![]() ![]() Quality sensory measurements are increasingly required, given that unreliable data may lead to dreadful decisions as well as long‐lasting financial losses. This occurs when a product is intended to be reformulated by increasing the concentration of desirable substances such as health‐beneficial compounds (e.g., ferrous sulfate and omega‐3) and reducing the concentration of undesirable substances, such as sucrose, sodium, and fat, to promote better health. Industries often need to modify their products, changing as much as possible of a certain characteristic without changing the sensorial acceptance of the product. The importance of determining hedonic thresholds covers areas such as food, pharmaceutical, and cosmetic. The “ULSWC,” in addition to meeting the prerequisite, showed accuracy and is considered an alternative for the HTM. The “1 to 9” met the prerequisite and presented high discriminant potential. This indicates that consumers may have had difficulty understanding and properly using these scales. However, they indicated no significant difference in the second session. The “−4 to +4” and “ULSOC” scales were not suitable for use in the HTM, because they do not meet the prerequisite that there is no significant difference between acceptance of the control samples and the first stimulus sample. Four hedonic scales were used: unipolar (“1 to 9”) and bipolar (“−4 to +4”) numbered structured scales and unstructured line (“ULSOC”) and hybrid line scales (“ULSWC”). The HTM was applied to grape nectar, varying the sucrose concentration, and to cookies, varying the butter concentration. The aim of this study was to investigate if hedonic thresholds are influenced by the use of different types of hedonic scales. However, there are other scales that can be used. The hedonic threshold methodology (HTM) allows for the determination of the compromised acceptance threshold and the hedonic rejection threshold, using the unipolar nine‐point numbered structured hedonic scale. In other words, dopamine systems are necessary for 'wanting' incentives, but not for 'liking' them or for learning new 'likes' and 'dislikes'.Performance of different scales in the hedonic threshold methodology Incentive salience, we suggest, is a distinct component of motivation and reward. We conclude instead that dopamine may be more important to incentive salience attributions to the neural representations of reward-related stimuli. We conclude that dopamine systems are not needed either to mediate the hedonic pleasure of reinforcers or to mediate predictive associations involved in hedonic reward learning. We review neurochemical, electrophysiological, and other behavioral evidence. We discuss these results in the context of hypotheses and data concerning the role of dopamine in reward. quinine, normal learning of new hedonic stimulus values (a change in palatability based on predictive relations), and normal pharmacological hedonic enhancement of palatability. We found normal hedonic reaction patterns to sucrose vs. Hedonic threshold series#In a series of experiments, we applied the 'taste reactivity' measure of affective reactions (gapes, etc.) to assess the capacity of dopamine-depleted rats for: 1) normal affect (hedonic and aversive reactions), 2) modulation of hedonic affect by associative learning (taste aversion conditioning), and 3) hedonic enhancement of affect by non-dopaminergic pharmacological manipulation of palatability (benzodiazepine administration). In a study of the consequences of dopamine loss, rats were depleted of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens and neostriatum by up to 99% using 6-hydroxydopamine. Rather, dopamine systems may mediate the incentive salience of rewards, modulating their motivational value in a manner separable from hedonia and reward learning. What roles do mesolimbic and neostriatal dopamine systems play in reward? Do they mediate the hedonic impact of rewarding stimuli? Do they mediate hedonic reward learning and associative prediction? Our review of the literature, together with results of a new study of residual reward capacity after dopamine depletion, indicates the answer to both questions is 'no'. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |