Advertisement

Relationships Between Gum-Chewing and Stress

  • Michiyo KonnoEmail author
  • Tomotaka Takeda
  • Yoshiaki Kawakami
  • Yoshihiro Suzuki
  • Yoshiaki Kawano
  • Kazunori Nakajima
  • Takamitsu Ozawa
  • Keiichi Ishigami
  • Naohiro Takemura
  • Kaoru Sakatani
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 876)

Abstract

Studies have shown that chewing is thought to affect stress modification in humans. Also, studies in animals have demonstrated that active chewing of a wooden stick during immobilization stress ameliorates the stress-impaired synaptic plasticity and prevents stress-induced noradrenaline release in the amygdala. On the other hand, studies have suggested that the right prefrontal cortex (PFC) dominates the regulation of the stress response system, including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. The International Affective Digitized Sounds-2 (IADS) is widely used in the study of emotions and neuropsychological research. Therefore, in this study, the effects of gum-chewing on physiological and psychological (including PFC activity measured by NIRS) responses to a negative stimulus selected from the IADS were measured and analyzed. The study design was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tokyo Dental College (No. 436).

We studied 11 normal adults using: cerebral blood oxygenation in the right medial PFC by multi-channel NIRS; alpha wave intensity by EEG; autonomic nervous function by heart rate; and emotional conditions by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) test and the 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). Auditory stimuli selected were fewer than 3.00 in Pleasure value. Sounds were recorded in 3 s and reproduced at random using software. Every task session was designed in a block manner; seven rests: Brown Noise (30 s) and six task blocks: auditory stimuli or auditory stimuli with gum-chewing (30 s). During the test, the participants’ eyes were closed. Paired Student’s t-test was used for the comparison (P < 0.05). Gum-chewing showed a significantly greater activation in the PFC, alpha wave appearance rate and HR. Gum-chewing also showed a significantly higher VAS score and a smaller STAI level indicating ‘pleasant’. Gum-chewing affected physiological and psychological responses including PFC activity. This PFC activation change might influence the HPA axis and ANS activities. In summary, within the limitations of this study, the findings suggest that gum-chewing reduced stress-related responses. Gum-chewing might have a possible effect on stress coping.

Keywords

Prefrontal cortex Near-infrared spectroscopy International Affective Digitized Sounds-2 Electroencephalogram Gum-chewing 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was partly supported by Japan Science and Technology Agency, under Strategic Promotion of Innovative Research and Development Program, and a Grant-in-Aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Sciences and Technology of Japan (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research 22592162, 25463025, and 25463024, Grant-in-Aid for Exploratory Research 25560356), and grants from Alpha Electron Co., Ltd. (Fukushima, Japan) and Iing Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan).

References

  1. 1.
    Scholey A, Haskell C, Robertson B et al (2009) Chewing gum alleviates negative mood and reduces cortisol during acute laboratory psychological stress. Physiol Behav 97(3–4):304–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Smith AP, Chaplin K, Wadsworth E (2012) Chewing gum, occupational stress, work performance and wellbeing. An intervention study. Appetite 58(3):1083–1086CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kamiya K, Fumoto M, Kikuchi H et al (2010) Prolonged gum chewing evokes activation of the ventral part of prefrontal cortex and suppression of nociceptive responses: involvement of the serotonergic system. J Med Dent Sci 57(1):35–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yu H, Chen X, Liu J et al (2013) Gum chewing inhibits the sensory processing and the propagation of stress-related information in a brain network. PLoS One 8(4):e57111CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ono Y, Yamamoto T, Kubo KY et al (2010) Occlusion and brain function: mastication as a prevention of cognitive dysfunction. J Oral Rehabil 37(8):624–640PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arnsten AF (2009) Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nat Rev Neurosci 10(6):410–422CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buijs RM, Van Eden CG (2000) The integration of stress by the hypothalamus, amygdala and prefrontal cortex: balance between the autonomic nervous system and the neuroendocrine system. Prog Brain Res 126:117–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Coan JA, Allen JJ (2004) Frontal EEG asymmetry as a moderator and mediator of emotion. Biol Psychol 67(1–2):7–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Soares AP, Pinheiro AP, Costa A et al (2013) Affective auditory stimuli: adaptation of the International Affective Digitized Sounds (IADS-2) for European Portuguese. Behav Res Methods 45(4):1168–1181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stevenson RA, James TW (2008) Affective auditory stimuli: characterization of the International Affective Digitized Sounds (IADS) by discrete emotional categories. Behav Res Methods 40(1):315–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Folstein MF, Luria R (1973) Reliability, validity, and clinical application of the Visual Analogue Mood Scale. Psychol Med 3(4):479–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Demirbas H, Ilhan IO, Dogan YB et al (2011) Assessment of the mode of anger expression in alcohol dependent male inpatients. Alcohol Alcohol 46(5):542–546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Davidson RJ, Jackson DC, Kalin NH et al (2000) Emotion, plasticity, context, and regulation: perspectives from affective neuroscience. Psychol Bull 126(6):890–909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nishifuji S (2011) EEG recovery enhanced by acute aerobic exercise after performing mental task with listening to unpleasant sound. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2011:3837–3840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Horii A, Yamamura C, Katsumata T (2004) Physiological response to unpleasant sounds. J Int Soc Life Inform Sci 22(2):536–544Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Suzuki M, Ishiyama I, Takiguchi T et al (1994) Effects of gum hardness on the response of common carotid blood flow volume, oxygen uptake, heart rate and blood pressure to gum-chewing. J Masticat Health Soc 4(1):51–62Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michiyo Konno
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tomotaka Takeda
    • 1
  • Yoshiaki Kawakami
    • 1
  • Yoshihiro Suzuki
    • 1
  • Yoshiaki Kawano
    • 1
  • Kazunori Nakajima
    • 1
  • Takamitsu Ozawa
    • 1
  • Keiichi Ishigami
    • 1
  • Naohiro Takemura
    • 2
  • Kaoru Sakatani
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Oral Health and Clinical Science, Division of Sports DentistryTokyo Dental CollegeChiyodaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Electronics EngineeringNihon University, NEWCAT Institute, College of EngineeringFukushimaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Neurological SurgerySchool of Medicine, Nihon UniversityTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations