↓ Skip to main content

Oral Perceptions of Fat and Taste Stimuli Are Modulated by Affect and Mood Induction

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
21 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
146 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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.
Article details
Title
Oral Perceptions of Fat and Taste Stimuli Are Modulated by Affect and Mood Induction
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0065006
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study examined the impact of three clinical psychological variables (non-pathological levels of depression and anxiety, as well as experimentally manipulated mood) on fat and taste perception in healthy subjects. After a baseline orosensory evaluation, 'sad', 'happy' and 'neutral' video clips were presented to induce corresponding moods in eighty participants. Following mood manipulation, subjects rated five different oral stimuli, appearing sweet, umami, sour, bitter, fatty, which were delivered at five different concentrations each. Depression levels were assessed with Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI) and anxiety levels were assessed via the Spielberger's STAI-trait and state questionnaire. Overall, subjects were able to track the concentrations of the stimuli correctly, yet depression level affected taste ratings. First, depression scores were positively correlated with sucrose ratings. Second, subjects with depression scores above the sample median rated sucrose and quinine as more intense after mood induction (positive, negative and neutral). Third and most important, the group with enhanced depression scores did not rate low and high fat stimuli differently after positive or negative mood induction, whereas, during baseline or during the non-emotional neutral condition they rated the fat intensity as increasing with concentration. Consistent with others' prior observations we also found that sweet and bitter stimuli at baseline were rated as more intense by participants with higher anxiety scores and that after positive and negative mood induction, citric acid was rated as stronger tasting compared to baseline. The observation that subjects with mild subclinical depression rated low and high fat stimuli similarly when in positive or negative mood is novel and likely has potential implications for unhealthy eating patterns. This deficit may foster unconscious eating of fatty foods in sub-clinical mildly depressed populations.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 146 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 143 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 16%
Student > Master 23 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 24 16%
Unknown 29 20%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 36 25%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 20%
Neuroscience 14 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 9%
Chemistry 3 2%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 37 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 17 January 2026.
All research outputs
#887,622
of 34,360,889 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#10,755
of 224,517 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,655
of 244,969 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#224
of 5,116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,360,889 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,517 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% 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 244,969 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5,116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.