Basis and Practice of Clinical Taste Examinations

Tomita, Hiroshi; Ikeda, Minoru; Okuda, Yukio

doi:10.1016/s0385-8146(86)80029-3

Cited by 185 publications

(160 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

150

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There were significant differences among areas and stimuli, and a significant stimulus by area interaction (F(14, 238) = 9.36, p < .01). The response intensity increases with electrogustometer current, but at a lower rate for the more posterior zones, consistent with others who found the tip of the tongue more sensitive to electric stimuli than other regions of the tongue [6,9,12,16]. The battery stimuli, which were larger in contact area than the electrogustometer probe, showed less of a difference among areas.…”

Section: Results and Discussion Experimentssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…This similarity is evident in the pattern of response that parallels fungiform papillae density, in laterality of responsesa, and in similar verbal quality identifications to those obtained by Tomita's group [6,10]. The stimulus provides a level of perceived intensity comparable to a range of 12 to 18 db on the electrogustometer scale.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…The electrogustometer probe is a circle with an area of 20 mm 2 , the battery probe is a circle with an area of 87 mm 2 . In measurements of thresholds of electrical stimulation, a large change (factor of 32) in electrode area resulted in only a small change in threshold current (factor of 1.6) [6], although Miller et al [16] found a four-fold change in area (12.5 to 50 mm 2 ) to reduce threshold current density by about half. Furthermore, there is evidence of spatial summation [9,17].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another issue was the degree to which lateral differences in electric taste response might occur. Lateral differences are reported from chemical stimuli for only a minority of subjects [13][14][15], and differences in electrogustometer matching responses in one study are only in the range of 2 -4 db [6]. Pilot work using the battery stimulus had suggested some side to side differences, so this issue was further examined in the second experiment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Electrical stimulation of the gustatory nerves has been studied with a variety of devices [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Perhaps the most common electrogustometer in clinical practice is the Rion TR-6 [2,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A comparison of two electric taste stimulation devices

McClure

Lawless

2007

Physiology & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electrical stimulation of the tongue, commonly used in clinical evaluations of taste dysfunction, can produce a variety of sensations including reports of metallic taste. Two studies compared responses to a fabricated electrical stimulator (a 1.6 V battery, anode side exposed) and a clinical electrogustometer (Rion TR-06). Batteries placed on the anterior dorsal tongue surface produced sensations similar in intensity and quality to those produced by the clinical electrogustometer, with equal intensity on the tongue tip for the 1.6 V battery in the range of 33 -56 µA from the electrogustometer. A second study examined responses on three areas of the tongue on each side. Responses declined for areas lower in fungiform papillae for both devices, but at different rates. Higher current levels were required to match the battery in lower density areas, indicating spatial summation for the larger battery surface area. A consistent pattern of lateral differences was seen in only one subject. Quality descriptions were similar in frequency whether or not a word list was provided, with metallic, sour, pain and bitter being the most frequently mentioned words for both electric stimuli. Similarities in response to the battery device and electrogustometer were evident in intensity, qualities evoked, lack of a laterality effect and decreasing response in areas with lower fungiform papillae density. The battery device may provide an inexpensive portable alternative to an electrogustometer for use in clinical testing of taste.

show abstract

Section: Results and Discussion Experimentssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 75%