Comprehensive Physiology Wiley Online Library
For Librarians For Authors Editors About

Taste and Olfaction: Sensory Discrimination

Donald H. McBurney

10.1002/cphy.cp010323

Source: Supplement 3: Handbook of Physiology, The Nervous System, Sensory Processes

Originally published: 1984

Published online: January 2011

Full Article on Wiley Online Library



Abstract

The sections in this article are:

1 Psychophysical Methodology in the Chemical Senses
1.1 Nature of Stimulus
1.2 Nature of Taste Qualities
1.3 Nature of Olfactory Qualities
1.4 Methods of Stimulation
1.5 Detecting Chemical Stimuli
1.6 Magnitude of Sensation
1.7 Responses to Mixtures of Chemical Stimuli
2 Effects of Stimulus Parameters
2.1 Taste
2.2 Olfaction
3 Adaptation
3.1 Adaptation: Taste
3.2 Adaptation: Olfaction
4 Odor Memory
5 Hedonics
5.1 Diet Selection
6 Effects of Aging
Figure 1.

Effect of adding variable amount of second odorant (malodorant) to fixed amount of an odorant on intensity of malodor and of mixture. Ordinate represents magnitude of sensation. Diagonal line through origin of graph indicates magnitude of sensation that would result if the sensation magnitude of mixture were the same as magnitude of malodor alone; that is, if there were no masking, counteraction, or augmentation. Considering sensation magnitude of mixture, we see both augmentation and counteraction. Augmentation occurs at low concentrations of malodor when mixture smells stronger than malodor alone does (black area). Throughout rest of range of malodor intensity, sensation magnitude of mixture is less than that of malodor alone, indicating counteraction. Masking is assessed by considering only sensation magnitude of malodor component of mixture. Lower curve shows that masking may be complete.

From Cain and Drexler 45
Figure 2.

Apparent propanol component of perceived magnitude of propanol when smelled alone (squares) and when mixed with lower (open circles) or higher (filled circles) concentrations of amyl butyrate.

From Cain 39
Figure 3.

Time course of change in threshold for NaCl as function of adaptation and recovery from adaptation to NaCl.

From Hahn 77
Figure 4.

Effect of adaptation to NaCl on magnitude of sensation of NaCl. Each curve represents taste of NaCl after adaptation to concentration of NaCl indicated by symbols (○, ×, ⋄, ▪) along abscissa. Increase in sensation magnitude as concentration decreases below adapting level is with respect to water taste, not salty taste, of NaCl.

From McBurney 98. Copyright 1966 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission
Figure 5.

Effect of cross adaptation to various compounds on taste of sucrose. Adapting compound is indicated at head of each column. Each cell represents either total taste intensity (top row) or intensity of one taste quality after adaptation to one of compounds. Points within each cell indicate response to water (far‐left point in each cell) and three concentrations of sucrose (three right points in each cell). Effect of adaptation to particular compound can be seen by comparing that column with far‐left column that shows taste of sucrose after adaptation to water. It may be seen, for example, that in no instance does adaptation to any of compounds used produce increase in the sweetness of stronger concentrations of sucrose. Citric acid and caffeine increased sweetness of water and weakest concentrations of sucrose via water taste mechanism.

From McBurney and Bartoshuk 105
Figure 6.

Summary of rat NaCl thresholds according to hypothesis that in some cases rats were detecting water taste rather than salty taste. Triangles represent determinations of taste thresholds from literature under conditions that would be expected to produce either salivary adaptation or adaptation to water. Measured thresholds are superimposed on curves representing how human taste intensity and quality change with concentration under conditions of adaptation to water (upper curve) or adaptation to saliva (lower curve). Filled triangles indicate that thresholds were presumed to be true salt taste thresholds after adaptation to water (upper curve) or after adaptation to saliva (lower curve). Open triangles indicate presumed water taste thresholds after adaptation to saliva. Dotted lines indicate that reported threshold may be true salt taste threshold based on adaptation to water, water taste threshold based on salivary adaptation, or combination of both. Shapes of the curves are arbitrary; location of minimum of lower curve (salivary adapting level) is only approximate.

From Bartoshuk 8. Copyright 1974 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission
Figure 7.

Perceived magnitude of odor evoked by eugenol as a function of time at two concentrations, 0.4 mg/liter (upper curve) and 0.2 mg/liter (lower curve).

From Cain 38


Figure 1.

Effect of adding variable amount of second odorant (malodorant) to fixed amount of an odorant on intensity of malodor and of mixture. Ordinate represents magnitude of sensation. Diagonal line through origin of graph indicates magnitude of sensation that would result if the sensation magnitude of mixture were the same as magnitude of malodor alone; that is, if there were no masking, counteraction, or augmentation. Considering sensation magnitude of mixture, we see both augmentation and counteraction. Augmentation occurs at low concentrations of malodor when mixture smells stronger than malodor alone does (black area). Throughout rest of range of malodor intensity, sensation magnitude of mixture is less than that of malodor alone, indicating counteraction. Masking is assessed by considering only sensation magnitude of malodor component of mixture. Lower curve shows that masking may be complete.

From Cain and Drexler 45


Figure 2.

Apparent propanol component of perceived magnitude of propanol when smelled alone (squares) and when mixed with lower (open circles) or higher (filled circles) concentrations of amyl butyrate.

From Cain 39


Figure 3.

Time course of change in threshold for NaCl as function of adaptation and recovery from adaptation to NaCl.

From Hahn 77


Figure 4.

Effect of adaptation to NaCl on magnitude of sensation of NaCl. Each curve represents taste of NaCl after adaptation to concentration of NaCl indicated by symbols (○, ×, ⋄, ▪) along abscissa. Increase in sensation magnitude as concentration decreases below adapting level is with respect to water taste, not salty taste, of NaCl.

From McBurney 98. Copyright 1966 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission


Figure 5.

Effect of cross adaptation to various compounds on taste of sucrose. Adapting compound is indicated at head of each column. Each cell represents either total taste intensity (top row) or intensity of one taste quality after adaptation to one of compounds. Points within each cell indicate response to water (far‐left point in each cell) and three concentrations of sucrose (three right points in each cell). Effect of adaptation to particular compound can be seen by comparing that column with far‐left column that shows taste of sucrose after adaptation to water. It may be seen, for example, that in no instance does adaptation to any of compounds used produce increase in the sweetness of stronger concentrations of sucrose. Citric acid and caffeine increased sweetness of water and weakest concentrations of sucrose via water taste mechanism.

From McBurney and Bartoshuk 105


Figure 6.

Summary of rat NaCl thresholds according to hypothesis that in some cases rats were detecting water taste rather than salty taste. Triangles represent determinations of taste thresholds from literature under conditions that would be expected to produce either salivary adaptation or adaptation to water. Measured thresholds are superimposed on curves representing how human taste intensity and quality change with concentration under conditions of adaptation to water (upper curve) or adaptation to saliva (lower curve). Filled triangles indicate that thresholds were presumed to be true salt taste thresholds after adaptation to water (upper curve) or after adaptation to saliva (lower curve). Open triangles indicate presumed water taste thresholds after adaptation to saliva. Dotted lines indicate that reported threshold may be true salt taste threshold based on adaptation to water, water taste threshold based on salivary adaptation, or combination of both. Shapes of the curves are arbitrary; location of minimum of lower curve (salivary adapting level) is only approximate.

From Bartoshuk 8. Copyright 1974 by the American Psychological Association. Reprinted by permission


Figure 7.

Perceived magnitude of odor evoked by eugenol as a function of time at two concentrations, 0.4 mg/liter (upper curve) and 0.2 mg/liter (lower curve).

From Cain 38
References
 1. Abrahams, H., D. Krakauer, and K. M. Dallenbach. Gustatory adaptation to salt. Am. J. Psychol. 49: 462-469, 1937.
 2. Amoore, J. E. The stereochemical theory of olfaction. 1. Identification of the seven primary odours. Proc. Sci. Sect. Toilet Goods Assoc. 37, Suppl.: 1-12, 1962.
 3. Amoore, J. E. The stereochemical theory of olfaction. 2. Elucidation of the stereochemical properties of the olfactory receptor sites. Proc. Sci. Sect. Toilet Goods Assoc. 37, Suppl.: 13-23, 1962.
 4. Amoore, J. E. Molecular Basis of Odor. Springfield, IL: Thomas, 1970.
 5. Amoore, J. E., L. J. Forrester, and R. G. Buttery. Specific anosmia to 1‐pyroline: the spermous primary odor. J. Chem. Ecol. 1: 299-310, 1975.
 6. Arey, L. B., M. J. Tremaine, and F. L. Monzingo. The numerical and topographical relations of taste buds of human circumvallate papillae throughout the life span. Anat. Rec. 64: 9-25, 1935.
 7. Bartoshuk, L. M. Water taste in man. Percept. Psychophys. 3: 69-72, 1968.
 8. Bartoshuk, L. M. NaCl thresholds in man: thresholds for water taste or NaCl taste? J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 87: 310-325, 1974.
 9. Bartoshuk, L. M. Taste mixtures: is mixture suppression related to compression? Physiol. Behav. 14: 643-649, 1975.
 10. Bartoshuk, L. M. History of research on taste. In: Handbook of Perception. Tasting and Smelling, edited by E. C. Carterette and M. P. Friedman. New York: Academic, 1978, vol. 6A, p. 3-18.
 11. Bartoshuk, L. M., and C. T. Cleveland. Mixtures of substances with similar tastes: a test of a psychophysical model of taste mixture interactions. Sensory Processes 1: 177-186, 1977.
 12. Bartoshuk, L. M., G. P. Dateo, D. J. Vandenbelt, R. L. Buttrick, and L. Long, Jr. Effects of Gymnema sylvestre and Synsepalum dulcificum on taste in man. In: Olfaction and Taste III, edited by C. Pfaffmann. New York: Rockefeller Univ. Press, 1969, p. 436-444.
 13. Bartoshuk, L. M., C.‐H. Lee, and K. Scarpellino. Sweet taste of water induced by artichoke (Cynara scolymus). Science 178: 988-990, 1972.
 14. Barthoshuk, L. M., D. H. McBurney, and C. Pfaffmann. Taste of sodium chloride solutions after adaptation to sodium chloride: implications for the “water taste.” Science 143: 967-968, 1964.
 15. Bealer, S. L., and D. V. Smith. Multiple sensitivity to chemical stimuli in single human taste papillae. Physiol. Behav. 14: 795-799, 1975.
 16. Beidler, L. M. Effect of odor flow rate on olfactory response (Abstract). Federation Proc. 17: 12, 1958.
 17. Békésy, G. Von. Sweetness produced electrically on the tongue and its relation to taste theories. J. Appl. Physiol. 19: 1105-1113, 1964.
 18. Békésy, G. Von. Taste theories and the chemical stimulation of single papillae. J. Appl. Physiol. 21: 1-9, 1966.
 19. Berglund, B. Quantitative and qualitative analysis of industrial odors with human observers. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 237: 35-51, 1974.
 20. Berglund, B. Quality, intensity, and time in olfactory perception. In: Olfaction and Taste VI, edited by J. Le Magnen and P. MacLeod. London: Information Retrieval, 1977, p. 437-447.
 21. Berglund, B., U. Berglund, G. Ekman, and T. Engen. Individual psychophysical functions for 28 odorants. Percept. Psychophys. 9: 379-384, 1971.
 22. Berglund, B., U. Berglund, T. Engen, and G. Ekman. Multidimensional analysis of twenty‐one odors. Scand. J. Psychol. 14: 131-137, 1973.
 23. Berglund, B., U. Berglund, T. Engen, and T. Lindvall. The effect of adaptation on odor detection. Percept. Psychophys. 9: 435-438, 1971.
 24. Berglund, B., U. Berglund, and T. Lindvall. Psychological processing of odor mixtures. Psychol. Rev. 83: 432-441, 1976.
 25. Berglund, B., U. Berglund, T. Lindvall, and L. T. Svensson. A quantitative principle of perceived intensity summation in odor mixtures. J. Exp. Psychol. 100: 29-38, 1973.
 26. Bitterman, M. E. Flavor aversion studies. Science 192: 265-267, 1976.
 27. Boring, E. G. Sensation and Perception in the History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton, 1942.
 28. Bujas, Z. Le temps d'action des stimuli de la sensibilité gustative. C. R. Soc. Biol. 116: 1307-1309, 1934.
 29. Bujas, Z. Le temps de reaction aux excitations gustatives d'intensité differente. C. R. Soc. Biol. 119: 1360-1362, 1935.
 30. Bujas, Z. L'adaptation gustative et son mécanisme. Acta. Inst. Psychol. Univ. Zagreb. 17: 1-11, 1953.
 31. Bujas, Z. Electrical taste. In: Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Chemical Senses. Taste, edited by L. M. Beidler. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1971, vol. 4, pt. 2, p. 180-199.
 32. Bujas, Z., and A. Ostojcic. L'évolution de la sensation gustative en fonction du temps d'excitation. Acta Inst. Psychol. Univ. Zagreb. 3: 1-24, 1939.
 33. Bujas, Z., and A. Ostojcic. La sensibilité gustative en fonction de la surface excitée. Acta Inst. Psychol. Univ. Zagreb. 13: 1-19, 1941.
 34. Cain, W. S. Odor intensity: differences in the exponent of the psychophysical function. Percept. Psychophys. 6: 349-354, 1969.
 35. Cain, W. S. Odor intensity after self‐adaptation and cross‐adptation. Percept. Psychophys. 1: 271-275, 1970.
 36. Cain, W. S. Physiochemical characteristics and supraliminal odor intensity: reply to Mitchell. Percept. Psychophys. 9: 478-479, 1971.
 37. Cain, W. S. Contribution of the trigeminal nerve to perceived odor magnitude. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 237: 28-34, 1974.
 38. Cain, W. S. Perception of odor intensity and the time course of olfactory adpatation. Am. Soc. Heating, Refrigerat. Air Condition. Eng. Trans. 80: 53-75, 1974.
 39. Cain, W. S. Odor intensity: mixtures and masking. Chem. Senses Flavor 1: 339-352, 1975.
 40. Cain, W. S. Olfaction and the common chemical sense: some psychophysical contrasts. Sensory Processes 1: 57-67, 1976.
 41. Cain, W. S. Differential sensitivity for smell: “noise” at the nose. Science 195: 796-798, 1977.
 42. Cain, W. S. History of research on smell. In: Handbook of Perception. Tasting and Smelling, edited by E. C. Carterette and M. P. Friedman. New York: Academic, 1978, p. 197-229.
 43. Cain, W. S. The odoriferous environment and the application of olfactory research. In: Handbook of Perception. Tasting and Smelling, edited by E. C. Carterette and M. P. Friedman. New York: Academic, 1978, vol. 6A, p. 277-304.
 44. Cain, W. S. To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science 203: 467-470, 1979.
 45. Cain, W. S., and M. Drexler. Scope and evaluation of odor counteraction and masking. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 237: 427-439, 1974.
 46. Cain, W. S., and F. Johnson, Jr. Lability of odor pleasantness: influence of mere exposure. Perception 7: 459-465, 1978.
 47. Chalke, H. D., and J. R. Dewhurst. Accidental coal gas poisoning: loss of sense of smell as a possible contributory factor with old people. Br. Med. J. 2: 915-917, 1957.
 48. Clark, R. G. The identification and sensory analysis of volatile constituents of walnuts (Juglans regia L.). J. Food Sci. Agric. 28: 789-790, 1976.
 49. Collings, V. B. Human taste response as a function of locus of stimulation on the tongue and soft palate. Percept. Psychophys. 16: 169-174, 1974.
 50. Contreras, R. J. Changes in gustatory nerve discharges with sodium deficiency: a single unit analysis. Brain Res. 121: 373-378, 1977.
 51. Cooper, R. M., I. Bilash, and J. P. Zubek. The effect of age on taste sensitivity. J. Gerontol. 14: 56-58, 1959.
 52. Corbitt, T., and T. Engen. Facilitation in olfactory detection. Percept. Psychophys. 10: 433-436, 1971.
 53. Corso, J. F. Sensory processes and age effects in normal adults. J. Gerontol. 26: 90-105, 1971.
 54. Davis, R. J. Acquisition of verbal associations to olfactory stimuli of varying familiarity and to abstract visual stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 1: 134-142, 1975.
 55. Denton, D. A. Salt appetite. In: Handbook of Physiology. Alimentary Canal, edited by C. F. Code. Washington, DC: Am. Physiol. Soc., 1967, sect. 6, vol. I, chapt. 31, p. 433-459.
 56. Desor, J. A., and G. K. Beauchamp. The human capacity to transmit olfactory information. Percept. Psychophys. 16: 551-556, 1974.
 57. Desor, J. A., L. S. Greene, and O. Maller. Preferences for sweet and salty in 9‐ to 15‐year‐old and adult humans. Science 190: 686-687, 1975.
 58. Desor, J. A., O. Maller, and K. Andrews. Ingestive responses of human newborns to salty, sour, and bitter stimuli. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 89: 966-970, 1975.
 59. Desor, J. A., O. Maller, and R. Turner. Taste acceptance of sugars by human infants. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 84: 496-501, 1973.
 60. Dethier, V. G. The taste of salt. Am. Sci. 65: 744-750, 1977.
 61. Dravnieks, A. Instrumental aspects of olfactometry. In: Methods in Olfactory Research, edited by D. G. Moulton, A. Turk, and J. W. Johnston, Jr. New York: Academic, 1975, p. 1-61.
 62. Dzendolet, E., and C. Murphy. Electrical stimulation of human fungiform papillae. Chem. Senses Flavor 1: 9-15, 1974.
 63. Ekman, G., B. Berglund, U. Berglund, and T. Lindvall. Perceived intensity of odor as a function of time of adaptation. Scand. J. Psychol. 9: 177-186, 1967.
 64. Engen, T. The potential usefulness of sensations of odor and taste in keeping children away from harmful substances. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 237: 224-228, 1974.
 65. Engen, T. Taste and smell. In: Handbook of the Psychology of Aging, edited by J. E. Birren and K. W. Shaie. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1977, p. 554-561.
 66. Engen, T., J. E. Kuisma, and P. D. Eimas. Short‐term memory of odors. J. Exp. Psychol. 99: 222-225, 1973.
 67. Engen, T., and D. H. McBurney. Magnitude and category scales of the pleasantness of odors. J. Exp. Psychol. 68: 435-440, 1964.
 68. Engen, T., and C. Pfaffmann. Absolute judgments of odor quality. J. Exp. Psychol. 59: 214-219, 1960.
 69. Engen, T., and B. M. Ross. Long‐term memory of odors with and without verbal descriptions. J. Exp. Psychol. 100: 221-227, 1973.
 70. Garcia, J., and L. P. Brett. Conditioned responses to food odor and taste in rats and wild predators. In: The Chemical Senses and Nutrition. edited by M. Kare and O. Mailer. New York: Academic, 1977, p. 277-298.
 71. Garcia, J., and W. G. Hankins. The evolution of bitter and the acquisition of toxiphobia. In: Olfaction and Taste V, edited by D. Denton and J. P. Coghlan. New York: Academic, 1975, p. 39-45.
 72. Garcia, J., W. G. Hankins, and K. W. Rusiniak. Behavioral regulation of the milieu interne in man and rat. Science 185: 924-931, 1974.
 73. Garcia, J., and R. A. Koelling. Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychon. Sci. 4: 123-124, 1966.
 74. Gent, J. F., and D. H. McBurney. Time course of gustatory adaptation. Percept. Psychophys. 23: 171-175, 1978.
 75. Green, D. M., and J. A. Swets. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York: Wiley, 1966.
 76. Hahn, H. Die Adaptation des Geschmackssinnes. Z. Sinnes‐physiol. 65: 105-145, 1934.
 77. Hanig, D. P. Zur Psychophysik des Geschmacksinnes. Philosophische Studientexte 17: 576-623, 1901.
 78. Hankins, W. G., J. Garcia, and K. W. Rusiniak. Dissociation of odor and taste in bait shyness. Behav. Biol. 8: 407-419, 1973.
 79. Harper, H. W., J. R. Jay, and R. P. Erickson. Chemically evoked sensations from single human taste papillae. Physiol. Behav. 1: 319-325, 1966.
 80. Hellman, T. M., and F. H. Small. Characterization of the odor properties of 101 petrochemicals using sensory methods. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 24: 979-982, 1974.
 81. Hinchcliffe, R. Clinical quantitative gustometry. Acta Oto‐Laryngol. 49: 453-466, 1958.
 82. Hyman, A. Factors influencing the psychophysical function for odor intensity. Sensory Processes 1: 273-291, 1977.
 83. Jacobs, H. L., E. R. Smutz, and C. N. DuBose. Comparative observations on the ontogeny of taste preference. In: Taste and Development, edited by J. M. Weiffenbach. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Dept. of Health, Educ., and Welfare, 1977, p. 99-107.
 84. Jones, F. N. Scales of subjective intensity for odors of diverse chemical nature. Am. J. Psychol. 71: 305-310, 1958.
 85. Jones, F. N. Information content of olfactory quality, In: Theories of Odors and Odor Measurement, edited by N. Tanyolac. Bebek, Istanbul, Turkey: Robert Coll. Res. Ctr., 1968.
 86. Kaplan, A. R., E. V. Glanville, and R. Fischer. Cumulative effect of age and smoking on taste sensitivty in males and females. J. Gerontol. 20: 334-337, 1965.
 87. Keidel, W. D., U. O. Keidel, and M. E. Wigand. Adaptation: loss or gain of sensory information? In: Sensory Communication, edited by W. A. Rosenblith. New York: Wiley, 1961, p. 319-338.
 88. Kelly, D. H. Flicker. In: Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Visual Psychophysics, edited by D. Jameson and L. M. Hurvich. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1972, vol 7, pt. 4, p. 273-302.
 89. Kimbrell, G. M., and E. Furchtgott. The effect of aging on olfactory threshold. J. Gerontol. 18: 364-365, 1963.
 90. Koster, E. P. Adaptation and Cross‐adaptation in Olfaction. Rotterdam: Bronder‐Offset N.V., 1971.
 91. Krakauer, D., and K. M. Dallenbach. Gustatory adaptation to sweet, sour and bitter. Am. J. Psychol. 49: 469-475, 1937.
 92. Kurihara, K. Taste modifiers. In: Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Chemical Senses. Taste, edited by L. M. Beidler. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1971, vol. 4, pt. 2, p. 363-378.
 93. Kurihara, K., Y. Kurihara, and L. M. Beidler. Isolation and mechanism of taste modifiers: taste‐modifying protein and gymnemic acids. In: Olfaction and Taste III, edited by C. Pfaffmann. New York: Rockefeller Univ. Press, 1969, p. 450-469.
 94. Lawless, H. T., and W. S. Cain. Recognition memory for odors. Chem. Senses Flavor 1: 331-337, 1975.
 95. Lawless, H. T., and T. Engen. Associations to odors: interference, mnemonics, and verbal labeling. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Learn. Mem. 3: 52-59, 1977.
 96. Le Magnen, J. Etude des facteurs dynamiques de l'excitation olfactive. Année Psychol. 45-46: 77-89, 1944-45.
 97. McBurney, D. H. Magnitude estimation of the taste of sodium chloride after adaptation to sodium chloride. J. Exp. Psychol. 72: 869-873, 1966.
 98. McBurney, D. H. Effects of adaptation on human taste function. In: Olfaction and Taste III, edited by C. Pfaffmann. New York: Rockefeller Univ. Press, 1969, p. 407-419.
 99. McBurney, D. H. A note on the relation between area and intensity in taste. Percept. Psychophys. 6: 250, 1969.
 100. McBurney, D. H. Gustatory cross adaptation between sweet‐tasting compounds. Percept. Psychophys. 11: 225-227, 1972.
 101. McBurney, D. H. Are there primary tastes for man? Chem. Senses Flavor 1: 17-28, 1974.
 102. McBurney, D. H. Temporal properties of the human taste system. Sensory Processes 1: 150-162, 1976.
 103. McBurney, D. H., and L. M. Bartoshuk. Water taste in mammals. In: Olfaction and Taste IV, edited by D. Schneider. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1972, p. 329-335.
 104. McBurney, D. H., and L. M. Bartoshuk. Interactions between stimuli with different taste qualities. Physiol. Behav. 10: 1101-1106, 1973.
 105. McBurney, D. H., and J. F. Gent. On the nature of taste qualities. Psychol. Bull. 86: 151-167, 1979.
 106. McBurney, D. H., R. A. Kasschau, and L. M. Bogart. The effect of adaptation on taste jnds. Percept. Psychophys. 2: 175-178, 1967.
 107. McBurney, D. H., and C. Pfaffmann. Gustatory adaptation to saliva and sodium chloride. J. Exp. Psychol. 65: 523-529, 1963.
 108. McBurney, D. H., D. V. Smith, and T. R. Shick. Gustatory cross adaptation: sourness and bitterness. Percept. Psychophys. 11: 228-232, 1972.
 109. McCutcheon, N. B., and J. Saunders. Human taste papillae stimulation: stability of quality judgments over time. Science 175: 214-216, 1972.
 110. Meiselman, H. L. Effect of presentation procedure on taste intensity functions. Percept. Psychophys. 10: 15-18, 1971.
 111. Meiselman, H. L. Human taste perception. Crit. Rev. Food Technol. 3: 89-119, 1972.
 112. Meiselman, H. L., and H. E. Bose. Effects of flow rate on taste intensity functions. Chem. Senses Flavor 2: 515-522, 1977.
 113. Meiselman, H. L., and C. N. DuBose. Failure of instructional set to affect completeness of taste adaptation. Percept. Psychophys. 19: 226-230, 1976.
 114. Meiselman, H. L., B. P. Halpern, and G. P. Dateo. Reduction of sweetness judgements by extracts from the leaves of Ziziphus jujuba. Physiol. Behav. 17: 313-317, 1976.
 115. Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychol. Rev. 63: 81-97, 1956.
 116. Moskowitz, H. R. Scales of Intensity for Single and Compound Tastes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ., 1968. Dissertation.
 117. Moskowitz, H. R. Ratio scales of sugar sweetness. Percept. Psychophys. 1: 315-320, 1970.
 118. Moskowitz, H. R. Sweetness and intensity of artifical sweetness. Percept. Psychophys. 8: 40-42, 1970.
 119. Moskowitz, H. R. The sweetness and pleasantness of sugars. Am. J. Psychol. 84: 387-406, 1971.
 120. Moskowitz, H. R., A. Dravnieks, W. S. Cain, and A. Turk. Standardized procedure for expressing odor intensity. Chem. Senses Flavor 1: 235-237, 1974.
 121. Moskowitz, H. R., A. Dravnieks, and L. A. Klarman. Odor intensity and pleasantness for a diverse set of odorants. Percept. Psychophys. 19: 2, 122-128, 1976.
 122. Moskowitz, H. R., V. Kumaraiah, K. N. Sharma, H. L. Jacobs, and S. D. Sharma. Cross‐cultural differences in simple taste preferences. Science 190: 1217-1218, 1975.
 123. Moulton, D. G. Minimum odorant concentrations detectable by the dog and their implications for olfactory receptor sensitivity. In: Chemical Signals in Vertebrates, edited by D. Muller‐Schwarze and M. M. Mozelle. New York: Plenum, 1977, p. 455-464.
 124. Mozell, M. M. The chemical senses. II. Olfaction. In: Woodworth and Schlosberg's Experimental Psychology (3rd ed.), edited by J. W. Kling and L. A. Riggs. New York: Holt, 1971, p. 193-222.
 125. Murphy, C. Gustatory Absolute Thresholds as a Function of Age: an Investigation Into the Mechanism for Coding Bitter. Amherst: Univ. of Massachusetts, 1975. Dissertation.
 126. Nachman, J. Taste preferences for sodium salts by adrenalectomized rats. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 55: 1124-1129, 1962.
 127. Nachman, M., and L. P. Cole. Role of taste in specific hungers. In: Handbook of Sensory Physiology. Chemical Senses. Taste, edited by L. M. Beidler. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1971, vol. 4, pt. 2, p. 337-362.
 128. Nachman, M., and C. Pfaffmann. Gustatory nerve discharge in normal and sodium‐deficient rats. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 56: 1007-1011, 1963.
 129. Nisbett, R., and S. Gurvitz. Weight, sex, and the eating behavior of human newborns. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 73: 245-253, 1970.
 130. Pfaffmann, C. The sense of taste. In: Handbook of Physiology. Neurophysiology, edited by J. Field and H. W. Magoun. Washington, DC: Am. Physiol. Soc., 1959, sect. 1, vol. I, chapt. 20, p. 507-533.
 131. Pfaffmann, C. and J. K. Bare. Gustatory nerve discharges in normal and adrenalectomized rats. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 43: 320-329, 1950.
 132. Plattig, K. H. Uber den elektrischen Geschmack. Z. Biol. Munich 116: 161-211, 1969.
 133. Plattig, K. H., and J. Innitzer. Taste qualities elicited by electrical stimulation of single human tongue papillae. Pfluegers Arch. 361: 115-120, 1976.
 134. Rehn, T. Perceived odor intensity as a function of flow through the nose. Sensory Processes 2: 198-205, 1978.
 135. Richter, C. P., and K. H. Campbell. Sucrose taste thresholds in rats and humans. Am. J. Physiol. 128: 291-297, 1940.
 136. Rozin, P. Aversions and neophobia resulting from vitamin deficiency or poisoning in half‐wild and domestic rats. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 66: 82-88, 1968.
 137. Rusiniak, K. W., W. G. Hankins, J. Garcia, and L. P. Brett. Flavor‐illness aversions: potentiation of odor by taste in rats. Behav. Neural Biol. 25: 1-17, 1979.
 138. Schiffman, S. S. Physiochemical correlates of olfactory quality. Science 185: 112-117, 1974.
 139. Schiffman, S. S. Food recognition by the elderly. J. Gerontol. 32: 586-592, 1977.
 140. Schiffman, S. S., and R. P. Erickson. A psychophysical model for gustatory quality. Physiol. Behav. 7: 617-633, 1971.
 141. Schiffman, S. S., J. Moss, and R. P. Erickson. Thresholds of food odors in the elderly. Exp. Aging Res. 2: 389-398, 1976.
 142. Skramlik, E. Von. Handbuch der Physiologie der Niederen Sinne. Leipzig: Thieme, 1926.
 143. Smith, C. G. Age incidence of atrophy of olfactory nerves in man. J. Comp. Neurol. 77: 389-595, 1942.
 144. Smith, D. V. Taste intensity as a function of area and concentration: differentiation between compounds. J. Exp. Psychol. 87: 163-171, 1971.
 145. Smith, D. V., and D. H. McBurney. Gustatory cross adaptation: does a single mechanism code the salty taste? J. Exp. Psychol. 80: 101-105, 1969.
 146. Stein, M., P. Ottenberg, and N. Roulet. A study of the development of olfactory preferences. AMA Arch. Neurol. Psychiatry 80: 264-266, 1958.
 147. Stevens, S. S. Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects, edited by G. Stevens. New York: Wiley, 1975.
 148. Stuiver, M. Biophysics of the Sense of Smell. Groningen, Netherlands: Univ. of Groningen, 1958. Dissertation.
 149. Teghtsoonian, R., M. Teghtsoonian, B. Berglund, and U. Berglund. Invariance of odor strength with sniff vigor: an olfactory analogue to size constancy. J. Exp. Psychol. 4: 144-152, 1978.
 150. Teitelbaum, P., M‐F. Cheng, and P. Rozin. Development of feeding parallels its recovery after hypothalamic damage. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 67: 430-441, 1969.
 151. Tucker, D. Olfactory, vomeronasal, and trigeminal responses to odorants. In: Olfaction and Taste I, edited by Y. Zotterman. New York: Pergamon, 1963, p. 45-69.
 152. Vitzthum, O. G. Volatile ingredients of roasted coffee. Food Technol. 29: 67, 1975.
 153. Wilcoxon, H. C., W. B. Dragoin, and P. A. Kral. Illness‐induced aversions in rat and quail: relative salience of visual and gustatory cues. Science 171: 826-828, 1971.
 154. Woodworth, R. S. Experimental Psychology. New York: Holt, 1938.
 155. Zahorik, D. M., S. F. Maier, and R. W. Pies. Preferences for tastes paired with recovery from thiamine deficiency in rats: appetitive conditioning or learned safety? J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 87: 1083-1091, 1974.

Contact Editor

Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Taste and Olfaction: Sensory Discrimination
 

How to Cite

Donald H. McBurney. Taste and Olfaction: Sensory Discrimination. Compr Physiol 2011, Supplement 3: Handbook of Physiology, The Nervous System, Sensory Processes: 1067-1086. First published in print 1984. doi: 10.1002/cphy.cp010323