4.7 Article

The timing and duration of a sensitive period in human flavor learning: a randomized trial

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NUTRITION
卷 93, 期 5, 页码 1019-1024

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL NUTRITION
DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.110.003541

关键词

-

资金

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [R01HD37119]
  2. NIH

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: By using the response to protein hydrolysate formula (PHF) as a model system, we discovered the existence of a sensitive period, before 4 mo, when exposure determines the hedonic tone to flavors. Objective: We aimed to characterize the timing and duration of this sensitive period. Design: Healthy infants, whose parents had chosen formula feeding, were randomly assigned into 1 of 6 groups at age 0.5 mo: 2 control groups, one fed cow milk-based formula (CMF) and the other fed PHF for 7 mo; 2 groups fed PHF for either 1 or 3 mo beginning at 1.5 mo and CMF otherwise; and 2 groups fed PHF for 1 mo beginning at either 2.5 or 3.5 mo and CMF otherwise. Brief access taste tests were conducted monthly, and complete meals of both formulas occurred at the end of the study. Results: Three months of PHF exposure led to acceptance similar to that at 1 mo of exposure. Although these infants were more accepting than were infants with no exposure, they were less accepting than were infants with 7 mo of exposure, which suggests a dosing effect. The time when flavor experiences began was also significant. Among infants exposed to PHF for 1 mo, those who were first fed PHF at 3.5 mo rejected PHF relative to CMF more than did infants exposed at younger ages. Conclusion: The general principles observed are likely of broader significance, indicating a fundamental feature of mammalian development and reflecting the importance of familiarizing infants with flavors that their mothers consume and transmit to breast milk. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00994747. Am J Clin Nutr 2011;93:1019-24.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据