We used conjoint manipulation of taste and physiological state to address the theoretical issue of signal integration. The interaction between taste (glucose concentration) and state (food deprivation) was evaluated using the taste reactivity method in which oral motor responses elicited by direct intraoral infusion are measured. The time frame of the typical taste reactivity paradigm, where observation is limited to the infusion period, was expanded to include the postinfusion interval. In each test session, rats received a series of trials consisting of 15-s intraoral infusions and 45-s postinfusion observation intervals. Two experiments were run in which glucose concentration was varied and rats were run nondeprived and after 24 h food deprivation. In experiment 1, glucose concentrations (0, 3.2, 6.25, 12.5, and 25%) were randomly presented during each test session. In experiment 2, individual glucose concentrations (0, 6.25, or 25%) were presented during separate sessions. For both, a deprivation condition was flanked by nondeprived (baseline) sessions. Concentration-response functions were comparable in both experiments. In each experiment, the shape of the concentration-response function was dramatically different during and after infusions. During infusions, there were no increases in glucose-elicited rhythmic oral responses beyond a very dilute concentration. After infusions, the concentration-response functions appeared linear across the concentration range. In both experiments, deprivation elevated responding only in the after-infusion periods. In experiment 1, the concentration-response function was uniformly elevated (on average, 27%) by deprivation, which if taken at face value would suggest an additive combination of taste and state feedback signals. In experiment 2, however, deprivation increased responding (approximately 30%) for 6.25%, but not for 0 or 25%, suggesting a stimulus specificity of the taste-state integration. Clearly then, the taste-state profiles differed as a function of experimental design. In the GENERAL DISCUSSION, we suggest that the uniform elevation of responding to all glucose concentrations, and to water, seen in experiment 1, may be an artifact of the random presentation of all stimuli during individual sessions. Experiment 2, in which stimuli were presented in a between-sessions design, may provide a truer reflection of the underlying integrative process.