Comprehensive Physiology Wiley Online Library
For Librarians For Authors Editors About

Taste and Smell

Linda Bartoshuk, Valerie Duffy

10.1002/cphy.cp110114

Source: Supplement 28: Handbook of Physiology, Aging

Originally published: 1995

Published online: January 2011

Full Article on Wiley Online Library



Abstract

The sections in this article are:

1 Methodological Issues of Importance to Both Taste and Olfaction
1.1 Threshold vs. Suprathreshold Perception
1.2 The Scaling of Perceived Intensity: How Do We Compare Individuals or Groups?
1.3 Magnitude Matching: Another Approach to Comparisons Across Individuals or Groups
2 Taste
2.1 Thresholds
2.2 Magnitude Estimation with a Common Standard Given to all Subjects
2.3 Line Length with no Labels
2.4 Labeled Scales
2.5 Magnitude Matching
2.6 Consistency of Taste Responses
2.7 What Are Appropriate Inferences from the Suprathreshold Studies?
2.8 Sources of Taste Loss
3 Orthonasal Olfaction
3.1 Thresholds
3.2 Odor Identification
3.3 Magnitude Scales with no Labels
3.4 Labeled Scales
3.5 Magnitude Matching
3.6 Sources of Olfactory Loss
4 Retronasal Olfaction
4.1 Thresholds
4.2 Identification
4.3 Magnitude Matching
4.4 Orthonasal vs. Retronasal Perception
4.5 Sources of Retronasal Olfactory Loss
4.6 Summary
5 Conclusions
Figure 1. Figure 1.

Illustration of the logical error involved when magnitude estimation data are used to draw conclusions about absolute intensity. The leftmost panel shows how data might look if both old and young subjects were asked to call a 0.1M solution 10. Only the slopes of the data are meaningful. The vertical positions of the functions are caused by the standard given to the subjects and so are meaningless. The panels in the middle and on the right are examples of what the actual perceived intensities might be.
Figure 2. Figure 2.

Examples from taste showing that the threshold does not predict the suprathreshold function. See text under the heading “Thresholds” for explanation.


Figure 1.

Illustration of the logical error involved when magnitude estimation data are used to draw conclusions about absolute intensity. The leftmost panel shows how data might look if both old and young subjects were asked to call a 0.1M solution 10. Only the slopes of the data are meaningful. The vertical positions of the functions are caused by the standard given to the subjects and so are meaningless. The panels in the middle and on the right are examples of what the actual perceived intensities might be.



Figure 2.

Examples from taste showing that the threshold does not predict the suprathreshold function. See text under the heading “Thresholds” for explanation.

References
 1. Bartoshuk, L. M. Taste mixtures: is mixture suppression related to compression? Physiol. Behav. 14: 643–649, 1975.
 2. Bartoshuk, L. M. The psychophysics of taste. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 31: 1068–1077, 1978.
 3. Bartoshuk, L. M., Taste: robust across the age span? In: Nutrition and the Chemical Senses in Aging: Recent Advances and Current Research Needs, edited by C. Murphy, W. S. Cain, and D. M. Hegsted. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1989, vol. 561, p. 65–75.
 4. Bartoshuk, L. M., S. Desnoyers, C. Hudson, L. Marks, M. O'Brien, F. Catalanotto, J. Gent, D. Williams, and K. M. Östrum. Tasting on localized areas. In: Olfaction and Taste, edited by S. Roper and J. Atema. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1987, vol. IX, p. 166–168.
 5. Bartoshuk, L. M., S. Desnoyers, M. O'Brien, J. F. Gent, and F. A. Catalanotto. Taste stimulation of localized tongue areas: the Q‐tip test [Abstract]. Chem. Senses 10: 453, 1985.
 6. Bartoshuk, L. M., L. M. Marks, J. C. Stevens, and B. Rifkin, Taste and aging. Paper presented at the VIth Annual Meeting of the Association for Chemoreception Sciences, Sarasota, FL, 1984 (Abstr. 15).
 7. Bartoshuk, L. M., B. Rifkin, L. E. Marks, and P. Bars. Taste and aging. J. Gerontol. 41: 51–57, 1986.
 8. Botwinick, J. Aging and Behavior. New York: Springer Publishing, 1973.
 9. Botwinick, J. Aging and Behavior (3rd ed.), New York: Springer Publishing, 1984.
 10. Burdach, K., and R. Doty. The effects of mouth movements, swallowing and spitting on retronasal odor perception. Physiol. Behav. 41: 353–356, 1987.
 11. Cain, W., F. Reid, and J. Stevens. Missing ingredients: aging and the discrimination of flavor. J. Nutr. Eld. 9: 3–15, 1990.
 12. Cain, W. S., Olfaction. In: Stevens Handbook of Experimental Psychology, edited by R. C. Atkinson, R. J. Herrnstein, G. Lindzey, and R. D. Luce. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988, p. 409–459.
 13. Cain, W. S., and J. F. Gent. Olfactory sensitivity: reliability, generality, and association with aging. J. Exp. Psychol. [Hum. Percept.] 17: 382–391, 1991.
 14. Cain, W. S., and J. C. Stevens. Uniformity of olfactory loss in aging. In: Nutrition and the Chemical Senses in Aging: Recent Advances and Current Research Needs, edited by C. Murphy, W. S. Cain, and D. M. Hegsted. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1989, vol. 561, p. 29–38.
 15. Cain, W. S., J. F. Gent, R. B. Goodspeed, and G. Leonard. Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction in the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center. Laryngoscope 98: 83–88, 1988.
 16. Chauhan, J., and Z. J. Hawrysh. Suprathreshold sour taste intensity and pleasantness perception with age. Physiol. Behav. 43: 601–607, 1988.
 17. Costanzo, R. M., and N. D. Zasler. Head trauma. In: Smell and Taste in Health and Disease, edited by T. Getchell, R. L. Doty, L. M. Bartoshuk, and J. B. Snow. New York: Raven Press, 1991, p. 711–730.
 18. Cowart, B. J., Direct scaling of the intensity of basic tastes: a life span study. Paper presented at the Vth Annual Meeting of the Association for Chemoreception Sciences, Sarasota, FL, 1983 (Abstr. 24).
 19. Cowart, B. J., Relationships between taste and smell across the adult life span. In: Nutrition and the Chemical Senses in Aging: Recent Advances and Current Research Needs, edited by C. Murphy, W. S. Cain, and D. M. Hegsted. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1989, vol. 561, p. 39–55.
 20. Desimone, J. A., G. L. Heck, and L. M. Bartoshuk. Surface active taste modifiers: a comparison of the physical and psychophysical properties of gymnemic acid and sodium lauryl sulfate. Chem. Senses 5: 317–330, 1980.
 21. Doty, R., L. Bartoshuk, and J. Snow. Causes of olfactory and gustatory disorders. In: Smell and Taste in Health and Disease, edited by T. V. Getchell, R. L. Doty, L. M. Bartoshuk, and J. B. Snow. New York: Raven Press, 1991, p. 449–462.
 22. Doty, R. L., P. Shaman, S. L. Applebaum, R. Giberson, L. Sikorski, and L. Rosenberg. Smell identification ability: changes with age. Science 226: 1441–1443, 1984.
 23. Doty, R. L., P. Shannon, and M. Dann. Development of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol. Behav. 34: 489–502, 1984.
 24. Duffy, V. B., W. S. Cain, J. C. Stevens, and A. M. Ferris. A test of flavor sensitivity. Chem. Senses 16: 516–517, 1991.
 25. Duffy, V. B., A. M. Ferris. Lower olfactory functioning associates with nutritional risk in elderly women. Chem. Senses 18: 549, 1993.
 26. Dye, C. J., and D. A. Koziatek. Age and diabetes effects on threshold and hedonic perception of sucrose solutions. J. Gerontol. 36: 310–315, 1981.
 27. Engen, T., Psychophysics I. Discrimination and detection. In: Woodworth & Schlosberg's Experimental Psychology, Vol. I: Sensation and Perception. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972, p. 11–46.
 28. Enns, M. P., T. B. Van Itallie, and J. Grinker. Contributions of age, sex and degree of fatness on preferences and magnitude estimations for sucrose in humans. Physiol. Behav. 22: 999–1003, 1979.
 29. Fillenbaum, G. Multidimensional functional Assessment of Older Adults: The Duke Older Americans Resources and Services Procedures. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1988.
 30. Hudson, C. A. Taste perceptions: a comparison of the elderly and the young. Senior thesis, Yale University, 1985.
 31. Hyde, R. J., and R. P. Feller. Age and sex effects on taste of sucrose, NaCl, citric acid and caffeine. Neurobiol. Aging 2: 315–318, 1981.
 32. Hyde, R. J., R. P. Feller, and I. M. Sharon. Tongue brushing, dentifrice, and age effects on taste and smell. J. Dent. Res. 60: 1730–1734, 1981.
 33. Kamen, J. M., F. J. Pilgrim, N. J. Gutman, and B. J. Kroll. Interactions of suprathreshold taste stimuli. J. Exp. Psychol. 62: 348–356, 1961.
 34. Lawless, H. T. and T. Engen. Associations to odors: interface, mnemonics and verbal labeling. J. Exp. Psychol. [Hum. Learn. Mem.] 3: 52–59, 1977.
 35. Little, A. C., and L. Brinner. Taste responses to saltiness of experimentally prepared tomato juice samples. J. Dietet. Assoc. 84: 1022–1027, 1984.
 36. Marks, L. E. Sensory and cognitive factors in judgments of loudness. J. Exp. Psychol. 5: 426–443, 1979.
 37. Marks, L. E. Magnitude estimation and sensory matching. Percept. Psychophys. 43: 511–525, 1988.
 38. Marks, L. E. On the relativity of chemosensory perception. Chem. Senses 18: 596, 1993.
 39. Marks, L. E., and J. C. Stevens. Measuring sensation in the aged. In: Aging in the 1980′s: Psychological Issues, edited by L. W. Poon. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1980, p. 592–598.
 40. McBurney, D. H., and L. M. Bartoshuk. Interactions between stimuli with different taste qualities. Physiol. Behav. 10: 1101–1106, 1973.
 41. Moskowitz, H. R. Magnitude estimation: notes on what, how, when, and why to use it. J. Food Qual. 1: 195–228, 1977.
 42. Mozell, M., B. Smith, L. Sullivan, and P. Swender. Nasal chemoreception in flavor identification. Arch. Otolaryngol. 90: 367–373, 1969.
 43. Murphy, C. Cognitive and chemosensory influences on age‐related changes in the ability to identify blended foods. J. Gerontol. 40: 47–52, 1985.
 44. Murphy, C., Taste and smell in the elderly. In: Clinical measurement of Taste and Smell, edited by H. L. Meiselman and R. S. Rivlin. New York: Macmillan, 1986, p. 343–371.
 45. Murphy, C., and M. M. Gilmore. Quality‐specific effects of aging on the human taste system. Percept. Psychophys. 45: 121–128, 1989.
 46. Murphy, C., W. S. Cain, M. M. Gilmore, and R. B. Skinner. Sensory and semantic factors in recognition memory for odors and graphic stimuli: elderly versus young persons. Am. J. Psychol. 104: 161–192, 1991.
 47. Pangborn, R. M., Selected factors influencing sensory perception of sweetness. In: Sweetness, edited by J. Dobbing. New York: Springer‐Verlag, 1987, p. 49–66.
 48. Rifkin, B., and L. M. Bartoshuk, Taste in aging. Paper presented at the 88th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association. 1980, p. 17–18.
 49. Rolls, B., and T. McDermott. Effects of age on sensory‐specific satiety. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 54: 988–996, 1991.
 50. Rovee, C. K., R. Y. Cohen, and W. Shlapack. Life‐span stability in olfactory sensitivity. Dev. Psychol. 11: 311–318, 1975.
 51. Rowe, J., and R. Kahn. Human aging: usual and successful. Science 237: 143–149, 1987.
 52. RoziN, P. “Taste‐smell confusions” and the duality of the olfactory sense. Percept. Psychophys. 31: 397–401, 1982.
 53. Russell, M. J., B. J. Cummings, B. F. Profitt, C. J. Wysocki, A. N. Gilbert, and C. W. Cotman. Life span changes in the verbal characterization of odors. J. Gerontol. 48: P49–P53, 1993.
 54. Schiffman, S. S. Food recognition by the elderly. J. Gerontol. 32: 586–592, 1977.
 55. Schiffman, S. S., and T. B. Clark. Magnitude estimates of amino acids for young and elderly subjects. Heurobiol. Aging 1: 81–91, 1980.
 56. Schiffman, S. S., M. G. Lindley, T. B. Clark, and C. Makino. Molecular mechanism of sweet taste: relationship of hydrogen bonding to taste sensitivity for both young and elderly. Neurobiol. Aging 2: 173–185, 1981.
 57. Ship, J., and J. Weiffenbach. Age, gender, medical treatment and medication effects on smell identification. J. Gerontol. 48: M26–M32, 1993.
 58. Solomon, G. M., F. Catalanotto, A. Scott, and L. M. Bartoshuk. Patterns of taste loss in clinic patients with histories of head trauma, nasal symptoms, or upper respiratory infection. Yale J. Biol. Med. 64: 280, 1991.
 59. Stevens, D. A. and H. T. Lawless. Age‐related changes in flavor perception. Appetite 2: 127–136, 1981.
 60. Stevens, J., and W. Cain. Smelling via the mouth: effect of aging. Percept. Psychophys. 40: 142–146, 1986.
 61. Stevens, J. C., and W. S. Cain. Age‐related deficiency in the perceived strength of six odorants. Chem. Senses 10: 517–529, 1985.
 62. Stevens, J. C., and W. S. Cain. Changes in taste and flavor in aging. Crit. Rev. Food. Sci. Nutr. 33: 27–37, 1993.
 63. Stevens, J. C., and L. E. Marks. Cross‐modality matching functions generated by magnitude estimation. Percept. Psychophys. 27: 379–389, 1980.
 64. Stevens, J. C., L. M. Bartoshuk, and W. S. Cain. Chemical senses and aging: taste versus smell. Chem. Senses 9: 167–179, 1984.
 65. Stevens, J. C., W. S. Cain, and R. J. Burke. Variability of olfactory thresholds. Chem. Senses 13: 643–653, 1988.
 66. Stevens, J. C., A. Plantinga, and W. S. Cain. Reduction of odor and nasal pungency associated with aging. Neurobiol. Aging 3: 125–132, 1982.
 67. Stevens, S. S., The psychophysics of sensory function. In: Sensory Communication, edited by W. A. Rosenblith. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press, 1961, p. 1–33.
 68. Stevens, S. S. Sensory scales of taste intensity. Percept. Psychophys. 6: 302–308, 1969.
 69. Sumner, D. Post traumatic ageusia. Brain 90: 187–202, 1967.
 70. Weiffenbach, J. M., Assessment of chemosensory functioning in aging. In: Nutrition and the Chemical Senses in Aging: Recent Advances and Current Research Needs, edited by C. Murphy, W. S. Cain, and D. M. Hegsted. New York: The New York Academy of Sciences, 1989, vol. 561, p. 56–64.
 71. Weiffenbach, J. M., B. J. Baum, and R. Burghauser. Taste thresholds: quality specific variation with human aging. J. Gerontol. 37: 372–377, 1982.
 72. Weiffenbach, J. M., B. J. Cowart, and B. J. Baum. Taste intensity perception in aging. J. Gerontol. 41: 460–468, 1986.
 73. Wood, J. B., and S. W. Harkins. Effects of age, stimulus selection, and retrieval environment on odor identification. J. Gerontol. 42: 584–588, 1987.
 74. Wysocki, C. J., and A. N. Gilbert. National Geographic smell survey: effects of age are heterogeneous. In: Nutrition and the Chemical Senses in Aging: Recent Advances and Current Research Needs, edited by C. Murphy, W. S. Cain, and D. M. Hegsted. New York: The New York Academy of Science, 1989, vol. 561, p. 12–28.
 75. Zallen, E. M., L. B. Hooks, and K. O'Brien. Salt taste preferences and perceptions of elderly and young adults. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 90: 947–950, 1990.

Contact Editor

Submit a note to the editor about this article by filling in the form below.

* Required Field

Article Title: Taste and Smell
 

How to Cite

Linda Bartoshuk, Valerie Duffy. Taste and Smell. Compr Physiol 2011, Supplement 28: Handbook of Physiology, Aging: 363-375. First published in print 1995. doi: 10.1002/cphy.cp110114