S. (1995) Recognition of aromas by subconscious cognitive integration of receptor patterns. In: Aroma: perception, formation, evaluation, ed. Rothe, M. & Kruse, H.-P., pp. 101–16. Deutsches Institut für Ernährungsforschung, Potsdam.Google Scholar
Booth, D. A., Konle, M., Wainwright, C. J. & Sharpe, O. (submitted). Umami (savory) taste does not need a 5th type of gustatory receptor on the human tongue.Google Scholar
Booth, D. A., Mobini, S., Earl, T. & Wainwright, C. J. (2003) Consumer-specified instrumental quality of short-dough cookie texture using penetrometry and break force. Journal of Food Science: Sensory and Nutritive Qualities of Food 68(1):382–87.Google Scholar
Breslin, P. A. S., Beauchamp, G. K. & Pugh, E. N. (1996) Monogeusia for fructose, glucose, sucrose and maltose. Perception and Psychophysics 58:327–41.Google Scholar
Freeman, R. P. J., Richardson, N. J., Kendal-Reed, M. S. & Booth, D. A. (1993) Bases of a cognitive technology for food quality. British Food Journal 95(9):37–44.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. J. (1979) An ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Hamlyn, D. W. (1957) The psychology of perception. Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Lemon, C. H. & Smith, D. V. (2006) Influence of response variability on the coding performance of central gustatory neurons. Journal of Neuroscience 26:7433–43.Google Scholar
Richardson-Harman, N. J. & Booth, D. A. (2006) Do you like the sight or the feel of milk in coffee? Ecology and effortful attention in differential acuity and preference for sensed effects of milk substitute in vended coffee. Appetite 46:130–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed