MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169983945 · doi:10.1093/brain/124.8.1566

Increased intensity perception of aversive taste following right anteromedial temporal lobe removal in humans

2001· article· en· W2169983945 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dana M. Small

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsTastePsychologyTongueAudiologyPerceptionTemporal lobeAversive StimulusStimulationIntensity (physics)NeuroscienceCognitive psychologyMedicinePathologyEpilepsy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used a modified version of the Spatial Taste Test to assess taste intensity perception in patients with either left or right temporal resection from the anteromedial temporal lobe (AMTL), and a group of control subjects. Sweet, sour, salty and bitter solutions were applied onto discrete locations of the tongue to stimulate either left or right fungiform, or left or right foliate papillae. Intensity ratings were assessed with the Labeled Magnitude Scale. Subjects also sipped 5 ml of each solution for whole mouth stimulation. Genetically based determinants of taste sensitivity were assessed with ratings of 6-n-propylthiouracil, and covaried from all analyses. As in previous studies, analysis of covariance indicated that the subjects in the right temporal group rated an aversive bitter taste as more intense than did subjects in the control group. In contrast, there were no group differences for sucrose ratings, suggesting that the AMTL may be involved preferentially in processing aversive compared with hedonic tastes. No group x side, or group x location effects were present. These results confirm that removal of the right AMTL in humans results in increased taste intensity/aversiveness perception. This finding complements existing literature indicating that the AMTL is important for processing aversive taste, and suggests that inhibitory mechanisms may play an important role in such processing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations44
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrainSame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207