The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Differential Facial Responses to Four Basic Tastes in Newborns
Abstract
The distinctiveness and recognizability of taste-elicited facial expressions in newborns were examined in 2 studies. Sucrose, sodium chloride, citric acid, and quinine hydrochloride solutions were presented to 12 infants at 2 hours of age. In Study 1, the anatomically based Facial Action Coding System adapted for infants (Baby FACS) was used to obtain detailed, objective descriptions of the infants' videotaped facial responses to each solution. Facial responses to sucrose were characterized primarily by facial relaxation and sucking. The responses to salty, sour, and bitter solutions shared the same hedonically negative upper- and midface components but differed in the accompanying lower-face actions: lip pursing in response to sour and mouth gaping in response to bitter. There was no distinctive facial expression for sodium chloride. These findings demonstrate that newborns differentiate sour and bitter from each other and from salt, as well as discriminating sweet versus nonsweet tastes. In Study 2, untrained adults viewing videotapes of the infants' facial reactions made forced-choice judgments identifying the stimuli presented and rated the hedonic tone of the infants' responses. While the judges accurately identified the newborns' responses to sucrose, there were systematic errors in their judgments of the 3 nonsweet stimuli. The judges' hedonic ratings, on the other hand, clearly differentiated between the infants' responses to the bitter stimulus and the other 3 tastes. The findings are discussed in terms of the possible functional origins and communicative value of taste-elicited facial expressions in infants.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Congenital and experiential factors in the development of human flavor preferences.
Beauchamp, G. K., & Cowart, B. J. (1985) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/s0195-6663(85)80004-0 · Cited by 70
Cited by
Emotional expressions reconsidered: Challenges to inferring emotion from human facial movements
Barrett, L. F., Adolphs, R., Marsella, S., Martinez, A. M., & Pollak, S. D. (2019) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100619832930 · Cited by 1,748
How emotions affect eating: a five-way model
Macht, M. (2008) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2007.07.002 · Cited by 1,396
Shame, guilt, and depressive symptoms: A meta-analytic review.
Kim, S., Thibodeau, R., & Jorgensen, R. S. (2011) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0021466 · Cited by 866
Four systems for emotion activation: Cognitive and noncognitive processes.
Izard, C. E. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.100.1.68 · Cited by 850
Steiner, J. E., Glaser, D., Hawilo, M. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2001) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(00)00051-8 · Cited by 752
Metadata
- Authors
- Rosenstein, D., & Oster, H.
- Venue
- Child Development
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1988-12
- Volume
- 59
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1555
- ISSN
- 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1995039529
- Cited by
- 470
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Differential Facial Responses to Four Basic Tastes in Newborns. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/1130670
- The paper
- Rosenstein, D., & Oster, H. (1988). Differential Facial Responses to Four Basic Tastes in Newborns. Child Development. https://doi.org/10.2307/1130670
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.