Chapter 9. Hearing, Vestibular Perception, Taste, and Smell
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to our mailing list, to receive news updates. Learn more.
Meghan Rosen SALT LAKE CITY — In the Indian Ocean off the coast of Sri Lanka, pygmy blue whales are changing their tune — and they might be doing it on purpose. From 2002 to 2012, the frequency of one part of the whales’ calls steadily fell, marine bioacoustician Jennifer Miksis-Olds reported May 25 at a meeting of the Acoustical Society of America. But unexpectedly, another part of the whales’ call stayed the same, she found. “I’ve never seen results like this before,” says marine bioacoustician Leanna Matthews of Syracuse University in New York, who was not involved with the work. Miksis-Olds’ findings add a new twist to current theories about blue whale vocalizations and spark all sorts of questions about what the animals are doing, Matthews said. “It’s a huge mystery.” Over the last 40 to 50 years, the calls of blue whales around the world have been getting deeper. Researchers have reported frequency drops in blue whale populations from the Arctic Ocean to the North Pacific. Some researchers think that blue whales are just getting bigger, said Miksis-Olds, of the University of New Hampshire in Durham. Whaling isn’t as common as it used to be, so whales have been able to grow larger — and larger whales have deeper calls. Another theory blames whales’ changing calls on an increasingly noisy ocean. Whales could be automatically adjusting their calls to be heard better, kind of like a person raising their voice to speak at a party, she said. If the whales were just getting bigger, you’d expect all components of the calls to be deeper, said acoustics researcher Pasquale Bottalico at Michigan State University in East Lansing. But the new data don’t support that, he said. © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2016. A
Amy McDermott Giant pandas have better ears than people — and polar bears. Pandas can hear surprisingly high frequencies, conservation biologist Megan Owen of the San Diego Zoo and colleagues report in the April Global Ecology and Conservation. The scientists played a range of tones for five zoo pandas trained to nose a target in response to sound. Training, which took three to six months for each animal, demanded serious focus and patience, says Owen, who called the effort “a lot to ask of a bear.” Both males and females heard into the range of a “silent” ultrasonic dog whistle. Polar bears, the only other bears scientists have tested, are less sensitive to sounds at or above 14 kilohertz. Researchers still don’t know why pandas have ultrasonic hearing. The bears are a vocal bunch, but their chirps and other calls have never been recorded at ultrasonic levels, Owen says. Great hearing may be a holdover from the bears’ ancient past. Citations M.A. Owen et al. Hearing sensitivity in context: Conservation implications for a highly vocal endangered species. Global Ecology and Conservation. Vol. 6, April 2016, p. 121. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2016.02.007. © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2016.
Link ID: 22269 - Posted: 06.01.2016
by Helen Thompson In hunting down delicious fish, Flipper may have a secret weapon: snot. Dolphins emit a series of quick, high-frequency sounds — probably by forcing air over tissues in the nasal passage — to find and track potential prey. “It’s kind of like making a raspberry,” says Aaron Thode of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego. Thode and colleagues tweaked a human speech modeling technique to reproduce dolphin sounds and discern the intricacies of their unique style of sound production. He presented the results on May 24 in Salt Lake City at the annual meeting of the Acoustical Society of America. Dolphin chirps have two parts: a thump and a ring. Their model worked on the assumption that lumps of tissue bumping together produce the thump, and those tissues pulling apart produce the ring. But to match the high frequencies of live bottlenose dolphins, the researchers had to make the surfaces of those tissues sticky. That suggests that mucus lining the nasal passage tissue is crucial to dolphin sonar. The vocal model also successfully mimicked whistling noises used to communicate with other dolphins and faulty clicks that probably result from inadequate snot. Such techniques could be adapted to study sound production or echolocation in sperm whales and other dolphin relatives. © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2016.
Link ID: 22244 - Posted: 05.25.2016
“I understand how the appearance and texture of food can change the experience,” says food writer and Great British Bake Off finalist Tamal Ray, “but I never really considered how the other senses might have a role to play.” An anaesthetist by day, Ray is best-known for creating spectacular tiered cakes and using a syringe to inject extra, syrupy deliciousness into them. Which is why we introduced him to Oxford psychologist Charles Spence and chef Jozef Youssef – and turned what they taught him about the science of taste into the video above. Part mad professor, part bon vivant, Spence has spent the past 15 years discovering that little of how we experience flavour is to do with our taste buds – smell, vision, touch and even sound dictate how we perceive flavours. Youssef, meanwhile, sharpened his culinary skills at the Fat Duck, the Connaught and the Dorchester, before starting experimental dining outfit Kitchen Theory, where he applies science to meals that play with the multisensory experience of eating. When Spence started studying the sensory science behind flavour perception, it was a deeply unfashionable subject. “There’s some ancient Roman notion that eating and drinking involve lower senses,” he says, “not higher, rational senses like hearing and vision.” Now, the fruits of the research field he calls “gastrophysics” can be seen everywhere from the world’s top restaurants to airline food, via progressive hospital kitchens and multisensory cocktail bars. Spence heads the Crossmodal Research Laboratory at the University of Oxford. “Crossmodal”, in this context, means the investigation of how all the senses interact. Although we’re often unaware of it, when it comes to flavour perception, we all have synaesthesia. That is, our senses intermingle so that our brains combine shapes, textures, colours and even sounds with corresponding tastes.
Keyword: Chemical Senses (Smell & Taste)
Link ID: 22239 - Posted: 05.23.2016
By Linda Zajac For nearly 65 million years, bats and tiger moths have been locked in an aerial arms race: Bats echolocate to detect and capture tiger moths, and tiger moths evade them with flight maneuvers and their own ultrasonic sounds. Scientists have long wondered why certain species emit these high-frequency clicks that sound like rapid squeaks from a creaky floorboard. Does the sound jam bat sonar or does it warn bats that the moths are toxic? To find out, scientists collected two types of tiger moths: red-headed moths (pictured above) and Martin’s lichen moths. They then removed the soundmaking organs from some of the insects. In a grassy field in Arizona they set up infrared video cameras, ultrasonic microphones, and ultraviolet lights, the last of which they used to attract bats. In darkness, they released one tiger moth at a time and recorded the moth-bat interactions. They found that the moths rarely produced ultrasonic clicks fast enough to jam bat sonar. They also discovered that without sound organs, 64% of the red-headed moths and 94% of the Martin’s lichen moths were captured and spit out. Together, these findings reported late last month in PLOS ONE suggest that instead of jamming sonar like some tiger moths, these species act tough, flexing their soundmaking organs to warn predators of their toxin. © 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science
Scientists have outwitted the crafty rat with a stimulating new formula that puts sex on the brain. A team at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C., has developed a rat trap that combines synthetic sex pheromones, food scents and baby rat sounds to lure rodents to their deaths. The bait has proven 10 times more powerful than traditional traps and could be commercialized in about two years, said principal investigator Gerhard Gries. "Rats are really intelligent, and in order to manipulate them you have to be intelligent as well, and do that in a way that addresses their needs," said Gries, a communication ecologist in the department of biological sciences. "It smells delicious, it smells like rat and it sounds like rat." Research outlining the pheromone component of the control tactic was published last week in the international edition of the German peer-reviewed online journal Angewandte Chemie, which translates to "Applied Chemistry." The research on the use of baby rat sounds was published recently in the journal Pest Management Science. Gries worked for several years with research associates Stephen Takacs and Regine Gries, his wife, to develop the three-pronged extermination technique. Humans have waged war against the pests for more than 10,000 years, said Gerhard Gries, noting they spread disease, reduce agricultural crop yields and threaten endangered animal species. But rats are quick learners that have evolved to avoid traps, a behaviour called "neophobia," he said. ©2016 CBC/Radio-Canada.
By C. CLAIBORNE RAY Q. Why do we become desensitized to a perfume we are wearing while others can still smell it? A. Ceasing to smell one’s perfume after continuous exposure while casual passers-by can still smell it is just one example of a phenomenon called olfactory adaptation or odor fatigue. After some time without exposure, sensitivity is usually restored. A similar weakening of odor signals with continued exposure also takes place in animals other than humans, and researchers often rely on animal studies to try to understand the cellular and molecular bases for the condition. It has been suggested that odor fatigue is useful because it enables animals to sort out the signals of a new odor from the background noise of continuous odors. It may also enable them to sense when an odor grows stronger. Studies published in the journal Science in 2002 pinpointed a chemical that seems to act as a gatekeeper for neurons involved in smell, opening and closing their electric signal channels. Genetically engineered mice that did not produce the substance, a protein called CNGA4, had profoundly impaired olfactory adaptation. A separate test-tube study found similar changes on a cellular level, with the signal channels remaining open when CNGA4 was absent. firstname.lastname@example.org © 2016 The New York Times Company
Keyword: Chemical Senses (Smell & Taste)
Link ID: 22042 - Posted: 03.29.2016
Anxious people perceive the world differently. An anxious brain appears to process sounds in an altered way, ramping up the expectation that something bad – or good – might happen. There’s no doubt that some degree of anxiety is vital for survival. When we learn that something is dangerous, we generalise that memory to apply the same warning signal to other, similar situations to avoid getting into trouble. If you’re bitten by a large, aggressive dog, for instance, it makes sense to feel slightly anxious around similar dogs. “It’s better to be safe than sorry,” says Rony Paz at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel. The trouble begins when this process becomes exaggerated. In the dog bite example, a person who went on to become anxious around all dogs, even small ones, would be described as overgeneralising. Overgeneralisation is thought to play a role in post-traumatic stress disorder and general anxiety disorder, a condition characterised by anxiety about many situations, leaving people in a state of near-constant restlessness. A study carried out by Paz suggests that overgeneralisation is not limited to anxious thoughts and memories – for such people the same process seems to affect their perception of the world. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
By Roni Caryn Rabin Does long-term use of artificial sweeteners cause weight gain or contribute to metabolic syndrome? Scientists are still scratching their heads over this question. Artificial, or nonnutritive, sweeteners have no calories and are often used as diet aids. But while some well-designed trials have found that those randomly assigned to drink artificially sweetened beverages gained less weight than those given sugar-sweetened drinks, large population studies suggest that frequent consumption of artificial sweeteners may be linked with unanticipated consequences, including weight gain. A large study that followed a diverse group of 6,814 Americans ages 45 to 84 for at least five years found that those who drank diet soda at least once a day were at 67 percent greater risk of developing Type 2 diabetes than those who didn’t consume diet drinks, regardless of whether they gained weight or not, and at 36 percent greater risk of metabolic syndrome, which can be a precursor to heart disease, stroke and diabetes. Another large study that followed thousands of residents of San Antonio, Tex., for 10 years found those who drank more than 21 servings of diet drinks a week were at twice the risk of becoming overweight or obese, and the more diet soda people drank, the greater the risk. These large observational trials do not prove cause and effect, however, and may reflect the fact that people who are gaining weight may be most likely to drink a lot of diet soda. Dr. John Fernstrom, a University of Pittsburgh professor who is also a paid consultant to Ajinomoto, a maker of aspartame, reviewed the evidence on nonnutritive sweeteners and concluded that the evidence linking them to metabolic problems was “not compelling.” © 2016 The New York Times Company
By NATALIE ANGIER Whether to enliven a commute, relax in the evening or drown out the buzz of a neighbor’s recreational drone, Americans listen to music nearly four hours a day. In international surveys, people consistently rank music as one of life’s supreme sources of pleasure and emotional power. We marry to music, graduate to music, mourn to music. Every culture ever studied has been found to make music, and among the oldest artistic objects known are slender flutes carved from mammoth bone some 43,000 years ago — 24,000 years before the cave paintings of Lascaux. Given the antiquity, universality and deep popularity of music, many researchers had long assumed that the human brain must be equipped with some sort of music room, a distinctive piece of cortical architecture dedicated to detecting and interpreting the dulcet signals of song. Yet for years, scientists failed to find any clear evidence of a music-specific domain through conventional brain-scanning technology, and the quest to understand the neural basis of a quintessential human passion foundered. Now researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology have devised a radical new approach to brain imaging that reveals what past studies had missed. By mathematically analyzing scans of the auditory cortex and grouping clusters of brain cells with similar activation patterns, the scientists have identified neural pathways that react almost exclusively to the sound of music — any music. It may be Bach, bluegrass, hip-hop, big band, sitar or Julie Andrews. A listener may relish the sampled genre or revile it. No matter. When a musical passage is played, a distinct set of neurons tucked inside a furrow of a listener’s auditory cortex will fire in response. Other sounds, by contrast — a dog barking, a car skidding, a toilet flushing — leave the musical circuits unmoved. Nancy Kanwisher and Josh H. McDermott, professors of neuroscience at M.I.T., and their postdoctoral colleague Sam Norman-Haignere reported their results in the journal Neuron. The findings offer researchers a new tool for exploring the contours of human musicality. © 2016 The New York Times Company
By RACHEL NUWER For all the havoc that zebra mussels, Asian carp, round gobies and dozens of other alien species have wrought on the Great Lakes, those waters have never known a foe like the sea lamprey. The vampirelike parasites cost many millions each year in depleted fisheries and eradication efforts. Wildlife managers have long used lampricide — the lamprey version of pesticide — with mixed results. Now, an innovative control program seeks to improve on that method by using pheromones to trick the bloodsuckers into voluntarily corralling themselves in designated areas, to then be trapped or poisoned. But achieving this depends on cracking the fish’s olfactory language. “The broad goal is to understand how this animal makes decisions,” said Michael Wagner, a fish ecologist at Michigan State University. “Then, we want to use that understanding to guide lampreys’ movements by manipulating the landscape of fear and opportunity.” Lampreys look like the stuff of horror films: a slithering, tubular body topped with a suction-cup mouth ringed with row upon row of hooked yellow teeth. With this mouth, a sea lamprey anchors to its fish prey and uses its rasping tongue to drill into the victim’s flesh. It remains there for up to a month, feeding on blood and body fluids. Even if a fish survives the attack, the gaping wound left behind often results in death. In their natural ranges, lampreys are important components of food webs. The problems begin only when they shift from native to invader. Sea lampreys slipped into Lake Ontario through the Erie Canal in the mid-19th century, and then made it past Niagara Falls around 1919 with the renovation of the Welland Canal. In the lakes, lampreys found a utopia: no predators, and bountiful prey that had no natural defenses against their voracious appetites. Biological disaster ensued. © 2016 The New York Times Company
Keyword: Chemical Senses (Smell & Taste)
Link ID: 21869 - Posted: 02.08.2016
by Bethany Brookshire Unless you’re in the middle of biting into a delicious Reuben sandwich, you might forget that taste is one of the fundamental senses. “It’s required for our enjoyment of food,” explains Emily Liman, a taste researcher at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. “Without taste … people stop eating. They don’t enjoy their food.” A life without the sweet jolt of sugar or the savory delights of umami seems, well, tasteless. When you put that mouthwatering combination of corned beef, Swiss cheese, Thousand Island dressing, sauerkraut and rye in your mouth, the chemicals in the sandwich stimulate taste buds on your tongue and soft palate. Those taste buds connect to the ends of nerve fibers extending delicately into the mouth. Those nerve fibers are the ends of cells located in the geniculate ganglion, a ball of cells nestled up against the ear canal on the side of your head. From there, taste sensations head toward the brain. Chemical messengers bridge the gap between the taste bud and the end of the nerve fiber. But what chemical is involved depends on the type of cell within the bud. There are three types of taste cells (imaginatively titled I, II and III). Type I is not well-understood, but it may be a kind of support cell for other taste cells. Type II, in contrast, is better known. These taste cells sense the slight bitterness of the rye seeds, the sweet edge of the Thousand Island dressing and the savory umami of the beef. They pass that delightful message on using the chemical ATP. © Society for Science & the Public 2000 - 2016
By SINDYA N. BHANOO Climate change may affect wood rats in the Mojave Desert in a most unusual way. A new study finds that warmer weather reduces their ability to tolerate toxins in the creosote bush, which they rely on for sustenance. The consequences may be dire for the wood rats. “There’s not much more they can eat out there,” said Patrice Kurnath, a biologist at the University of Utah and one of the study’s authors. She and her colleagues reported their findings in Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. The leaves of the creosote bush contain a resin full of toxic compounds. They are known to cause kidney cysts and liver failure in laboratory rats. Wild wood rats, however, generally tolerate the poisons. Ms. Kurnath and her colleagues monitored the wood rats as they ate the leaves in warmer temperatures — around 83 degrees Fahrenheit. Although highs in the Mojave can reach the 80s and 90s during the summer, much of the year is cooler. The rats became less tolerant of the toxins and began to lose weight. The reason may have to do with how the liver functions in warmer weather, Ms. Kurnath said. The liver is the body’s primary detoxifying organ. When a mammalian liver is active, it increases internal body temperature. “In warmer weather, maybe you’re not producing huge amounts of heat and you’re not breaking down the toxins,” Ms. Kurnath said. © 2016 The New York Times Company
By Elizabeth Pennisi PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA—Bats have an uncanny ability to track and eat insects on the fly with incredible accuracy. But some moths make these agile mammals miss their mark. Tiger moths, for example, emit ultrasonic clicks that jam bat radar. Now, scientists have shown that hawk moths (above) and other species have also evolved this behavior. The nocturnal insects—which are toxic to bats—issue an ultrasonic “warning” whenever a bat is near. After a few nibbles, the bat learns to avoid the noxious species altogether. The researchers shot high-speed videos of bat chases in eight countries over 4 years. Their studies found that moths with an intact sound-producing apparatus—typically located at the tip of the genitals—were spared, whereas those silenced by the researchers were readily caught. As the video shows, when the moths hear the bat’s clicks intensifying as it homes in, they emit their own signal, causing the bat to veer off at the last second. It could be that, like the tiger moths, the hawk moths are jamming the bat’s signal. But, because most moth signals are not the right type to interfere with the bat’s, the researchers say it’s more likely that the bat recognizes the signal and avoids the target on its own. Presenting here last week at a meeting of the American Society of Naturalists, the researchers say this signaling ability has evolved three times in hawk moths and about a dozen more times overall among other moths. © 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science
Link ID: 21810 - Posted: 01.23.2016
By Kerry Klein With their suction cup mouths filled with concentric circles of pointy teeth that suck the body fluid of unsuspecting victims, lampreys may seem like the stuff of horror movies. And indeed the 50-centimeter-long, eellike creatures can wreak havoc on freshwater communities when they invade from the sea, with a single sea lamprey able to kill 18 kilograms of fish in its lifetime. Now, the U.S. government has approved of a new way to combat these fearsome fish by using their own sense of smell against them. Sea lampreys are a particular problem in the Great Lakes regions of the United States and Canada. They hitchhiked into the region more than a century ago, likely attaching themselves to ships or fish that traveled along shipping channels from the Atlantic Ocean. Although most lampreys are mere parasites in their native habitats, those in the Great Lakes are far worse, says Nicholas Johnson, a research ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Hammond Bay Biological Station on Lake Huron in Millersburg, Michigan. “They kill their host, they get too big, they eat too much,” he says. “They’re really more of a predator.” After the toothy invaders proliferated in the mid-20th century, ecosystems all but collapsed, taking prosperous fishing and tourism industries with them. “It’s fair to say that lamprey[s] changed the way of life in the region,” says Marc Gaden of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, a joint U.S. and Canadian organization based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, that’s tasked with managing the rebounding ecosystems. “Just about every fishery management decision that we make to this day has to take lamprey into consideration.” © 2016 American Association for the Advancement of Science
By Geoffrey Giller The experience of seeing a lightning bolt before hearing its associated thunder some seconds later provides a fairly obvious example of the differential speeds of light and sound. But most intervals between linked visual and auditory stimuli are so brief as to be imperceptible. A new study has found that we can glean distance information from these minimally discrepant arrival times nonetheless. In a pair of experiments at the University of Rochester, 12 subjects were shown projected clusters of dots. When a sound was played about 40 or 60 milliseconds after the dots appeared (too short to be detected consciously), participants judged the clusters to be farther away than clusters with simultaneous or preceding sounds. Philip Jaekl, the lead author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow in cognitive neuroscience, says it makes sense that the brain would use all available sensory information for calculating distance. “Distance is something that's very difficult to compute,” he explains. The study was recently published in the journal PLOS ONE. Aaron Seitz, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, who was not involved in the work, says the results may be useful clinically, such as by helping people with amblyopia (lazy eye) improve their performance when training to see with both eyes. And there might be other practical applications, including making virtual-reality environments more realistic. “Adding in a delay,” says Nick Whiting, a VR engineer for Epic Games, “can be another technique in our repertoire in creating believable experiences.” © 2016 Scientific American,
Link ID: 21807 - Posted: 01.21.2016
Bret Stetka In June of 2001 musician Peter Gabriel flew to Atlanta to make music with two apes. The jam went surprisingly well. At each session Gabriel, a known dabbler in experimental music and a founding member of the band Genesis, would riff with a small group of musicians. The bonobos – one named Panbanisha, the other Kanzi — were trained to play in response on keyboards and showed a surprising, if rudimentary, awareness of melody and rhythm. Since then Gabriel has been working with scientists to help better understand animal cognition, including musical perception. Plenty of related research has explored whether or not animals other than humans can recognize what we consider to be music – whether they can they find coherence in a series of sounds that could otherwise transmit as noise. Many do, to a degree. And it's not just apes that respond to song. Parrots reportedly demonstrate some degree of "entrainment," or the syncing up of brainwave patterns with an external rhythm; dolphins may — and I stress may — respond to Radiohead; and certain styles of music reportedly influence dog behavior (Wagner supposedly honed his operas based on the response of his Cavalier King Charles Spaniel). But most researchers agree that fully appreciating what we create and recognize as music is a primarily human phenomenon. Recent research hints at how the human brain is uniquely able to recognize and enjoy music — how we render simple ripples of vibrating air into visceral, emotional experiences. It turns out, the answer has a lot to do with timing. The work also reveals why your musician friends are sometimes more tolerant of really boring music. © 2015 npr
By C. CLAIBORNE RAY Q. We know that aquatic mammals communicate with one another, but what about fish? A. Fish have long been known to communicate by several silent mechanisms, but more recently researchers have found evidence that some species also use sound. It is well known that fish communicate by gesture and motion, as in the highly regimented synchronized swimming of schools of fish. Some species use electrical pulses as signals, and some use bioluminescence, like that of the firefly. Some kinds of fish also release chemicals that can be sensed by smell or taste. In 2011, a scientist in New Zealand suggested that what might be called fish vocalization has a role, at least in some ocean fish. In the widely publicized work, done for his doctoral thesis at the University of Auckland, Shahriman Ghazali recorded reef fish in the wild and in captivity, and found two dominant vocalizations, the croak and the purr, in choruses that lasted up to three hours, as well as a previously undescribed popping sound. The sounds of one species recorded in captivity — the bigeye, or Pempheris adspersa — carried 100 feet or more, and the researcher suggested it could be used to keep a group of fish together during nocturnal foraging. Another species, the bluefin gurnard, or Chelidonichthys kumu, was also very noisy, he found. “Vocalization” is a bit of a misnomer, as the sounds these fish make are produced by contracting and vibrating the swim bladder, not by using the mouth. © 2015 The New York Times Company
By Christopher Intagliata Back in ancient times, philosophers like Aristotle were already speculating about the origins of taste, and how the tongue sensed elemental tastes like sweet, bitter, salty and sour. "What we discovered just a few years ago is that there are regions of the brain—regions of the cortex—where particular fields of neurons represent these different tastes again, so there's a sweet field, a bitter field, a salty field, etcetera." Nick Ryba [pron. Reba], a sensory neuroscientist at the National Institutes of Health. Ryba and his colleagues found that you can actually taste without a tongue at all, simply by stimulating the "taste" part of the brain—the insular cortex. They ran the experiment in mice with a special sort of brain implant—a fiber-optic cable that turns neurons on with a pulse of laser light. And by switching on the "bitter" sensing part of the brain, they were able to make mice pucker up, as if they were tasting something bitter—even though absolutely nothing bitter was touching the tongues of the mice. In another experiment, the researchers fed the mice a bitter flavoring on their tongues—but then made it more palatable by switching on the "sweet" zone of the brain. "What we were doing here was adding the sweetness, but only adding it in the brain, not in what we were giving to the mouse." Think adding sugar to your coffee—but doing it only in your mind. The findings appear in the journal Nature. © 2015 Scientific American
Keyword: Chemical Senses (Smell & Taste)
Link ID: 21648 - Posted: 11.20.2015
Rachel England Brussels sprouts, Marmite, stinky cheese … these are all foods guaranteed to create divisions around the dinner table –and sometimes extreme reactions. A friend once ordered a baked camembert at dinner and I had to physically remove myself from the vicinity, such was its overpowering stench. Yet foods that once turned my stomach – mushrooms and prawns, in particular – now make a regular appearance on my plate. How is it that my opinion of a juicy grilled mushroom has gone from yuk to yum after 30 years of steadfast objection? And why is it that certain foods leave some diners gagging theatrically while others tuck in with vigour? Taste is a complicated business. In evolutionary terms we’re programmed to prefer sweeter flavours to bitter tastes: sweet ripe fruits provide a good source of nutrients and energy, for example, while bitter flavours can be found in dangerous plant toxins, which we’re better off avoiding. We’re also more likely to go for fatty foods with a high calorie count which would provide the energy needed for hunting our next meal. But now we live in a world where bitter vegetables such as kale reign supreme, kids salivate over eye-wateringly sour sweets and hunting dinner is as strenuous as picking up the phone. There are some environmental factors at play. When you eat something, molecules in the food hit your taste cells in such a way as to send a message to your brain causing one of five sensations: sweetness, saltiness, bitterness, sourness or umami (a loanword from Japanese meaning ‘pleasant savoury taste’). Mix up these taste cells and messages with external influences and the results can be dramatic. © 2015 Guardian News and Media Limited
Keyword: Chemical Senses (Smell & Taste)
Link ID: 21628 - Posted: 11.12.2015