• Monday, May 28, 2012

Previous

Next

Flavor and the Brain

November 21, 2011, 1:00 pm

The sensation of flavor has until recently been one of nature’s more arcane secrets. But in recent years progress has been made in parsing out its complex and often counterintuitive nature, writes Gordon M. Shepherd in Neurogastronomy: How the Brain Creates Flavor and Why It Matters.

The book, just out from Columbia University Press, is Shepherd’s accessible explanation of the studies that he and many colleagues have made to understand the perception of flavor.

Shepherd, a physician and a professor of neurobiology at Yale University School of Medicine, has been a pioneer in the scientific study of smell. The volume he edited in 1974, The Synaptic Organization of the Brain, is a standard reference work in the field. It is in its fifth edition from Oxford University Press. In the 1960s, Shepherd’s studies of the olfactory bulb, a structure in the forebrain of vertebrates that receives neural signals from cells in the nasal cavity, were among the first to tease out the properties and nature of brain micro-circuitry. He was also at the forefront of designing computer models of those complex phenomena, particularly as they related to the faculty of smell.

The “brain flavor system,” to use his term, is revealing surprises relating to fundamental aspects of the combined perception of taste and smell. “Most people are unaware,” Shepherd writes, that flavors “are due mostly to the sense of smell and that they arise largely from smells we detect when we are breathing out with food in our mouths.” Simple tests make apparent the importance of this “retronasal” component—try eating with your nasal cavity blocked off, or recognizing flavors introduced at the back of your mouth.

Taste—the tongue’s registering of salty, sweet, and so forth—is a simple-enough process; but much more goes into perceptions of flavor. In normal eating, chewing releases smell molecules from food and those are carried in air to the nasal chambers to stimulate smell receptors. Those send signals to the brain, which conceptualizes smells as spatial patterns. The brain combines those with perceptions of texture and other qualities of food and the action of eating it to construct perceptions of flavor.

As all that is happening, writes Shepherd, “astonishingly, the sense of flavor produced is a mirage; it appears to come from the mouth, where the food is located, but the smell part, of course, arises from the smell pathway. No wonder it has taken so long to realize what an amazing sense retronasal smell is.”

The scientist describes research performed since the 1980s that has shown that odors set up patterns of activity in the brain—“smell images”—that are the basis for perception of flavor and that are like the images that form the basis for other sensations such as touch and sight. He writes: “These smell images are hidden factors that determine most of the pleasure we get from eating, and they share the blame for the problems we incur when eating foods that are not good for us.”

“Neurogastronomy” is a term Shepherd has coined in his efforts to bring together findings from the many fields that bear on the scientific, cultural, and behavioral dimensions of flavor. The role of taste and flavor is inscribed in human history, he writes: “Royal empires have been built, unexplored lands have been traversed, great religions and philosophies have been forever changed by the spice trade.”

Cultures sought a variety of flavorings because the human brain possesses great plasticity when it comes to smell—humans all taste the same tastes, but they develop highly divergent attachments to the innumerable flavors that build on those tastes.

Unfortunately, from plasticity can come many problems—war among spice-hungry nations is one, mass self-extermination by poor eating is another. Neuroscientists could play a greater role in combatting obesity. But even among his colleagues, obesity’s entanglement in “the human brain flavor system” remains largely ignored, the researcher said by phone, last week, from the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience, in Washington DC. “There is very little discussion of why kids—why we all—eat what we eat,” he said. “And that really comes down to understanding how the brain creates flavor.”

The hold-up, he said, is the lack of discussion among researchers in the many fields related to flavor perception: “The physiologists talk to the anatomists, and the anatomists talk to the pharmacologists. There’s some cross talk. But there’s a whole world out there of food physiologists who study what happens to the food as we chew it and swallow it, and that’s practically unknown to the people in neuroscience. In the same way, the insights from anthropology, about what makes us uniquely human, are almost unknown to neuroscience. And yet, the physiology of flavor is not only important for us now—cooking must have been critical for the evolution of humans.”

Taking stock of the full range of such studies, and their connections, “provides the opportunity to deal with obesity in a way that is similar to the way we deal with cravings for drugs,” he says. Research in several medical disciplines into the links among flavor, emotions, and memory, for example, “has converged onto the same parts of the brain that the craving for drugs has focused on, and that is really an important insight,” he says.

Shepherd laments the many contributors to poor modern diets—fast-food companies conspicuous among them. He says they commandeer taste vulnerabilities and make virtual addicts of consumers. Research has shown, he notes, that early exposure to flavors, including those that fast-food scientists tinker with to suit their companies’ ends, influences humans’ food-consumption patterns for life. In one sense, he says, he conceives of his book as a neurobiologist’s addendum to Eric Schlosser’s best-selling book, Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal (Houghton Mifflin, 2001).

Far from trying to scare his readers off flavor enjoyment, Shepherd preaches informed flavor management. He begins his book by relishing his and his wife’s own nutritious home-cooked meals, and he isn’t about to begrudge any Americans their upcoming Thanksgiving dinners. Of course, he views those from a scientist’s perspective: “You have a lot of different dishes, and since they’re different, your taste flavor system doesn’t get saturated with one.” But he grants the indulgence a traditional wise-eating dispensation: “You’re allowed one day of sin.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

  • Print
  • Comment
  • gayetuchman

    Right on. Our economy does indeed need to educate the very students who are being dismissed as a waste of professors’ time.  But that education would be vital even if it didn’t contribute to the collective economic welfare.  Education is, after all, supposed to stretch the mind and encourage analytic and critical thought.  Research also shows that the children of ill-prepared students who graduate after years of struggle also benefit from their mothers’ education. ( Sorry, guys. Attewell and Lavin’s research is about mothers.)  These mothers read more to ther kids than uneducated women do; they take their kids to museums.  They stretch their kids’ horizons and we all benefit.  There is no such animal as over-educated..

  • raza_khan

    The issue is not whether the we are undereducated or overeducated but rather…. Are we appropriately educated for the next step?

    The next step may be gonig to middle school, high school, community college, 4-year, graduate or employment.  What I find interesting that we are not preparing our students well for the next step in their lives at any of those levels!

    best,
    Raza
    ____________________________
    Raza Khan, Ph.D.
    Dr.Raza.Khan@gmail.com

  • _perplexed_

    Regardless of our President’s goals or our enconomy’s needs, we will be seeing fewer, not greater numbers of college educated workers in the future.  Just take a look at your state’s higher education budget…

  • bcbailey64

    Excellent analysis! Yes to point #1 – too many students are unprepared for the rigours of college. Yes to point #2 – we are not producing enough university graduates. If we want to progress as a species it is a necessity that our future citizens have continuously increasing levels of education. Point #2 is so obvious it’s a no brainer! That some think this is even debatable indicates we have a long ways to go to solve point #1!

  • manhire
  • olympicctc

    About Professor X’s In the Basement, I have to say a word in his defense.  While Kahlenberg’s contention cannot be disputed that the book does challenge the general preparedness of college students and attempts to cast doubt about the widely held need to provide access to higher education to many as we can, those arguments were largely anecdotal and incidental, not scholarly. 

    The book’s purpose was to share the observations, insight, inner dialogue of an astute English composition instructor.  Since adjunct instructors are the most numerous type of instructor in the academy, outnumbering tenured instructors, his observations, in and of themselves, warrant consideration and reflection.  It is noteworthy, I think, that his rumination are largely personal, and are rarely influenced by “water cooler” discussions with a community of peers.  One has to be an attentive reader to notice mention of tenured faculty. 

    It is also noteworthy that for Professor X, as an individual who has invested effort in considering  the state of U.S. higher education, faculty unions are not considered as agents of reform.  In describing adjunct instructors, Professor X recognizes that “the use of adjunct instructors like me was probably not good for students” and that “adjuncts were an exploited class, and that they were, in effect, faculty-union-sanctioned scabs.” But he confesses that he “didn’t think about any of this.  I was glad to have the work” (p. 11).  

    Perhaps if the majority of instructors could be granted a measure of job security, they would be more inclined to be active agents of improvement for the system–and I think, Professor X, Carnevale, Rose, along with the rest of us, can agree that U.S. higher ed needs improvement.  

    Jack Longmate
    Adjunct English Instructor
    Olympic College, Bremerton, WA

  • texas2step

    There is no such thing as an over-educated population.

  • 22081781

    Carnevale and Rose argue that, were the U.S. to add 20 million college-educated workers by 2025, the college wage differential would “reduce income inequality from today’s high levels.”  Please get real.  Increasing inequality in this society is due to the economy pushing out more potential workers into unemployment and poverty, while the richest 1% get wildly richer.  It has nothing to do with the minor amount of shuffling in the middle. Carnevale and Rose’s ridiculous claim undermines everything they have to say. 

  • jsalmons

    If students are unprepared then it seems that we have two choices: 1) improve K-12 education to include more rigorous thinking and fewer standardized tests or 2) offer more remedial/support services at colleges and universities. I don’t think the answer is to dumb down college or to just say let’s exclude people if they need more help. I would pay more taxes to support both in my state’s schools and colleges.

  • wilkenslibrary

    A recent e-mail that I received contained these two quotations from Thomas Jefferson:  “I have indeed two great measures at heart, without which no republic
    can maintain itself in strength: 1. That of general education, to enable
    every man to judge for himself what will secure or endanger his
    freedom. 2. To divide every county into hundreds, of such size that all
    the children of each will be within reach of a central school in it.”
    –(Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810. ME 12:393) and “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and will never be.”

    We don’t necessarily need more college graduates, but we do need more educated citizens.

    Betsy Smith/Adjunct Professor of ESL/Cape Cod Community College

  • misanthropic789

    It’s not just about graduating students.  It’s about what they learn.  If they learn nothing than their degree isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.  More importantly, if they learn something it needs to be the right something.  We need statisticians, programmers, engineers and scientists.  You know; the hard subjects.    If you don’t believe me, take a look at the top job descriptions for H1B recipients.  That should give us a clue for where we need to start educating students.  Just churning out more graduates isn’t enough.

  • micheleme

    Great links!

  • tardigrade

    “ the skyrocketing of the “college premium”—the wage differential between college and high-school graduates—suggests that “the United States has been underproducing college-going workers since 1980.””

    To me it suggests that a college degree is over-valued for some insane reason.  I know the job I do does not require a college degree, despite the job description requiring said degree*.  It requires a person who can learn on the job, and learn a bit on their own (granted, going to school simultaneous with having this job did help my performance minusculely, but I still don’t have that four-year degree*, just a two-year degree).

    * – What I said doesn’t make sense outside of the fact that I gained this job as a transition from an internship of my A.S., and was given more job responsibilities as I proved capable of handling previous responsibilities.  Despite that, the majority of the work could be done by an intelligent H.S. graduate with a couple months of training.

  • marka

    Many of these so-called studies continue to confuse correlation with causation.  For example, ‘the skyrocketing of the “college premium”—the wage differential between college and high-school graduates’ suggests to me something very different from the article author.  Plenty of other potential ’causes’ of the differential, not the least of which is our continued hypocritical support of unauthorized aliens continuing to flood the lower-paid positions, thereby lowering wages even further, and pulling down others with them.

    I agree with tardigrade & misanthropic789.  

  • cocotartufo

    Peterwood
     
    I remember when most scientists still expressed uncertainty about the exact influence of humans on the climate.  It was the accumulation of data — lots of it, along multiple lines – as well as the decades of deliberation over that evidence that has slowly and painfully given birth to the current broad scientific consensus about the implications of CO2 on climate. 
     
    Mann’s work is only one part of that picture — and, despite your imputations, nothing about his work has proven inconsistent with that of many other independent scientists working in the field and in related subjects. And that evidence is all that really matters in the end.  Nature could care less what you find with Google!
     
    And consensus in science is a good thing, last I checked. Scientists hold on to their individuality jealously – as is clearly evident if you’ve ever been in a faculty meeting with a bunch of them.   But science would never move forward if anytime the evidence predominantly indicates a particular conclusion, we averted our eyes simply for some irrational fear of what you dismissively refer to as “coccooning.” 

    Should we perpetually remain in the larval state, afraid to face the true implications of our findings?  That would not only be the coward’s way, it would be the way to madness.

  • Guest

    Why is it necessary to mention this?  Governments and NGOs all over the world spend an order of magnitude more than corporations are spending.  But their hearts aren’t really in it:  they are making billions of dollars/pounds in subsidy from tax-payers for things like totally useless wind farms.

  • Guest

    Is this the guy that said we’re all going to die in hurricanes as the world heats up (to congress, or was it the US senate) and has now changed his mind?  Yes… I think it is.  He’s a snake-oil salesman just like Mann.

  • Guest

    His work hasn’t been “verified” – it’s been “reproduced”.  What this means is that groups of people have taken his methods and the same data he used and come up with the same results.  Some have even replicated his mistakes in order to do so.   His work is still unmitigated rubbish of course, especially his wonderfully fictitious ”hockey stick”.

  • Guest

    Yes, we shall.

  • Guest

    He has you ignorant fool.  Ask Steve McIntyre how hard it was to get any data out of Mann for the purposes of replication.

  • Llammy

    Crickey! I have never seen so much ad hom, appeals to authority and straw men in a comments section!

    If as some have tried to point out, Mann has been libelled why does he not sue? This has been going on for some years with S.M. etc openly critical of Mann’s work. Montford in his book, “The Hockey Stick Illusion” lays it all out but once again, no threat of legal action. Tenney etc all throw themselves behind Mann with appeals to authority and claim the HS has been cleared but has it really? Not from what I read!

    None of this is real science and shame on the lot of you for trying to pass it off as the real thing! If there is nothing to hide, share the data that is mostly paid for by the taxpayers, stop it with the false oil company funding argument (check out where the CRU funding comes from!) and simply let the truth out. It is the real way to save the planet. Even sceptics used to donate into ecological causes until “Climate” scientists muddied the water!

  • Llammy

    Only one thing to say in reply to that rubbish……….Chris Landsea, an honest bloke! 

    http://www.webcitation.org/6005fkwJv

  • Llammy

    Your models say that temperatures should be rising now, empirical science says temperature has been statistically flat for ten years or so. Your post reads like a religious rant rather than a scientific reality! Full of ad hom, straw men and appeals to authority with a little “global health threat” to try to scare the little people! Pathetic!

  • EWorrall

    Politicised science is dangerous, and can lead to bad places. http://www.michaelcrichton.net/essay-stateoffear-whypoliticizedscienceisdangerous.html

  • EricAdler

    You are simply regurgitating what you have read in denier blogs.

    In fact  since Mann’s paper in 1999, a dozen papers have used different sets of paleoclimate data and different analysis methods, to explore the average temperature over the last 1000-2000 years and came to essentially the same conclusions. Your claim of reliance on only a single tree is a myth.

    There is a lot of evidence for the role of CO2 in global warming from radiation spectra. The decrease in outgoing radiation in the region of the absorption spectrum of CO2 has been observed over time by satellite measurements.  In addition the observed decrease in stratospheric temperature is a signature of global warming due the GHG’s as is the increased height of the tropopause.

    In fact it is the global warming deniers whose methods are antiscience. Approximately 3% of climate scientists don’t accept the theory of AGW. This has been shown by 2 independent polls of climate scientists as well as analysis of the published literature. Most of the opposition comes from amateurs who do not produce peer reviewed publications.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Anna-Haynes/1186871204 Anna Haynes

    Disclosure, for the record: I have no background in climate science that qualifies me to question the findings of that scientific field.

  • http://www.wottsupwiththat.com Ben

    So much bunk. Does writing it make you feel good?
    “But did you know that McIntyre is/was an official ipcc Reviewer?” Wrong. Same as everything else you wrote.

  • http://www.wottsupwiththat.com Ben

    Peter, your opinions here are completely unsupported by fact and you lack the intellect to defend them or the personal integrity to retract them. Shameful.

  • http://twitter.com/AGW_Prof Scott A Mandia

    According to my research on the Vikings during the MWP which you can read here:

    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vikings_during_mwp.html

    In 960, Thorvald Asvaldsson of Jaederen in Norway killed a man. He was forced to leave the country so he moved to northern Iceland. He had a ten year old son named Eric, later to be called Eric Röde, or Eric the Red. Eric too had a violent streak and in 982 he killed two men. Eric the Red was banished from Iceland for three years so he sailed west to find a land that Icelanders had discovered years before but knew little about. Eric searched the coast of this land and found the most hospitable area, a deep fiord on the southwestern coast. Warmer Atlantic currents met the island there and conditions were not much different than those in Iceland (trees and grasses.) He called this new land “Greenland” because he “believed more people would go thither if the country had a beautiful name,” according to one of the Icelandic chronicles (Hermann, 1954) although Greenland, as a whole, could not be considered “green.” Additionally, the land was not very good for farming. Nevertheless, Eric was able to draw thousands to the three areas shown in Fig. 15.

    Figure 15: Ancient Norse settlements. (Source: Bryson, 1977)
    The Greenland Vikings lived mostly on dairy produce and meat, primarily from cows. The vegetable diet of Greenlanders included berries, edible grasses, and seaweed, but these were inadequate even during the best harvests. During the MWP, Greenland’s climate was so cold that cattle breeding and dairy farming could only be carried on in the sheltered fiords. The growing season in Greenland even then was very short. Frost typically occurred in August and the fiords froze in October. Before the year 1300, ships regularly sailed from Norway and other European countries to Greenland bringing with them timber, iron, corn, salt, and other needed items. Trade was by barter. Greenlanders offered butter, cheese, wool, and their frieze cloths, which were greatly sough after in Europe, as well as white and blue fox furs, polar bear skins, walrus and narwhal tusks, and walrus skins. In fact, two Greenland items in particular were prized by Europeans: white bears and the white falcon. These items were given as royal gifts. For instance, the King of Norway-Denmark sent a number of Greenland falcons as a gift to the King of Portugal, and received in return the gift of a cargo of wine (Stefansson, 1966.) Because of the shortage of adequate vegetables and cereal grains, and a shortage of timber to make ships, the trade link to Iceland and Europe was vital (Hermann, 1954.)

    Keep in mind that three fiords in Greenland cannot be a proxy for global T.

  • http://www.wottsupwiththat.com Ben

    Trashman cries “victory!” as he scuttles back into the shadows. Congratulations on winning the race to the bottom at the Chronicle of “Higher” Education.

    Your so-called arguments here are unsubstantiated juvenilia and sadly you match Peter Wood in your determined blindness to logic and factual criticism.

  • philosophile

    The review quotes Professor Shepherd as saying, “astonishingly, the sense of flavor is a mirage,” and says he believes that flavors (and the smells that help constitute them) are no different from our sensations of touch and sight. They are “images” or “mirages” created by the brain. That suggests that our entire world of sensory perception and experience is a “mirage,” and raises the question how we can use “mirages” to discover that they are mirages. Of course that is the question that worried Descartes.

    However, what I want to say is that a few years ago while working part time as a fact checker at U.S. News & World Report I wrote to Professor Shepherd asking whether he knew of any attempts by neurobiologists to graft neurons between organisms. 

    Not only did he write back (saying he knew of no such attempts), but he suggested that if it were possible, then if you connected afferent neurons on the hands of two people a stimulus to a hair follicle of one of them might produce a tickle in both!

    There are not many professors who would bother to respond to a question such as mine; and still fewer who would see what lay behind it and offer a suggestion. 

    No doubt his broad range of curiosity and interest led him to write the book you review. But it is also evident in his textbook “Neurobiology” (1994), which I believe is a leading text in the field (translated into a dozen languages), and which I keep on my desk alongside Wilhelm Windelband’s “History of Philosophy” and Thomas Mann’s “The Magic Mountain.”

  • graddirector

    Well, in response to nybound…

    I agree that just calling up some random informant is an issue…  But academics is a small world.  Most large/medium sized departments will have at least one faculty member who knows someone on the faculty at a large percentage of institutions .  In the best scenario, the information would be coming from a true contact whose own reputation would be known.  In our sociopath scenario, our faculty knew several people at the “donating” institution.  It was just that no one asked about what this person was really like in time……..

  • The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • 1255 Twenty-Third St, N.W.
  • Washington, D.C. 20037