The influence of sleep on human taste function and perception: A systematic review

Summary

Sleep problems are associated with increased risk of obesity. Multiple mechanisms have been identified to support this relationship, including changes in sensory processing and food choice. Taste researchers have recently begun to explore whether changes in taste occur as a result of short‐term or long‐term sleep habits. A systematic review was conducted to investigate these relationships. A total of 13 studies were included in the review. Heterogeneity in both the sleep and taste measurements used was noted, and most studies failed to assess sour, bitter and umami tastes. Still, the available evidence suggests that sweet taste hedonic perception appears to be undesirably influenced by short sleep when viewed through the lens of health. That is, preferred sweetness concentration increases as sleep duration decreases. Habitual sleep and interventions curtailing sleep had minimal associations or effects on sweet taste sensitivity. Salt taste sensitivity and hedonic responses appear to be relatively unaffected by insufficient sleep, but more work is needed. Solid evidence on other taste qualities is not available at the present time.

1. INTRODUCTION

According to the 2022 World Obesity Atlas, an estimated 511 million adults lived with obesity in 2010. This number was predicted to reach 892 million in 2025, and 1025 million by 2030 (Lobsteain et al., 2022). Obesity is a cause of disability, and it increases the risk of several chronic conditions such as cancer, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases; hence, obesity poses significant economic and health burdens to society (Wang et al., 2011; Withrow & Alter, 2011). Obesity is a multi‐factorial condition, where the most common and long‐established causes include lifestyle‐related risk factors such as physical inactivity and poor dietary habits (Bouchard, 1991).

Parallel to the rising prevalence of obesity, more and more adults are also experiencing inadequate sleep. For example, the World Health Organization reported in 2004 that 16.6% of the world population had sleep problems (Stranges et al., 2012). More recent statistics suggest that the international prevalence of adults not meeting the recommended 7 hr of sleep ranges from 10% to 60%, depending on the population examined and methods used to estimate the prevalence (Bhaskar et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2016). Links between obesity and sleep problems have been established, both from epidemiological (Ogilvie & Patel, 2017; Patel & Hu, 2008; Wu et al., 2014) and experimental studies (Depner et al., 2021; Markwald et al., 2013). Multiple mechanisms by which sleep affects weight status have been identified. For example, observation of the dysregulation of the appetitive hormones leptin and ghrelin after insufficient sleep (Ding et al., 2018) could plausibly contribute to weight gain by leading to the increased energy intake observed during experimental short sleep (Markwald et al., 2013; Shechter et al., 2012). Not only have sleep issues been found to cause changes in intake, sleep problems are also associated with alterations in activity. Lower physical activity levels have been more commonly observed in individuals with sleep disorders (Hargens et al., 2013). Together, available evidence supports the notion that poor sleep impacts body weight and adiposity both molecularly (mechanistically) and behaviourally.

Another mechanism by which sleep issues could contribute to weight gain is through taste alterations. Taste makes an important contribution to the flavour of foods and beverages (Keast et al., 2004), and flavour is a leading factor in food choice (Feeney et al., 2011). Insufficient sleep could alter food choices due to changes in sensory processing (Picciotto et al., 2012) as well as increased reactivity to positive emotional stimuli (Mu & Huang, 2019), hyperreactivity to food cues (Katsunuma et al., 2017), and increased motivation for reward (Mu & Huang, 2019), all of which have been observed with insufficient sleep. For example, sweeter food and beverage stimuli were preferred after a night of curtailed sleep (Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019a), and insufficient sleep increased the desire for high‐calorie foods (Greer et al., 2013) as well as the motivation to work for a food reward (Yang et al., 2019). Given that our sense of taste has been posited to serve as a sensor to detect energy availability in the form of carbohydrate (sweet taste; Armitage et al., 2023), protein (umami taste; Breslin, 2013) and fat (fat taste; Breslin, 2013), it is possible that sleep issues could result in taste alterations, either in terms of function, i.e. sensitivity, or hedonic evaluation, i.e. liking and preference. While the oldest work exploring relationships between sleep and taste dates from the 1950s (Furchtgott & Willingham, 1956), the topic was largely forgotten until about 10 years ago. Since then, multiple papers have been published. As a result of this more recent scholarship, this systematic review aimed to investigate if sleep is associated with taste function and hedonic perception (e.g. liking and preference), given the possible implications on dietary intake and long‐term weight regulation (Drewnowski, 1997).

2. METHODS

2.1. Search strategy

A systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases: Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsycInfo. The search included all publications available up to 22 March 2024 (search end date). Given that the links between sleep and obesity can potentially be at least partially explained by taste alterations and/or the appetite dysregulation pathways, our original systematic search included three main themes: sleep, taste or appetite, with the intention that the taste and appetite outcomes would be reported as two separate and in‐depth reviews. An example search string used for the literature search in Medline is depicted in Table S1. The search terms were enhanced using MeSH terms in Medline and EMtree in Embase. This systematic review will focus only on taste alteration outcomes. Search terms were generated and arranged using the population, intervention, comparison/control and outcomes (PICO) framework: (1) population included in the review was adults aged 18 years and over, who had no diseases related to taste function and appetite, and were normal weight, overweight or obese; (2) intervention refers to short sleep duration in observational studies or sleep curtailment in randomized control trials; (3) comparison refers to normal or adequate sleep conditions; and (4) outcome measures were differences or changes in taste function and perception under both short and long sleep conditions. Studies of both observational and interventional designs were included in this review. Only studies that included human adults, full‐text articles published in English, and in peer‐reviewed journals were included. The protocol of this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (ref no. CRD42023393272).

2.2. Eligibility criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they included observational or interventional studies that examined sleep (duration and/or quality) and taste (sensitivity and/or hedonic perception). Studies that recruited participants aged 18 years or over with normal, overweight and/or obese body mass index (BMI) with no disease or condition that could impact taste function were included. Studies were excluded if the populations included animals; children or adolescents aged less than 18 years; diseases affecting taste function or appetite hormones; individuals with sleep disorders, circadian rhythm disorders, eating disorders, and chronic or metabolic diseases; or shift workers. Studies with an exposure (observational studies) or intervention (randomized control trials) that examined the differences in or manipulation of sleep duration or quality were included. Studies with outcomes that assessed differences or changes in taste function and/or perception under short and long sleep duration conditions were included. Studies were included if they measured taste function and/or hedonic perception of sweet, salt, umami, sour or bitter taste stimuli (Duffy et al., 2021). Examples of function measures included detection and/or recognition thresholds or intensity ratings. Examples of hedonic perception measures included liking and/or preferred concentrations.

2.3. Screening and selection

Covidence (Melbourne, VIC, Australia), a systematic review tool, was used as a platform to collate all search results and remove duplicate publications. Title and abstract screening was performed independently and in duplicate, with four researchers involved in the process. Publications were screened for consistency with inclusion criteria. Conflicts regarding the determination to include or exclude were discussed between researchers until a consensus was reached, or were resolved with the support of a third researcher to discuss questions about inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full‐text screening was performed in duplicate by four researchers. Reasons for exclusion were documented, such as publications with inappropriate populations, comparators or interventions, or inappropriate study designs.

2.4. Data extraction

Three researchers extracted all relevant data from articles eligible for inclusion, which was then verified by another independent researcher. The information extracted included author, country, study design, population, sleep condition, sleep outcome measure, sleep measurement tool and protocol, taste measurement protocol and outcome measure, taste quality measured (sweet, salty, sour, bitter, umami), taste key findings, and other findings such as participants' demographics (age, sex, ethnicity), anthropometry (weight, height, BMI, adiposity).

2.5. Assessment of study quality

All articles selected for the review were critically appraised in duplicate using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Library Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research (Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, 2020). The quality of each article was assessed using a checklist that considers four overall relevance questions related to the impact of the study outcomes for the target population, and 10 validity questions that determine study quality and consider bias, reliability of measurements and statistical analyses. Studies received an overall “positive” quality rating if all relevance questions are answered “yes”, with “yes” answers for all or most (must include Q1–4) applicable validity questions. A neutral rating is assigned if some validity questions, other than those most pertinent to the study design (Q1–4), were not met. A “negative” rating is applied if most (six or more) of the criteria for the validity questions were not met.

3. RESULTS

A total of 14,783 articles were identified from the initial search. After the removal of duplicates, 8017 articles were screened for title and abstract, and 92 articles for full‐text. Forty‐one articles were excluded after full‐text review, and an additional article was identified through a snowball search from the reference lists of published articles. Of the 52 articles found through the broader search encompassing taste and/or appetite, 13 articles reported taste outcomes and were included in this review as shown in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1). The quality assessment of the 13 articles included in this review is summarized in Table 1. The quality of six of these studies was rated as neutral (∅), five were rated positive (+), and two were rated negative (−). The characteristics, test procedures and key findings of studies included in this review are summarized and presented in Table 2.

FIGURE 1.

PRISMA flowchart summarizing the systematic search process.

TABLE 1.

Risk of bias quality assessment of articles included in the review.

	Relevance				Validity
Article	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	Overall
Barragán et al. (2023)	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	∅
Du et al. (2023)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	+
Furchtgott & Willingham (1956)	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	NA	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	∅
Hogenkamp et al. (2013)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	∅
Lv et al. (2018)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	NA	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	−
Martelli et al. (2020)	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	N	N	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	−
Ozturk & Ozturk (2022)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	NA	+
Smith et al. (2016)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	∅
Szczygiel et al. (2018)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	∅
Szczygiel, Cho, Snyder, & Tucker (2019)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	+
Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker (2019a)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	NA	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	+
Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker (2019b)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	+
Tajiri et al. (2020)	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	U	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	∅

Abbreviations: −, negative; +, positive; ∅, neutral; N, no; NA, not applicable; U, unclear; Y, Yes.

TABLE 2.

Summary of observational cross‐sectional and interventional studies (in chronological order) that investigated the associations between or the effects of sleep on the taste function and perception of adults.

Authors year, country	Study population	Sleep assessment	Taste quality	Taste measurement	Taste test protocol	Taste outcomes
Observational studies (all cross‐sectional studies)
Lv et al. (2018), USA Quality: –	n = 57, 10M and 47F, age = 18–34 years (93%); 35–44 years (5%); >65 years (2%), BMI = 22.7 ± 3.0 kg m−2	Objective sleep measurements with a smartphone app “Pillow”, which included body mobility and ambient noise levels during sleep Subjective sleep measurements were performed using the PSQI, Stanford Sleepiness Scale and Karolinska Sleepiness Scale, which included sleep quality and ratings of sleepiness Usual hours of sleep and sleep duration the night before testing were measured to determine sleep deprivation	Sweet taste: sucrose solutions 27 and 243 mm	Intensity	Taste test was performed in the morning Intensity ratings of test solutions were obtained after participants swished each solution (25 ml) in the mouth using the gLMS Tasting order was randomized for each participant	No significant association between sleep measures and sweet taste intensity
			Salt taste: NaCl solutions 11 and 100 mm			No significant association between sleep measures and salt taste intensity
			Sour taste: citric acid solutions 0.333 and 3 mm			Sour taste intensity was significantly higher in those with high sleepiness as measured by the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (p = 0.037, F = 4.591, df = 1, 52)
			Bitter taste: quinine HCl solutions 0.019 and 0.167 mm			No significant association between sleep measures and bitter taste intensity
			Umami taste: monosodium glutamate solutions 3 and 27 mm			Umami taste intensity was significantly higher in those with high sleepiness as measured by the Stanford Sleepiness Scale (p = 0.025, F = 5.301, df = 1, 52)
Szczygiel et al. (2018), USA Quality: ∅	n = 56, all F, age = 24.4 ± 6.4 years, BMI = 21.6 ± 6.9 kg m−2	Sleep was assessed objectively and subjectively Objective sleep measurements were performed using EEG‐based Zmachine, and outcomes include TST and sleep stages, e.g. REM and SWS for 2 consecutive weeknights prior to taste and smell tasting Subjective sleep duration and sleep quality were assessed using the PSQI	Sweet taste	Detection threshold	Taste test was performed the day after 2 nights of sleep monitoring, between 09:00 hours and 15:00 hours Participants were asked to avoid eating and drinking (except for water) for an hour prior to testing Sucrose solution concentrations at 0.021%–2.1% w/v, separated by quarter‐log step dilutions A three‐alternative forced choice ascending method was used to determine sweet taste detection threshold Participants were instructed to identify the solution that differed from the other two	None of the objective or subjective sleep measures correlated with taste sensitivity
				Preferred concentration	Sucrose solution concentrations at 3%, 6%, 12%, 24% and 36% w/v The Monell forced choice paired comparison method was used to determine preferred sweet concentration Participants were given two sucrose solutions and asked to select the one they preferred Next, the preferred solution was presented with another solution, and the participants repeated the same process until the same sweet solution was selected twice consecutively The test was performed twice	Sweet taste preference was negatively associated with all objective sleep measurements (TST r = −0.35, REM r = −0.41, SWS r = −0.31, % time in REM r = −0.34, % time in REM + SWS r = −0.33, all p < 0.005), except for % of sleep time in SWS Short sleepers – participants whose TST was below the group mean – preferred a higher sweet concentration than long sleepers (12.7 ± 9.6% versus 7.7 ± 8.1%, p = 0.041) Those with high % sleep time in REM + SWS – once again determined by group mean – preferred lower sweet concentrations than those with low % sleep time in REM + SWS (8.0 ± 8.4% versus 12.7 ± 9.5%, p = 0.049)
Szczygiel, Cho, Snyder, & Tucker (2019), USA Quality: +	n = 51, all M, age = 24.9 ± 5.3 years, BMI = 24.4 ± 3.1 kg m−2	Objective sleep measurements were performed using EEG‐based Zmachine, outcomes include TST, and sleep stages, e.g. REM and SWS for 2 consecutive weeknights prior to taste and smell tasting Subjective sleep measurements included ratings of sleep quality using a 100‐mm visual analogy scale, where 0 indicated worst sleep quality while 100 indicated best sleep quality	Sweet taste	Detection threshold	Taste test was performed the day after 2 nights of sleep monitoring, between 09:00 hours and 15:00 hours Participants were asked to avoid eating and drinking (except for water) for an hour prior to testing Sucrose concentrations at 0.021%–2.1% w/v, separated by quarter‐log step dilutions A three‐alternative forced choice ascending method was used to determine sweet taste detection threshold Participants were instructed to identify the solution that differed from the other two	No association between sweet taste thresholds and any sleep measures
				Preferred concentration	Sucrose concentrations at 3%, 6%, 12%, 24% and 36% w/v The Monell forced choice paired comparison method was used to determine preferred sweet concentration Participants were given two sucrose solutions and asked to select the one they preferred Next, the preferred solution was presented with another solution, and the participants repeated the same process until the same sweet solution was selected twice consecutively The test was performed twice	Preferred sweetness concentration was negatively associated with TST (r = −0.35, p = 0.044), REM (r = −0.49, p = 0.006) and SWS + REM (r = −0.47, p = 0.006). No association with SWS was found. Short sleepers (< 7 hr) preferred a higher sweetness concentration than long sleepers (15.7 ± 11.1% versus 9.7 ± 9.1%, p = 0.042) Low REM + SWS (below the group mean) sleepers also preferred a higher sweetness concentration than those with high REM + SWS (17.2 ± 12.1% versus 8.7 ± 9.1%, p = 0.039)
Martelli et al. (2020), Brazil Quality: –	n = 35, younger M, age = 25.1 ± 0.7 years, mean BMI = 25.1 kg m−2 n = 24, older M, age = 68.9 ± 6.4 years, mean BMI = 28.7 kg m−2	Sleep was assessed with the Portuguese language version of the PSQI questionnaire Sleep quality was defined as: ≤ 5 indicated good quality sleep, scores >5 indicated poor quality sleep	Sweet taste: sucrose solutions 0.4%, 0.6% and 0.8%	Sensitivity	Taste sensitivity test was performed after 1 week of sleep evaluation The actual taste test protocol was not described, so it is unclear what, exactly, was measured Solution preparation: all concentrations, for all tastes, were dissolved in distilled water After the delivery of each 50 ml concentration, 50 ml of distilled water was offered The presentation of the subsequent sample took place after 20 s	TST was positively associated with sweet taste measurement (B = 0.39, p < 0.01)
			Salt taste: NaCl solutions 0.02%, 0.12% and 0.22%			No significant correlation between sleep and salt taste sensitivity in either younger or older adults
			Sour taste: citric acid solutions 0.03%, 0.04% and 0.05%			No significant correlation between sleep and sour taste sensitivity in either younger or older adults
			Bitter taste: caffeine solutions 0.01%, 0.02% and 0.03%			No significant correlation between sleep and bitter taste sensitivity in both younger and older adults
Ozturk & Ozturk (2022), Turkey Quality: +	n = 119, 59 M and 60F, age = 74.6 ± 6.9 years, BMI = 27.8 ± 4.6 kg m−2	Habitual sleep was assessed with the Turkish language version of the PSQI Sleep duration and sleep quality were obtained from this questionnaire Sleep quality was defined as good (PSQI ≤ 5) or poor (PSQI >5)	Sweet taste: sucrose solutions: 0.4, 0.2, 0.1 and 0.05 g ml−1	Recognition threshold	The timing of the taste test was not described Three drops of solution (one drop of the tastant and two drops of distilled water) were applied to the back of the tongue Participants were asked to identify the taste of the solutions: salty, sweet, sour or bitter Scores were given to correctly identified tastes Scores for each taste quality ranged from 0 to 4 (4 concentrations per taste quality)	Sleep duration was positively associated with sweet taste recognition score (r = 0.285, p = 0.002) PSQI score was negatively associated with sweet taste recognition score (adjusted B = −0.242, p = 0.004) (Better sleep quality was associated with higher recognition scores) When dichotomized into “good” versus “poor” sleepers per PSQI, those with poor sleep quality had lower sweet taste recognition scores than those with good sleep quality (1.8 ± 1.2 versus 2.4 ± 1.3, p = 0.006)
			Salt taste: NaCl solutions 0.25, 0.1, 0.04, and 0.016 g/mL			No significant associations between sleep measures and salt taste score
			Sour taste: Citric acid solutions 0.075, 0.041, 0.0225, and 0.0125 g/mL			No significant associations between sleep measures and sour taste score
			Bitter taste: Quinine hydrochloride solutions 0.0015, 0.0006, 0.0002, and 0.0001 g/mL			Sleep duration was positively associated with bitter taste score (r = 0.243, p = 0.008), but not sleep quality
Barragán et al. (2023), Spain Quality: ∅	n = 412, 141 M and 271F, age = 46.5 ± 13.9 years, BMI = 27.9 ± 5.2 kg m−2	Sleep‐related items were gathered by asking six questions—including sleep duration and waketime on weekdays, Saturday and Sundays. Sleep measures included waketime, total sleep duration, midpoint of sleep, and social jetlag Midpoint of sleep was calculated using waketime and sleep duration, and social jetlag was measured as the discrepancy between midpoint of sleep on weekdays and weekends	Sweet taste: sucrose solution 400 mm	Intensity	Taste test was performed in the morning under comfortable and quiet standard conditions Participants rated the intensity of each of the five tastes on an ordinal scale consisting of six intensity values ranging from 0 (no taste) to 5 (extremely strong)	No significant associations between any sleep measures and sweet intensity scores was found
			Salt taste: NaCl solution 200 mm			Social jetlag was positively associated with salt intensity scores (beta‐coefficient, B = 0.13 ± 0.04, p = 0.009) Other sleep measures were not associated with salt intensity scores
			Sour taste: citric acid solution 34 mm			Social jetlag was positively associated with sour intensity scores (beta‐coefficient, B = 0.18 ± 0.04, p = 0.002) Other sleep measures were not associated with sour intensity scores
			Bitter taste: phenylthiocarbamide (PTC) paper at 5.6 mm			Waketime and midpoint of sleep were negatively associated with bitter intensity scores (both beta‐coefficient, beta‐coefficient, B = −0.06 ± 0.03, p < 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively)
			Umami taste: l‐glutamic acid monopotassium salt monohydrate (MPG) solution at 200 mm			No significant associations between any sleep measures and umami intensity scores were found
Experimental crossover studies
Furchtgott & Willingham (1956), USA Quality: ∅	n = 18, all M, college students, age = 21–30 years	Taste tests were conducted a day before sleep deprivation, as well as at 24, 48 and 72 hr after sleep deprivation	Sweet solutions were prepared with sucrose Concentrations not reported	Detection threshold	The timing of the taste test was not described Thresholds were determined by a modification of the method of limits Participants were presented with two solutions (water and taste solution), at increasing concentrations, until participants identified the taste solution correctly in three successive trials	Detection thresholds for sweet taste were not affected by sleep deprivation
			Salt solutions were prepared with NaCl Concentrations not reported			Detection thresholds for salt taste were not affected by sleep deprivation
			Sour solutions were prepared with HCl Concentrations not reported			Detection threshold for sour taste was significantly higher after sleep deprivation exceeded 24 hr (0 hr: 0.00122 g per 100 ml; 24 hr: 0.00123 g per 100 ml; 48 hr: 0.00162 g per 100 ml; 72 hr: 0.00164 g per 100 ml) (p = 0.01, F = 4.19)
Hogenkamp et al. (2013), Sweden Quality: ∅	n = 16, all M, age = 23 ± 0.9 years, BMI = 23.6 ± 0.6 kg m−2	Recruited individuals who habitually slept ~8 hr per night Both conditions in lab setting Condition 1: total sleep deprivation (8 hr) staying awake with lights on and distractions (movies, games, etc.) to stay awake‐participants were continuously monitored by the experimenters Condition 2: usual sleep (8 hr) with lights off and no distractions Sleep was assessed using polysomnography The washout period was not provided	Sweet taste: yogurt with 2%, 5%, 9%, 15%, 22% and 29% sucrose w/w	Intensity	Taste test was performed the day after both sleep conditions, in the morning, approximately 1 hr after the consumption of a standard preload After each sleep condition, participants tasted and rated the sweet taste intensity of all yogurt samples, presented in random order, on a 100‐mm visual analogy scale, anchored with the terms “not at all” and “extremely”	No effect on intensity under the sleep deprivation condition
				Pleasantness	After each sleep condition, participants tasted and rated the sweet taste pleasantness of all yogurt samples, presented in random order, on a 100‐mm visual analogy scale, anchored with the terms “not at all” and “extremely”	No effect on pleasantness under the sleep deprivation condition
Smith et al. (2016), USA Quality: ∅	n = 51, 9M and 42F, age = 25.2 ± 7.7 years, BMI = 23.1 ± 2.8 kg m−2	Recruited individuals who were habitual long sleepers (7 hr) or more per night (n = 24) and habitual short sleepers (< 7 hr per night, n = 27) Condition 1: < 7 hr = short sleep Condition 2: >7 hr = long sleep Sleep conditions conducted in own bed Sleep duration was assessed by sleep diary; tiredness, drowsiness and alertness upon waking were assessed by VAS Sleep duration was confirmed objectively using Fitbit Flex or Fitbit One The washout period was not provided	Sweet taste: quarter‐log step dilutions were prepared from 60 mm (2.1% w/v sucrose) stock solutions	Detection threshold	After each sleep condition, participants attended taste test visits 1 hr after their usual lunch time with no eating or drinking prior to the visit A three‐alternative forced choice ascending method was used to determine detection thresholds Participants were instructed to identify the solution that differed from the other two	No difference in sweet taste detection thresholds between the sleep conditions
			Sucrose solutions: 3%, 6%, 12%, 24% and 36% w/v	Preferred concentration	The preferred concentration of sweetness was attained using the Monell 2‐series, forced choice paired comparison tracking method	No difference in preferred concentration between the two conditions for the entire group However, participants who were habitual long sleepers had significantly higher preferred sweet concentration after sleep curtailment (14.2 ± 11.6% versus 11.4 ± 10.2%, p = 0.042)
			Salt taste: quarter‐log step dilutions were prepared from 60 mm (0.4% w/v NaCl) stock solutions	Detection threshold	The same process was used for salt taste detection thresholds as for sweet, with a 3‐min break between sweet and salt taste tests The order of sweet versus salt taste was randomized	No difference in salt taste detection thresholds between the sleep conditions
Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker (2019a), USA Quality: +	n = 41, 26F, 15 M, age = 241 ± 5.0 years, BMI 23.1 ± 3.0 kg m−2	Recruited individuals who routinely slept at least 7 hr per night Both conditions occurred at home Condition 1: habitual night of sleep Condition 2: curtailed night of sleep: 33% reduction of habitual sleep Sleep was assessed objectively and subjectively Objective sleep measurements were performed using EEG‐based Zmachine Subjective sleep duration and sleep quality was assessed using the PSQI 7‐day washout period	Sweet taste: oat beverages and crisps with 0.004%, 0.011%, 0.032%, 0.060% and 0.094% w/v sucralose Products were matched for energy and macronutrient content Aqueous sucralose solutions at the above concentrations were also tested	Hedonic liking	Taste test was performed the day after sleep manipulations, in the morning between 07:00 hours and 10:00 hours, which was as close to wake time as possible Aqueous solutions: after each sleep condition, participants were instructed to taste the beverages and crisps in random order, and rate their liking of each on a 15‐cm VAS scale anchored with 0 (dislike extremely), 7.5 (neutral) and 15 (like extremely) Preferred sweet concentration was measured using a modified Monell 2‐series, forced choice paired comparison tracking method	No significant difference in the sweet‐liking slope between sleep conditions for the sucralose aqueous solutions
				Preferred concentration		Significantly higher preferred sweet concentration after sleep curtailment than habitual sleep for the aqueous sucralose solutions (0.063 ± 0.025% w/v versus 0.042 ± 0.028% w/v, p < 0.001)
				Intensity	Real foods: participants were instructed to taste the whole cup (10 ml) of oat beverage, or 1.2 g of oat crisps in random order Perceived sweetness intensity was rated on 15‐cm VAS anchored at 0 (not at all intense), 7.5 (no label) and 15 (extremely intense) Liking of each oat product was also assessed on 15‐cm VAS, anchored at 0 (dislike extremely), 7.5 (neutral) and 15 (like extremely) Preferred sweet concentration measured was attained using the modified Monell 2‐series, forced choice paired comparison tracking method (maximum concentration of 24%)	Perceived intensity did not differ between sleep conditions for either the crisps or beverage
				Hedonic liking		Sweetness‐liking slopes and liking by concentration did not differ between sleep conditions However, overall flavour‐liking slope was steeper after curtailment
				Preferred concentration		Sleep conditions did not change the preferred sweet concentration in either oat product
Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker (2019b), USA Quality: +	n = 40, 13M and 27F, age = 23.8 ± 4.6 years, BMI = 22.9 ± 3.0 kg m−2	Recruited individuals who routinely slept at least 7 hr per night Both conditions occurred at home Condition 1: habitual night of sleep Condition 2: curtailed night of sleep: 33% reduction of habitual sleep Objective sleep duration was assessed using EEG‐based Zmachine Subjective sleep duration and sleep quality were assessed using the PSQI 7‐day washout period	Sweet taste: sucrose solutions: 3%, 6%, 9%, 12%, 15%, 18%, 21% and 24% w/v And sucralose solutions: 0.004%, 0.011%, 0.020%, 0.032%, 0.045%, 0.060%, 0.075%, 0.094% w/v	Intensity	Taste test was performed the day after either sleep condition while fasted Sweetness intensity and liking were assessed by presenting participants with a range of different concentrations of sweeteners (sucrose and sucralose) Participants were asked to rate their liking of each solution on a 15‐cm VAS anchored with dislike extremely, neutral, and like extremely or not at all intense and extremely intense Sweetness preference was assessed via a modified Monell forced choice paired comparison method (maximum concentration of 24%) Sweet‐liking phenotype was assessed using hierarchical cluster analysis for both sucrose and sucralose	Sleep curtailment did not alter perceived sweetness intensity
				Hedonic liking		After sleep curtailment, the preferred concentration of both sucrose (M (difference) = 5.4 ± 6.5% w/v) and sucralose (M (difference) = 5.7 ± 6.7% w/v sucrose equivalencies) increased Post‐hoc testing revealed a significantly higher steepness of sucrose‐liking slope (p = 0.001) but not sucralose (p = 0.129) (slope values not reported)
				Preferred concentration		No significant interaction between sleep condition and sweetener type
Tajiri et al. (2020), Japan Quality: ∅	n = 24, 11 M and 13F, age = 21.4 ± 1.0 years, BMI = 19.8 ± 1.7 kg m−2	Recruited individuals who routinely slept at least 5 hr per night Both conditions occurred at home Condition 1: 5‐hr short sleep for 3 consecutive nights Condition 2: 8‐hr long sleep for 3 consecutive nights TST was assessed using a MicroTag accelerometer Sleep quality was assessed using the PSQI 3‐week washout period	Sweet taste: sucrose solutions: 3%, 6%, 12%, 24% and 36% w/v	Preferred concentration	Taste test was performed on Day 4 in the morning at 09:00 hours, 30 min prior to breakfast After each sleep condition, participants were presented with a pair of solutions with different concentrations If the higher concentration was chosen, participants were presented with the preferred solution and another solution at the next higher concentration If the lower concentration was chosen, participants were presented with the preferred solution the next lower concentration The test was conducted until the same solution was chosen twice consecutively	Significantly higher concentration of sucrose was preferred after short than long sleep (20.9 ± 11.1% versus 12.9 ± 10.8%, p = 0.012)
Du et al. (2023), USA Quality: +	N = 59, 41F, 18 M, age = 26.2 ± 6.0 years, BMI = 23.3 ± 4.4 kg m−2	Recruited individuals who routinely slept 7–9 hr per night Both conditions occurred at home Condition 1: habitual night of sleep Condition 2: curtailed night of sleep: 33% reduction of habitual sleep Sleep was assessed objectively and subjectively Objective sleep measurements were performed using EEG‐based Zmachine Subjective sleep duration and sleep quality were assessed using the PSQI 7‐day washout period	Salt taste: NaCl solutions 0.05, 0.09, 0.15, 0.19 and 0.25 m	Intensity	Taste test was performed on the day after sleep manipulation However, the timing and condition of the taste test were not described After each sleep condition, participants tasted and rated the intensity of each salt concentration on a VAS anchored at 0 (not at all) and 100 (extremely intense)	No significant difference in salt taste function or hedonic measures were observed between sleep conditions
				Hedonic liking	Liking of each solution was rated on a VAS anchored at 0 (dislike extremely) and 100 (like extremely)
				Preferred concentration	Preferred concentration was assessed using the Monell 2‐series, forced choice paired comparison tracking method with NaCl concentrations adapted for salt taste preference

Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index; EEG, electroencephalogram; gLMS, generalized labelled magnitude scale; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire, which assesses sleep quality, latency, duration, habitual sleep activity, sleep disturbance, use of sleep medications and daytime dysfunction; REM, rapid eye movement; SWS, slow‐wave sleep; TST, total sleep time; VAS, visual analogue scale.

3.1. Observational studies: Sensitivity

Results from observational studies assessing associations between sleep parameters and taste outcomes varied by taste quality, taste measurement and sleep measurement. A summary of results organized by taste quality follows.

Sweet taste was assessed by all six studies. Two studies assessed relationships between intensity and sleep outcomes (Barragán et al., 2023; Lv et al., 2018), and no association was found in either study. Of the four studies (Martelli et al., 2020; Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022; Szczygiel et al., 2018; Szczygiel, Cho, Snyder, & Tucker, 2019) that assessed detection or recognition thresholds, two of the four studies reported statistically significant associations (Martelli et al., 2020; Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022). In those studies, total sleep duration was positively associated with better ability to recognize sweet taste (beta‐coefficient, B = 0.39, p < 0.001 and r = 0.285, p = 0.002). Sleep quality was also found to be positively associated with better ability to recognize sweet taste (B = −0.242, p = 0.004) in one of those studies (Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022), while the other study did not measure sleep quality (Martelli et al., 2020). Thus, while perceived intensity seems unrelated to sleep, sensitivity as measured by threshold is mixed.

Four studies assessed salt taste. Two studies measured sensitivity (Martelli et al., 2020; Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022) and two measured intensity (Barragán et al., 2023; Lv et al., 2018). No association between sleep duration (Martelli et al., 2020; Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022) or quality (Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022) and salt taste sensitivity was observed. One study reported a negative association between social jetlag, the discrepancy between timing of weekday versus weekend sleep, and salt taste intensity (B = 0.13 ± 0.04, p = 0.009) but not with total sleep time; sleep quality was not assessed (Barragán et al., 2023). No association between salt taste intensity and total sleep time or sleep quality was reported by the other study (Lv et al., 2018). These studies suggest limited associations between salt taste and sleep measures.

Sour taste was examined by four studies (Barragán et al., 2023; Lv et al., 2018; Martelli et al., 2020; Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022). Associations between sleep measures and sour taste sensitivity were not found in the two studies that assessed this taste outcome (Martelli et al., 2020; Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022). Of the two studies that assessed intensity, opposite findings were reported, where sour taste intensity was reported with high sleepiness (p = 0.037, F = 4.591, df = 1, 52) in one study (Lv et al., 2018), while social jetlag (but not other sleep measures) was associated with blunted intensity in another study (beta coefficient, B = 0.18 ± 0.04, p = 0.002; Barragán et al., 2023). These studies suggest inconsistent and limited associations between sour taste and sleep measures.

Four studies assessed bitter taste (Barragán et al., 2023; Lv et al., 2018; Martelli et al., 2020; Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022). No association between bitter sensitivity and sleep duration was found in one study (Lv et al., 2018); however, sleep duration was positively associated with bitter taste score in the other study examining bitter sensitivity (Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022). That study also reported that the associations between sleep quality and bitter recognition threshold were not observed. Of the two studies that assessed intensity, neither total sleep time nor sleep quality was associated with bitter taste intensity in one (Lv et al., 2018); however, in the second study, bitter taste intensity was negatively associated with waketime and midpoint of sleep but not with any other sleep measures (both beta coefficient, B = −0.06 ± 0.03, p < 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively; Barragán et al., 2023). The conflicting results from these studies suggest further work is needed to characterize the effects of sleep on bitter taste.

For umami, only two studies tested this taste quality, and only intensity was assessed (Barragán et al., 2023; Lv et al., 2018). The only association observed was umami taste intensity scored significantly higher in those who reported high levels of sleepiness (p = 0.025, F = 5.301, df = 1, 52; Lv et al., 2018). However, sleep duration and quality were not associated. The lack of evidence makes conclusions about the effects of sleep on umami taste difficult to establish.

3.2. Observational studies: Hedonics

Only two observational studies examined relationships between sleep and hedonic outcomes, and only sweet taste was studied (Szczygiel et al., 2018; Szczygiel, Cho, Snyder, & Tucker, 2019). Both studies were conducted by the same lab group, one study conducted in a female population (n = 56; Szczygiel et al., 2018) and the other in a male population (n = 51; Szczygiel, Cho, Snyder, & Tucker, 2019). Hedonic evaluation was determined using the Monell forced choice paired comparison method. Objective sleep duration information was collected using a portable electroencephalogram (EEG). Both studies reported similar findings: the preferred concentration of sweetness increased as total sleep time decreased. Shorter sleepers also preferred a higher sweetness concentration than longer sleepers. Based on the limited, though consistent data available, sweet taste preferences could be impacted by sleep duration (Szczygiel et al., 2018; Szczygiel, Cho, Snyder, & Tucker, 2019), but additional work is needed, particularly in larger and demographically more diverse populations, to further test this possibility.

3.3. Intervention studies: Sensitivity

Seven publications examined the effects of sleep interventions on taste sensitivity (Du et al., 2023; Furchtgott & Willingham, 1956; Hogenkamp et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2016; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019a; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019b; Tajiri et al., 2020). Because two studies examined more than just one taste quality (Furchtgott & Willingham, 1956; Smith et al., 2016), they were reported as separate studies in the sensitivity section below. Of the studies included, only sweet, salt and sour tastes were examined. All studies manipulated sleep duration; none attempted to manipulate sleep quality directly.

Sweet taste sensitivity was explored using detection thresholds (Furchtgott & Willingham, 1956; Smith et al., 2016) and intensity ratings (Hogenkamp et al., 2013; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019b). No change in threshold was observed after a short night (< 7 hr) of sleep compared with a long night (≥7 hr; Smith et al., 2016), or after 24, 48 or 72 hr of sleep deprivation (Furchtgott & Willingham, 1956). Changes in intensity ratings were also not observed using a yogurt stimulus with a night of total sleep deprivation (Hogenkamp et al., 2013) or an aqueous solution stimulus with a 33% reduction in habitual sleep for either sucrose or sucralose (Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019b). While limited, the evidence is consistent: sleep alterations do not appear to affect sweet taste function.

Three studies assessed salt taste (Du et al., 2023; Furchtgott & Willingham, 1956; Smith et al., 2016). Two studies measured detection threshold and reported no effect of a short night (< 7 hr) of sleep compared with a long night (≥7 hr; Smith et al., 2016), or after prolonged sleep deprivation (24, 48 or 72 hr; Furchtgott & Willingham, 1956). The third study measured salt taste intensity after a night of sleep curtailment by 33% (Du et al., 2023). No effect on intensity was observed. These findings are consistent with the sweet taste sensitivity results.

Only one study assessed sour taste detection thresholds (Furchtgott & Willingham, 1956). Testing was completed at baseline (0 hr), and then after 24, 48 and 72 hr of sleep deprivation. Sour taste detection thresholds increased at all time points when compared with baseline (0 hr: 0.00122 g per 100 ml; 24 hr: 0.00123 g per 100 ml; 48 hr: 0.00162 g per 100 ml; 72 hr: 0.00164 g per 100 ml; p = 0.01, F = 4.19), but the increase in detection threshold was statistically significant at 24 hr and 48 hr only.

3.4. Intervention studies: Hedonics

Five studies evaluated the effects of sleep duration on sweet taste hedonics. The pleasantness of different yogurts sweetened with sucrose was assessed using a 100‐cm visual analogy scale after total sleep duration compared with 8 hr of sleep (Hogenkamp et al., 2013). No difference was reported. On the other hand, preferred concentration was measured in four studies (Smith et al., 2016; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019a; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019b; Tajiri et al., 2020). Each study used the Monell forced choice paired comparison method and reported an increase in preferred sweetness concentration after the reduced sleep condition. Sleep conditions varied from < 7 hr to ≥ 7 hr for 1 night (Smith et al., 2016), a 33% reduction in habitual sleep time for 1 night (Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019a; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019b), and 5 hr short sleep for 3 consecutive nights versus 8 hr long sleep for 3 consecutive nights (Tajiri et al., 2020). The difference in sleep protocols (e.g. total sleep deprivation versus sleep curtailment) and the selected taste measurement methodology (e.g. magnitude estimation versus preference testing) could contribute to the lack of absolute agreement across all studies.

Only one study assessed the effects of sleep manipulation on salt taste hedonics (Du et al., 2023). Liking of salt solutions and preferred concentration were assessed. No effect of a 33% sleep curtailment was observed for either taste outcome.

4. DISCUSSION

The objective of this systematic review was to examine the associations between and effects of sleep on taste function and perception. An understanding of the effects of sleep problems, like insufficient duration and poor‐quality sleep, on health has become of increasing interest given the widespread prevalence of sleep issues globally (Bhaskar et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2016; Stranges et al., 2012). Sleep issues have been tied to obesity through a variety of mechanisms; one mechanism is thought to be taste alterations. This review identified 13 published papers that explored how taste and sleep intersect. A brief summary of results is presented below.

4.1. Sweet taste summary

While the theme throughout this paper is that more work is needed to fully understand the effects of sleep habits on taste measures, sweet taste hedonic perception appears to be influenced by sleep in an undesirable direction, for example, sweeter foods preferred, as far as human health is concerned; whereas, sleep appears to have a less reliable influence on sweet taste sensitivity. Findings from both observational and intervention studies observed that elevated preferred sweetness concentrations are associated with (Szczygiel et al., 2018; Szczygiel, Cho, Snyder, & Tucker, 2019) or are a result of (Smith et al., 2016; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019a; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019b; Tajiri et al., 2020) shorter sleep. These preferences could plausibly lead to increased intake of sugar‐containing foods and beverages that contribute to increased energy intake under conditions of sleep curtailment (Fenton et al., 2021). In support of this idea, a recent study showed that a sleep extension intervention resulted in decreased intake of free sugars by participants (Al Khatib et al., 2018).

The mechanisms that explain why sweet taste hedonic evaluation is susceptible to sleep curtailment are not well characterized or understood. One possible explanation is the brain's increased positive hedonic perception of food cues; this change under conditions of insufficient sleep has been noted in multiple studies (Benedict et al., 2012; Demos et al., 2017; Greer et al., 2013). With increases in perceived pleasure from eating, consumption is more likely to continue (Duraccio et al., 2021), leading to increased energy intake and adiposity in the longer term. Unfortunately, none of the studies in this review measured dietary intake, so the real‐world significance of sleep‐induced sweet taste changes is unknown at present.

There are some considerations that should be reviewed when evaluating the sweet taste sensitivity outcomes. It should be noted that the taste‐testing procedure described by one of these studies (Martelli et al., 2020) was not clear enough (hence, it was assigned as “negative” quality) to determine if detection or recognition thresholds were used. The other study that observed associations between sensitivity and sleep used a taste test protocol that is no longer commonly used: only one drop of solution was placed at the very back of the tongue (Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022). Differences in approaches between that study (i.e. a drop on the tongue; Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022) and the other two (Szczygiel et al., 2018; Szczygiel, Cho, Snyder, & Tucker, 2019) studies that evaluated taste using a whole‐mouth protocol could contribute to the disparity in findings. Further differences between the two studies reporting associations and the two studies that did not observe relationships between sleep and sweet taste sensitivity include the use of objective sleep monitoring rather than self‐report in the two studies that did not identify associations (Szczygiel et al., 2018; Szczygiel, Cho, Snyder, & Tucker, 2019). Further work using high‐quality studies is needed to determine if associations between sleep and sweet taste sensitivity exist.

4.2. Salt taste summary

Salt taste appears to be fairly resistant to the effects of sleep. This determination is supported by the observational studies (n = 4) combined with the interventional studies (n = 2) available. However, evidence is still limited. Higher quality studies with objective sleep measures and more consistent taste protocols are essential to confirm this conclusion.

Why salt taste hedonics do not change similarly to sweet taste hedonics, if they in fact do not change, might stem from the valence attached to salty solutions. Unlike with sweet taste, salty solutions are often rated as less liked than sucrose solutions (Webb et al., 2015). The anterior insula plays an important role in responding to unpleasant tastes (Small et al., 2003), but is negatively impacted by insufficient sleep, making it less able to discern changes. This alteration in function could fail to make saltier things more appealing under conditions of insufficient sleep (Krause et al., 2017).

4.3. Other taste qualities summary

The lack of studies manipulating sleep to assess outcomes on taste measures makes the development of a conclusion difficult. Observational studies report a limited effect of sleep on sour taste, but the only available interventional study reported a significant decrease in sour taste sensitivity after 24, 48 and 72 hr of sleep deprivation. With only one intervention assessing the effects of sleep on sour taste, it is difficult to make conclusions, and further work assessing more realistic sleep conditions is warranted. Associations between sleep and umami are also limited. The variability in findings from observational work with bitter taste suggests that interventional work is necessary to solidify our understanding of the effects of sleep on bitter perception.

4.4. Methodological limitations

A systematic review is only as good as the studies it contains. While we have already assessed bias, it is important to note that the quality of some studies is stronger than others due to the use of objective sleep measurements and widely accepted taste measurement methodological approaches (Du et al., 2023; Hogenkamp et al., 2013; Lv et al., 2018; Smith et al., 2016; Szczygiel et al., 2018; Szczygiel, Cho, Snyder, & Tucker, 2019; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019a; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019b; Tajiri et al., 2020). The majority of studies reported very small samples sizes; notable exceptions include the studies by Barragan (Barragán et al., 2023) and Ozturk (Ozturk & Ozturk, 2022). Finally, a minority of studies used actual foods rather than aqueous stimuli (Hogenkamp et al., 2013; Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019a), which likely better reflect real‐world experiences when compared with aqueous solutions. In fact, Szczygiel et al. (Szczygiel, Cho, & Tucker, 2019a) reported that while sweet‐liking slope was higher after curtailed sleep in aqueous sucralose solutions, it did not change in the food products tested. Instead, flavour‐liking and overall‐liking slopes increased after curtailment. Because the primary taste of the products was sweet, these changes lend support to the studies that link short sleep to changes in sensory perception (Picciotto et al., 2012) and hyperreactivity to food cues (Katsunuma et al., 2017). Thus, while aqueous solutions can provide valuable preliminary data, further understanding of the effects of sleep on taste perception and food choice will likely be better informed by using actual foods and beverages.

Despite the wide variety of sleep measurement and intervention protocols, findings were largely consistent, but this is an important concern when attempting to compare results across studies and is not limited to studies examining relationships between taste and sleep but, rather, a concern in the sleep literature in general. Observational studies that rely solely on self‐reported sleep duration, three of the six studies in this review, should be reviewed with caution. While some intervention studies employed total sleep deprivation ranging from 8 to 72 hr, the ecological validity of such interventions is likely limited for large, although not all, sections of the general population.

5. CONCLUSION

This systematic review explored the interactions between sleep and taste function and perception. The available evidence suggests that sweet taste hedonic perception appears to be influenced by short sleep, with preferred sweetness concentration increasing as sleep duration decreases, whereas sleep appears to have a less reliable influence on sweet taste sensitivity. Salt taste sensitivity and hedonic evaluation appear to be relatively unaffected by sleep alterations, but more work is needed. Evidence on other taste qualities is lacking at the present time.

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

Robin M. Tucker: Conceptualization; methodology; data curation; supervision; writing – review and editing. Isabella Emillya Tjahjono: Methodology; writing – original draft. Grace Atta: Methodology; writing – original draft. Jessica Roberts: Methodology; writing – original draft. Katie E. Vickers: Methodology; writing – original draft. Linh Tran: Methodology; writing – original draft. Erin Stewart: Methodology; writing – original draft. Ashlee H. Kelly: Methodology; writing – original draft. Bianca S. Silver: Methodology; writing – original draft. Sze‐Yen Tan: Conceptualization; methodology; data curation; supervision; writing – review and editing.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not‐for‐profit sectors.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

Robin M. Tucker was supported by USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Hatch #1012976). The remaining authors do not have any conflicts of interest to disclose.

Supporting information

TABLE S1. Example search keywords and search strategy used in the Medline database.

Tucker, R. M. , Tjahjono, I. E. , Atta, G. , Roberts, J. , Vickers, K. E. , Tran, L. , Stewart, E. , Kelly, A. H. , Silver, B. S. , & Tan, S.‐Y. (2025). The influence of sleep on human taste function and perception: A systematic review. Journal of Sleep Research, 34(1), e14257. 10.1111/jsr.14257

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.