MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2775900958

The Garcia Effect: A Tailored Taste for Survival - eScholarship

2011· article· en· W2775900958 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

aboutLe titre ou le résumé porte un signal canadien du lexique géographique.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueBerkeley Scientific Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueEffects of Radiation Exposure
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTasteDisgustPsychologyPhenomenonGarciaTaste aversionSaccharinPleasurePersuasionCognitive psychologySocial psychologyHumanitiesPsychoanalysisNeurosciencePhilosophyEpistemologyMedicineAnger
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

T he G arcia E ffect A T ailored T aste for S urvival B S J Chang Liu On the surface, taste seemingly only serves as a factor of enjoyment in response to various foods, but it commands a much stronger persuasion on the human subconscious than any of the other four senses. Taste is the only sense that can unconsciously and permanently plant a memory of disgust and repulsion within animals without requiring any conscious thought or mental notation. This phenomenon is scientifically known as “conditioned taste aversion,” and was first researched by Dr. John Garcia, a notable psychologist who conducted most of his studies during the 1950s at Hunter’s Point Radiological Defense Laboratory in San Francisco. Garcia and his colleagues were originally studying the effects of ionizing radiation on the behaviors of laboratory rats when they stumbled upon the curious phenomenon of taste aversion (Garcia, 1988). They discovered that radiated rats would eventually stop drinking the saccharin solutions supplied to them for hydration during radiation tests, opting instead for thirst. Garcia switched his research to hone in on this peculiar finding and eventually demonstrated that it had a psychological basis. He postulated that the rats must have unwittingly attributed ingesting saccharin water— the only physical cue that they had—with the aversive symptoms that were actually due to undetectable radiation (Garcia, 1988). A NOVEL IDEA Garcia’s discovery of taste aversion led to a plethora of questions from the scientific community. While the phenomenon seemed to follow a basic pattern of Pavlovian conditioning, it broke many of the key principles proposed by Pavlov and Thorndike regarding learning theory. For instance, the rats in Garcia’s studies retained their distaste for saccharin-flavored water long after radiation was removed; also, they learned to avoid the solution despite the fact that they only drank the water sporadically while under radiation. All of these factors violate many key tenets of Pavlovian conditioning, such as the need to consistently pair a conditioned stimulus with a conditioned response over multiple trials in order to cement an association. Taste aversion also defies the “Law of Exercise” from Thorndike’s learning theory, since the rats did not require repetition to learn or strengthen the association; in fact, the learning itself was spontaneous and the response lasted for much longer than it should have without the requisite practice. Psychologists noticed that a number of factors including sex, age, testing procedures, deprivation level, and drug history all affected the acquisition rate and terminal strength of taste aversion, but no one was quite able to put a finger on how the phenomenon could be implanted within an organism’s memory so instantly and irrevocably (Parker, 2003). Furthermore, conditioned taste aversion is encountered at all levels of evolution, with similar forms of food aversion learning found in vertebrate and invertebrate species whose ancestral lines diverged more than 500 million years ago (Bures, 1998). Thus, the acquisition of taste aversion is not a simple Pavlovian-conditioned event, but a unique psychological phenomenon with deep evolutionary roots. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL & PHYSIOLOGICAL BASIS Many preliminary and subsequent in-depth studies were conducted in relation to taste aversion. While earlier studies aimed to uncover the physical effects of taste aversion, more recent studies are focused on the psychological framework and physiological mechanics behind the phenomenon. Linda A. Parker, a research psychologist at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario, discovered that the emetic system of the midbrain and brainstem was responsible for the nausea that results as a consequence of taste aversion. The emetic system is not a group of organs in the traditional sense, such as the digestive or nervous system. However, it is so named because “emetics” have traditionally been used as substances that induce vomiting to purge the body of toxins and harmful parasites; conditioned disgust reactions are established by the association between a flavor and the activation of the emetic system (Parker, 2003). Although rats are incapable of vomiting, they were observed to display conditioned disgust reactions such as gaping and chin rubbing when they were exposed to a flavor previously paired with drug-induced nausea. Time and the ability to form sensory memories play important roles in the acquisition of taste aversion as well. Baby rats could only acquire an aversion to a particular food if it was eaten within sixty minutes of nausea onset; the association failed to appear with longer time gaps (Stephenson, 2001). Baby rats also forgot taste information more easily than adult rats, pointing to the prominent tie between memory formation and taste aversion. Lastly, experiments showed that severing one of the vagus nerves in rats (see 1 • B erkeley S cientific J ournal • S cience of F ood • V olume 16 • I ssue 1

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,007
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,298
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0070,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0010,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,282
Écart entre enseignants0,245 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle