The effect of oral tactile sensitivity on texture perception and mastication behavior

Abstract

Mastication is a notable source of interindividual variation in texture perception and could be linked to oral tactile sensitivity. To better understand the influence of oral tactile sensitivity on mastication behavior, this study measured masticatory behavior and texture discrimination in participants of high (n = 20) and low (n = 21) oral tactile sensitivity. Overall, there was no significant difference between high and low sensitivity participants in their ability to distinguish texture changes (p = .486). However, there were significant differences found between the groups based on their masticatory behaviors including chewing pattern and overall number of chewing cycles. Additionally, those in the high sensitivity group used more stochastic chewing movements, while those in the low sensitivity group were found to use crescent‐shaped chewing cycles. It was also noted that in the high sensitivity group, the jaw moved further distances in all phases and moved at a higher velocity when opening but not when closing, when compared to the low sensitivity group. These results show what particular aspects of mastication are most influenced by oral tactile feedback. Chewing patterns have been shown to influence texture and flavor perception, as well as energy intake. However, much of the person‐to‐person variability in chewing patters comes from unknown sources. This study shows which chewing behaviors are different between a group of individuals with high oral tactile sensitivity and another with low oral tactile sensitivity. These findings highlight the manner in which tactile feedback from the mouth influences chewing.

Oral Somatosensory Sensitivity in Patients With Taste Disturbance

“…Overall, our findings indicate that taste dysfunction has a negative impact on oral mechanosensitivity, which is closely connected with oral texture perception and masticatory and dietary behavior 44–46 . This underlines the clinical importance of the study results.…”

Subjective touch sensitivity leads to behavioral shifts in oral food texture sensitivity and awareness

“…Similarly, those sensitive to roughness on the tongue show higher sensitivity to some astringent compounds (e.g., epigallocatechin gallate), but not others (tannic acid) 32 . However, other studies have shown no effect, in which participants with high oral tactile sensitivity were not more able to discriminate gummy stimuli of hardness than participants in the bottom quartile of oral tactile sensitivity 19 . The conflicting nature of the reports on the relationship between laboratory measures of behavioral oral tactile sensitivity and food texture perception are likely due to how food texture sensitivity was measured.…”

“…Additionally, this framework is focused on general sensory sensitivities rather than modality-specific ones. Modality-specific behavioral sensitives’ have been shown in both clinical 13 – 15 and non-clinical groups 9 , 16 – 19 , but the relationship of these behavioral sensitivities with specific subjective sensitivity is less clear 12 . Multiple sensory modalities are typically reported to be affected on questionnaire measures of atypical sensory sensitivity 20 , 21 which suggests a central origin (i.e., brain-level) rather than a peripheral origin (e.g., at the level of receptors or ascending nerve fibers).…”

Coordination of surface electromyography activity in the posterior tongue region during mastication of differently textured foods

“…Three types of test foods were used and all were standardised at 2 g. Gummy jelly has a homogenous and reproducible structure, constant shape and size and ability to show perfect texture values 25 . It has been widely used in past studies related to mastication and we chose a commercially available product that is easy to obtain 26,27 . However, even with the same weight, gummy jelly, sponge cake and mashed potatoes have different volumes, properties and tastes.…”

“…25 It has been widely used in past studies related to mastication and we chose a commercially available product that is easy to obtain. 26,27 However, even with the same weight, gummy jelly, sponge cake and this study, we instructed participants to masticate unilaterally verbally, but the chewing side was not visualised. We focussed on the function of the 'guarding stage' during mastication, but the results obtained did not completely exclude the squeeze-back movements and stage ll transport from the tongue movement during mastication.…”