A new taste reactivity analysis of the integration of taste and physiological state information
A new taste reactivity analysis of the integration of taste and physiological state information
复制标题
DOI：
10.1152/ajpregu.1996.271.3.r677
复制
发表时间：
1996-09-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Kaplan, JM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grill, HJ;Roitman, MF;Kaplan, JM
我们使用味觉和生理状态的联合操纵来解决信号整合的理论问题。味觉（葡萄糖浓度）和状态（食物剥夺）之间的相互作用进行了评估，使用味觉反应的方法，其中直接口内输注引起的口腔运动反应进行测量。典型味觉反应范例的时间范围（其中观察仅限于输注期）扩展至包括输注后间隔。在每个测试阶段，大鼠接受了一系列试验，包括15秒的口内输注和45秒的输注后观察间隔。进行两个实验，其中葡萄糖浓度是不同的，大鼠在非剥夺和24小时食物剥夺后运行。在实验1中，在每次测试期间随机提供葡萄糖浓度（0、3.2、6.25、12.5和25%）。在实验2中，在单独的会话期间呈现个体葡萄糖浓度（0、6.25或25%）。对于两者来说，剥夺条件两侧是非剥夺（基线）会话。两项实验中的浓度响应函数相当。在每个实验中，浓度-反应函数的形状在输注期间和输注后显著不同。在输注期间，超过非常稀释的浓度，葡萄糖引起的节律性口服反应没有增加。输注后，浓度-响应函数在整个浓度范围内呈线性。在这两个实验中，剥夺只在输注后阶段提高反应。在实验1中，浓度-反应函数被剥夺均匀地提高（平均27%），如果按面值计算，这表明味觉和状态反馈信号的相加组合。在实验2中，然而，剥夺增加反应（类似于30%）为6.25%，但不为0或25%，这表明刺激特异性的味觉状态整合。很明显，味觉状态曲线随实验设计的不同而不同。在一般性讨论中，我们认为，在实验1中看到的对所有葡萄糖浓度和水的反应的均匀升高可能是个体会话期间所有刺激的随机呈现的伪像。实验2中，刺激呈现在会话间的设计，可能提供了一个真实的反映了潜在的整合过程。
We used conjoint manipulation of taste and physiological state to address the theoretical issue of signal integration. The interaction between taste (glucose concentration) and state (food deprivation) was evaluated using the taste reactivity method in which oral motor responses elicited by direct intraoral infusion are measured. The time frame of the typical taste reactivity paradigm, where observation is limited to the infusion period, was expanded to include the postinfusion interval. In each test session, rats received a series of trials consisting of 15-s intraoral infusions and 45-s postinfusion observation intervals. Two experiments were run in which glucose concentration was varied and rats were run nondeprived and after 24 h food deprivation. In experiment 1, glucose concentrations (0, 3.2, 6.25, 12.5, and 25%) were randomly presented during each test session. In experiment 2, individual glucose concentrations (0, 6.25, or 25%) were presented during separate sessions. For both, a deprivation condition was flanked by nondeprived (baseline) sessions. Concentration-response functions were comparable in both experiments. In each experiment, the shape of the concentration-response function was dramatically different during and after infusions. During infusions, there were no increases in glucose-elicited rhythmic oral responses beyond a very dilute concentration. After infusions, the concentration-response functions appeared linear across the concentration range. In both experiments, deprivation elevated responding only in the after-infusion periods. In experiment 1, the concentration-response function was uniformly elevated (on average, 27%) by deprivation, which if taken at face value would suggest an additive combination of taste and state feedback signals. In experiment 2, however, deprivation increased responding (similar to 30%) for 6.25%, but not for 0 or 25%, suggesting a stimulus specificity of the taste-state integration. Clearly then, the taste-state profiles differed as a function of experimental design. In the GENERAL DISCUSSION, we suggest that the uniform elevation of responding to all glucose concentrations, and to water, seen in experiment 1, may be an artifact of the random presentation of all stimuli during individual sessions. Experiment 2, in which stimuli were presented in a between-sessions design, may provide a truer reflection of the underlying integrative process.