Literature DB >> 17962230

Retronasal but not oral-cavity-only identification of "purely olfactory" odorants.

Veronica Chen1, Bruce P Halpern.   

Abstract

Identifications of 5 odorants selected to be nontrigeminal stimuli were compared using retronasal and oral-cavity-only (OCO) air-phase presentations, with OCO produced by both exhalation through the mouth and a nose clip that closed the nostrils. Nine identifiers were available on each trial; 1 or 2 were correct for each odorant. Correct retronasal identifications were more common than OCO identifications and exceeded chance across subjects and for each subject; OCO correct identifications did not exceed chance. Retronasal reaction times were briefer than OCO reaction times. Correct retronasal identifications for vanillin, octanoic acid, phenylethyl alcohol, coumarin, and octane were 88%, 73%, 87%, 70%, and 85%, respectively; correct OCO identifications were, respectively, 10%, 12%, 18%, 35%, and 33%. Identifiers selected for retronasally presented odorants differed from those for other retronasally presented odorants, but identifiers for OCO-presented odorants did not differ between odorants. Overall, the retronasal identifications of nontrigeminal odorants both depended upon the odorant that was presented and corresponded to previous reported orthonasal identifications. In contrast, the OCO identifications, characterized by low percentages of correct identifications and an absence of differences between odorants in selected identifiers, suggested that OCO responses to nontrigeminal, purely olfactory odorants lack sufficient sensory information for either correct or differential identification.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17962230     DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjm069

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chem Senses        ISSN: 0379-864X            Impact factor:   3.160


  3 in total

1.  AutonoMouse: High throughput operant conditioning reveals progressive impairment with graded olfactory bulb lesions.

Authors:  Andrew Erskine; Thorsten Bus; Jan T Herb; Andreas T Schaefer
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 3.240

2.  Retronasal Olfaction Test Methods: A Systematic Review

Authors:  Hüseyin Özay; Aslı Çakır; Mustafa Cenk Ecevit
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2018-09-28       Impact factor: 2.021

3.  Validation study of a novel approach for assessment of retronasal olfactory function with combination of odor thresholds and identification.

Authors:  Ayaho Yoshino; Robert Pellegrino; Curtis R Luckett; Thomas Hummel
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2021-02-19       Impact factor: 2.503

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.