Barium Versus Nonbarium Stimuli: Differences in Taste Intensity, Chemesthesis, and Swallowing Behavior in Healthy Adult Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The authors examined the impact of barium on the perceived taste intensity of 7 different liquid tastant stimuli and the modulatory effect that these differences in perceived taste intensity have on swallowing behaviors. METHOD: Participants were 80 healthy women, stratified by age group (<40; >60) and genetic taste status (supertasters; nontasters). Perceived taste intensity and chemesthetic properties (fizziness; burning-stinging) were rated for 7 tastant solutions (each prepared with and without barium) using the general Labeled Magnitude Scale. Tongue-palate pressures and submental surface electromyography (sEMG) were simultaneously measured during swallowing of these same randomized liquids. Path analysis differentiated the effects of stimulus, genetic taste status, age, barium condition, taste intensity, and an effortful saliva swallow strength covariate on swallowing. RESULTS: Barium stimuli were rated as having reduced taste intensity compared with nonbarium stimuli. Barium also dampened fizziness but did not influence burning-stinging sensation. The amplitudes of tongue-palate pressure or submental sEMG did not differ when swallowing barium versus nonbarium stimuli. CONCLUSIONS: Despite impacting taste intensity, the addition of barium to liquid stimuli does not appear to alter behavioral parameters of swallowing. Barium solutions can be considered to elicit behaviors that are similar to those used with nonbarium liquids outside the assessment situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".