Search

Background: Weight regain is a concerning issue in bariatric patients. We previously demonstrated that taste-related reward processing was associated with six-month weight loss outcomes following Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) but not vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG). Here, we assessed whether these taste factors persisted in predicting weight loss, and weight regain, at one year post-surgery., Methods: Adult women enrolled in a longitudinal study of taste preferences following bariatric surgery completed behavioral and neuroimaging assessments at one year post-surgery., Results: RYGB produced better weight loss relative to VSG, with weight regain and greater weight loss variability observed from six months to one year post-VSG. Changes in liking for high fat at 2 weeks post-surgery from baseline remained a predictor of weight loss in RYGB, but other predictors did not persist. Average liking ratings rebounded to baseline and higher self-reported food cravings and dietary disinhibition correlated with poorer weight loss at one year post-surgery., Conclusion: Initial anatomical and metabolic changes resulting from RYGB that reset neural processing of reward stimuli in the mesolimbic pathway appear to be temporary and may be contingent upon post-operative eating behaviors returning to preoperative obesogenic tendencies. Six months post-surgery may be a critical window for implementing interventions to mitigate weight gain.

BACKGROUNDBariatric surgeries are the most effective treatments for successful and sustained weight loss, but individuals vary in treatment response. Understanding the neurobiological and behavioral mechanisms accounting for this variation could lead to the development of personalized therapeutic approaches and improve treatment outcomes. The primary objectives of this study were to investigate changes in taste preferences and taste-induced brain responses after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) and vertical sleeve gastrectomy (VSG) and to identify potential taste-related predictors of weight loss.METHODSFemales, ages 18 to 55, with a body mass index greater than or equal to 35 kg/m2, and approved for bariatric surgery at the Johns Hopkins Center for Bariatric Surgery were recruited for participation. Demographics, anthropometrics, liking ratings, and neural responses to varying concentrations of sucrose plus fat mixtures were assessed before and after surgery via visual analog scales and functional MRI.RESULTSBariatric surgery produced decreases in liking for sucrose-sweetened mixtures. Greater preference for sucrose-sweetened mixtures before surgery was associated with greater weight loss in RYGB, but not VSG. In the RYGB group only, individuals who showed lower taste-induced activation in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) before surgery and greater changes in taste-induced VTA activation 2 weeks following surgery experienced increased weight loss.CONCLUSIONThe anatomical and/or metabolic changes associated with RYGB may more effectively "reset" the neural processing of reward stimuli, thereby rescuing the blunted activation in the mesolimbic pathway found in patients with obesity. Further, these findings suggest that RYGB may be particularly effective in patients with a preference for sweet foods.FUNDINGNIH K23DK100559 and Dalio Philanthropies.

A mixture of perceptually congruent gustatory and olfactory flavorants (sucrose and citral) was previously shown to be detected faster than predicted by a model of probability summation that assumes stochastically independent processing of the individual gustatory and olfactory signals. This outcome suggests substantial integration of the signals. Does substantial integration also characterize responses to mixtures of incongruent flavorants? Here, we report simple response times (RTs) to detect brief pulses of 3 possible flavorants: monosodium glutamate, MSG (gustatory: "umami" quality), citral (olfactory: citrus quality), and a mixture of MSG and citral (gustatory-olfactory). Each stimulus (and, on a fraction of trials, water) was presented orally through a computer-operated, automated flow system, and subjects were instructed to press a button as soon as they detected any of the 3 non-water stimuli. Unlike responses previously found to the congruent mixture of sucrose and citral, responses here to the incongruent mixture of MSG and citral took significantly longer (RTs were greater) and showed lower detection rates than the values predicted by probability summation. This outcome suggests that the integration of gustatory and olfactory flavor signals is less extensive when the component flavors are perceptually incongruent rather than congruent, perhaps because incongruent flavors are less familiar., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Despite the importance of breaches of taste identity expectation for survival, its neural correlate is unknown. We used fMRI in 16 women to examine brain response to expected and unexpected receipt of sweet taste and tasteless/odorless solutions. During expected trials (70%), subjects heard "sweet" or "tasteless" and received the liquid indicated by the cue. During unexpected trials (30%), subjects heard sweet but received tasteless or they heard tasteless but received sweet. After delivery, subjects indicated stimulus identity by pressing a button. Reaction time was faster and more accurate after valid cuing, indicating that the cues altered expectancy as intended. Tasting unexpected versus expected stimuli resulted in greater deactivation in fusiform gyri, possibly reflecting greater suppression of visual object regions when orienting to, and identifying, an unexpected taste. Significantly greater activation to unexpected versus expected stimuli occurred in areas related to taste (thalamus, anterior insula), reward [ventral striatum (VS), orbitofrontal cortex], and attention [anterior cingulate cortex, inferior frontal gyrus, intraparietal sulcus (IPS)]. We also observed an interaction between stimulus and expectation in the anterior insula (primary taste cortex). Here response was greater for unexpected versus expected sweet compared with unexpected versus expected tasteless, indicating that this region is preferentially sensitive to breaches of taste expectation. Connectivity analyses confirmed that expectation enhanced network interactions, with IPS and VS influencing insular responses. We conclude that unexpected oral stimulation results in suppression of visual cortex and upregulation of sensory, attention, and reward regions to support orientation, identification, and learning about salient stimuli.

It is easier to detect mixtures of gustatory and olfactory flavorants than to detect either component alone. But does the detection of mixtures exceed the level predicted by probability summation, assuming independent detection of each component? To answer this question, we measured simple response times (RTs) to detect brief pulses of one of 3 flavorants (sucrose [gustatory], citral [olfactory], sucrose-citral mixture) or water, presented into the mouth by a computer-operated, automated flow system. Subjects were instructed to press a button as soon as they detected any of the 3 nonwater stimuli. Responses to the mixtures were faster (RTs smaller) than predicted by a model of probability summation of independently detected signals, suggesting positive coactivation (integration) of gustation and retronasal olfaction in flavor perception. Evidence for integration appeared mainly in the fastest 60% of the responses, indicating that integration arises relatively early in flavor processing. Results were similar when the 3 possible flavorants, and water, were interleaved within the same session (experimental condition), and when each flavorant was interleaved with water only (control conditions). This outcome suggests that subjects did not attend selectively to one flavor component or the other in the experimental condition and further supports the conclusion that (late) decisional or attentional strategies do not exert a large influence on the gustatory-olfactory flavor integration.

We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to test the hypothesis that the nature of the neural response to taste varies as a function of the task the subject is asked to perform. Subjects received sweet, sour, salty and tasteless solutions passively and while evaluating stimulus presence, pleasantness and identity. Within the insula and overlying operculum the location of maximal response to taste vs. tasteless varied as a function of task; however, the primary taste cortex (anterior dorsal insula/frontal operculum--AIFO), as well as a more ventral region of anterior insula, responded to taste vs. tasteless irrespective of task. Although the response here did not depend upon task, preferential connectivity between AIFO and the amygdala (bilaterally) was observed when subjects tasted passively compared with when they performed a task. This suggests that information transfer between AIFO and the amygdala is maximal during implicit processing of taste. In contrast, a region of the left lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) responded preferentially to taste and to tasteless when subjects evaluated pleasantness, and was preferentially connected to earlier gustatory relays (caudomedial OFC and AIFO) when a taste was present. This suggests that processing in the lateral OFC organizes the retrieval of gustatory information from earlier relays in the service of computing perceived pleasantness. These findings show that neural encoding of taste varies as a function of task beyond that of the initial cortical representation.

The human orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) plays an important role in representing taste, flavor, and food reward. The primary role of the OFC in taste is thought to be the encoding of affective value and the computation of perceived pleasantness. The OFC also encodes retronasal olfaction and oral somatosensation. During eating, distinct sensory inputs fuse into a unitary flavor percept, and there is evidence that this percept is encoded in the orbital cortex. Studies examining the effect of internal state on neural representation of food and drink further suggest that processing in the OFC is critical for representing the reward value of foods. Thus, it is likely that, in addition to serving as higher-order gustatory cortex, the OFC integrates multiple sensory inputs and computes reward value to guide feeding behavior.

Selective attention is thought to be associated with enhanced processing in modality-specific cortex. We used functional magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate brain response during a taste detection task. We demonstrate that trying to detect the presence of taste in a tasteless solution results in enhanced activity in insula and overlying operculum. The same task does not recruit orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). Instead, the OFC responds preferentially during receipt of an unpredicted taste stimulus. These findings demonstrate functional specialization of taste cortex in which the insula and the overlying operculum are recruited during taste detection and selective attention to taste, and the OFC is recruited during receipt of an unpredicted taste stimulus.

Independent experimental manipulation of subjective intensity and hedonic tone is required if one wants to study their separate effects on brain activity and behavior. This is problematic because hedonic tone and subjective intensity are related, leading to a pleasantness change each time the stimulus intensity is altered. In the present study, a solution to this problem was explored by combining a pleasant-tasting substance (sucrose) and a bad-tasting substance (quinine sulfate) into a number of different isointense mixtures. Here we show that subjective intensity as well as pleasantness can be accurately predicted, particularly in midrange, only if one corrects for mixture suppression.

Response times of intensity and hedonic comparisons were determined in a within-subjects experimental design. Forced-choice paired comparisons of orange lemonades with various concentrations of added quinine sulfate were made by 48 subjects. Depending on experimental condition, the subjects had to focus either on intensity or on pleasantness and give their responses as fast as possible. The data showed shorter response times for intensity comparisons than for pleasantness comparisons. Although taste processing may be partially serial and partially parallel, the larger part of the response times and the differences between them may be due to cognitive processing.

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.

The use of neuroimaging tools, especially functional magnetic resonance imaging, in nutritional research has increased substantially over the past 2 decades. Neuroimaging is a research tool with great potential impact on the field of nutrition, but to achieve that potential, appropriate use of techniques and interpretation of neuroimaging results is necessary. In this article, we present guidelines for good methodological practice in functional magnetic resonance imaging studies and flag specific limitations in the hope of helping researchers to make the most of neuroimaging tools and avoid potential pitfalls. We highlight specific considerations for food-related studies, such as how to adjust statistically for common confounders, like, for example, hunger state, menstrual phase, and BMI, as well as how to optimally match different types of food stimuli. Finally, we summarize current research needs and future directions, such as the use of prospective designs and more realistic paradigms for studying eating behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Flavorants such as lemon extract that activate olfactory receptors may also evoke or enhance flavor qualities such as sour and sweet that are typically considered gustatory. Similarly, flavorants such as sucrose and citric acid that activate gustatory receptors may enhance flavors such as citrus that are typically considered olfactory. Here, we ask how lemon extract, sucrose, and citric acid, presented separately and together, affect sweet, sour, and citrus flavors. We accomplished this by testing, in the same 12 subjects, lemon extract and sucrose (Experiment 1), lemon extract and citric acid (Experiment 2), and lemon extract, sucrose, and citric acid (Experiment 3). Results showed that both lemon extract and citric acid increased the ratings of citrus and sour intensity. Lemon extract did not affect sweet, but citric acid did, mainly in Experiment 3. Sucrose systematically increased only sweet intensity and modulated the effect of lemon extract on sour. The most robust multiquality effect was the enhancement of sour by lemon extract. These outcomes suggest, first, a role played by experience with the statistical associations of gustatory and olfactory flavorants and, second, that lemon flavor is complex, having citrus and sour qualities that may not be fully separable in perception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Judgments of taste intensity often show contextual contrast but not assimilation, even though both effects of stimulus context appear in other sense modalities, such as hearing. Four experiments used a paradigm that shifts the stimulus context within a test session in order to seek evidence of assimilation in judgments of the taste intensity of sucrose and, for comparison, the loudness of 500-Hz tones. Experiment 1 found no assimilation in taste using three response scales, magnitude estimation, labeled magnitude, and visual analog, but did find evidence of contrast. Experiments 2 and 3 found no clear evidence of either assimilation or contrast in taste, but found consistent evidence of assimilation in loudness. Experiment 4 found no assimilation in loudness, however, when the intervals between successive stimuli increased from about 6 to 30 s in order to match the interval used with sucrose in Experiments 1 to 3. Taken together, these findings suggest that the assimilation found in intensity judgments in other sensory modalities may not appear in taste perception because of the slower rates presenting of taste stimuli. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Odorants and flavorants typically contain many components. It is generally easier to detect multicomponent stimuli than to detect a single component, through either neural integration or probability summation (PS) (or both). PS assumes that the sensory effects of 2 (or more) stimulus components (e.g., gustatory and olfactory components of a flavorant) are detected in statistically independent channels, that each channel makes a separate decision whether a component is detected, and that the behavioral response depends solely on the separate decisions. Models of PS traditionally assume high thresholds for detecting each component, noise being irrelevant. The core assumptions may be adapted, however, to signal-detection theory, where noise limits detection. The present article derives predictions of high-threshold and signal-detection models of independent-decision PS in detecting gustatory–olfactory flavorants, comparing predictions in yes/no and 2-alternative forcedchoice tasks using blocked and intermixed stimulus designs. The models also extend to measures of response times to suprathreshold flavorants. Predictions derived from high-threshold and signal-detection models differ markedly. Available empirical evidence on gustatory–olfactory flavor detection suggests that neither the high-threshold nor the signal-detection versions of PS can readily account for the results, which likely reflect neural integration in the flavor system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The present study investigated temporal aspects of hedonic responses. The focus was on the hedonic response in itself and on the time-course of the hedonic response as compared to the intensity response. Analogously to time–intensity (TI) scaling, we used temporal scaling for intensity and pleasantness aspects of taste. Twenty four subjects were instructed to focus on and continually rate either the intensity or the pleasantness of three different concentrations of an orange lemonade stimulus in a within-participants design. As was expected, the latency and the time to maximum of the intensity response were shorter than the latency and time to maximum of the hedonic response. Unforeseen, the intensity response lasted longer than the pleasantness response. These results suggest that initially the processing of the intensity and pleasantness aspects is in serial and later on may be in parallel. Our study confirms that, as was suggested by Taylor and Pangborn [Journal of Sensory Studies 4 (1990) 241–247], time–hedonic scaling can be performed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Participants in cluster 2 (orange,N= 1724; bottom center) are generally characterized by ratings that reflect smell/taste loss with preserved chemesthesis. Based on the centroid of each cluster, participants in cluster 1 (blue,N= 1767; top left) are generally characterized by significant smell, taste and chemesthesis loss. Loadings for participants in cluster 3 (green,N= 548; right side) are generally characterized by reduced smell and taste loss, and preserved chemesthesis. [Extracted from the article]

People often confuse smell loss with taste loss, so it is unclear how much gustatory function is reduced in patients self-reporting taste loss. Our pre-registered cross-sectional study design included an online survey in 12 languages with instructions for self-administering chemosensory tests with 10 household items. Between June 2020 and March 2021, 10,953 individuals participated. Of these, 5,225 self-reported a respiratory illness and were grouped based on their reported COVID test results: COVID-positive (COVID+, N = 3,356), COVID-negative (COVID−, N = 602), and COVID unknown for those waiting for a test result (COVID?, N = 1,267). The participants who reported no respiratory illness were grouped by symptoms: sudden smell/taste changes (STC, N = 4,445), other symptoms excluding smell or taste changes (OthS, N = 832), and no symptoms (NoS, N = 416). Taste, smell, and oral irritation intensities and self-assessed abilities were rated on visual analog scales. Compared to the NoS group, COVID+ was associated with a 21% reduction in taste (95% confidence interval (CI): 15–28%), 47% in smell (95% CI: 37–56%), and 17% in oral irritation (95% CI: 10–25%) intensity. There were medium to strong correlations between perceived intensities and self-reported abilities (r = 0.84 for smell, r = 0.68 for taste, and r = 0.37 for oral irritation). Our study demonstrates that COVID-19-positive individuals report taste dysfunction when self-tested with stimuli that have little to none olfactory components. Assessing the smell and taste intensity of household items is a promising, cost-effective screening tool that complements self-reports and may help to disentangle taste loss from smell loss. However, it does not replace standardized validated psychophysical tests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The Global Consortium of Chemosensory Research (GCCR) was founded in Spring 2020. • Results from GCCR research on COVID19 and the chemical senses are summarized. • Some open science approaches used by the GCCR are highlighted. In March 2020, the Global Consortium of Chemosensory Research (GCCR) was founded by chemosensory researchers to address emerging reports of unusual smell and taste dysfunction arising from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Over the next year, the GCCR used a highly collaborative model, along with contemporary Open Science practices, to produce multiple high impact publications on chemosensation and COVID19. This invited manuscript describes the founding of the GCCR, the tools and approaches it used, and a summary of findings to date. These findings are contextualized within a summary of some of the broader insights about chemosensation (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) and COVID19 gained over the last 18 months, including potential mechanisms of loss. Also, it includes a detailed discussion of some current Open Science approaches and practices used by the GCCR to increase transparency, rigor, and reproducibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]