↓ Skip to main content

Galvanic Tongue Stimulation Inhibits Five Basic Tastes Induced by Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
25 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Galvanic Tongue Stimulation Inhibits Five Basic Tastes Induced by Aqueous Electrolyte Solutions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02112
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kazuma Aoyama, Kenta Sakurai, Satoru Sakurai, Makoto Mizukami, Taro Maeda, Hideyuki Ando

Abstract

Galvanic tongue stimulation (GTS) modulates taste sensation. However, the effect of GTS is contingent on the electrode polarity in the proximity of the tongue. If an anodal electrode is attached in the proximity of the tongue, an electrical or metallic taste is elicited. On the other hand, if only cathodal electrode is attached in the proximity of the tongue, the salty taste, which is induced by electrolyte materials, is inhibited. The mechanism of this taste inhibition is not adequately understood. In this study, we aim to demonstrate that the inhibition is cause by ions, which elicit taste and which migrate from the taste sensors on the tongue by GTS. We verified the inhibitory effect of GTS on all five basic tastes induced by electrolyte materials. This technology is effective for virtual reality systems and interfaces to support dietary restrictions. Our findings demonstrate that cathodal-GTS inhibits all the five basic tastes. The results also support our hypothesis that the effects of cathodal-GTS are caused by migrating tasting ions in the mouth.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 48%
Researcher 2 8%
Professor 1 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 40%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 12%
Computer Science 1 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 8 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2017.
All research outputs
#7,484,444
of 23,008,860 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,829
of 30,248 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,681
of 439,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#240
of 528 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,008,860 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,248 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 528 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.