Literature DB >> 19002476

Are there sex-related differences in responses to repetitive olfactory/trigeminal stimuli?

M Scheibe1, O Opatz, T Hummel.   

Abstract

Sex differences in olfactory sensitivity have been reported since the late 1800's with women typically outperforming men on tests of odor detection, discrimination or identification. It is not known whether women adapt differently than men to olfactory and trigeminal stimuli. Seventeen healthy volunteers participated (9 female, 8 male, mean age 22 years) in the study. As established by an odor identification test (UPSIT, score > or =38) all subjects had normal olfactory function. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded in response to olfactory (25% v/v phenyl ethyl alcohol) and trigeminal (44% v/v CO(2)) stimuli using a computer controlled olfactometer (flow 8 L/min; stimulus duration 200 ms). Stimuli were applied at four intervals (5, 10, 20, and 60 s). Amplitudes and latencies of ERP peaks P1, N1, and P2 were measured. Stimulus intensity also rated using visual analogue scales subjects. When compared to phenyl ethyl alcohol, the slightly more intense CO(2) produced larger amplitudes and shorter latencies. Both, ratings and ERP amplitudes P2 decreased with decreasing interval between stimuli. Responses to the trigeminal and olfactory stimuli changed similarly in relation to repetitive stimulation. Women had larger ERP amplitudes P2. No sex-related difference for ratings and ERP in relation to repeated stimulation amplitudes was observed. Although women exhibit larger ERP amplitudes to chemosensory stimuli compared to men, the present data indicate on both psychophysical and electrophysiological levels that there is no major difference between young, healthy men and women in relation to short-term adaptation to suprathreshold chemosensory stimulation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19002476     DOI: 10.1007/s00405-008-0860-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol        ISSN: 0937-4477            Impact factor:   2.503


  20 in total

1.  Activation and habituation in olfaction--an fMRI study.

Authors:  A Poellinger; R Thomas; P Lio; A Lee; N Makris; B R Rosen; K K Kwong
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 6.556

Review 2.  Chemosensory function and response in idiopathic environmental intolerance.

Authors:  P Dalton; T Hummel
Journal:  Occup Med       Date:  2000 Jul-Sep

3.  Olfactory modulation of nausea during early pregnancy?

Authors:  T Hummel; R von Mering; R Huch; N Kölble
Journal:  BJOG       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.531

4.  Olfactory perception thresholds for citral utilizing a new type olfactorium.

Authors:  R A SCHNEIDER; S WOLF
Journal:  J Appl Physiol       Date:  1955-11       Impact factor: 3.531

5.  Gender effects on odor-stimulated functional magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  D M Yousem; J A Maldjian; F Siddiqi; T Hummel; D C Alsop; R J Geckle; W B Bilker; R L Doty
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1999-02-13       Impact factor: 3.252

6.  Multicenter investigation of 1,036 subjects using a standardized method for the assessment of olfactory function combining tests of odor identification, odor discrimination, and olfactory thresholds.

Authors:  G Kobal; L Klimek; M Wolfensberger; H Gudziol; A Temmel; C M Owen; H Seeber; E Pauli; T Hummel
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 2.503

7.  Chemosensory event-related potentials in relation to side of stimulation, age, sex, and stimulus concentration.

Authors:  B A Stuck; S Frey; C Freiburg; K Hörmann; T Zahnert; T Hummel
Journal:  Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  2006-05-02       Impact factor: 3.708

8.  Sex differentiated responses to intranasal trigeminal stimuli.

Authors:  Johan N Lundström; Johannes Frasnelli; Maria Larsson; Thomas Hummel
Journal:  Int J Psychophysiol       Date:  2005-03-31       Impact factor: 2.997

9.  Peripherally obtained electrophysiological responses to olfactory stimulation in man: electro-olfactograms exhibit a smaller degree of desensitization compared with subjective intensity estimates.

Authors:  T Hummel; M Knecht; G Kobal
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  1996-04-22       Impact factor: 3.252

10.  Chemo-somatosensory event-related potentials in response to repetitive painful chemical stimulation of the nasal mucosa.

Authors:  T Hummel; M Gruber; E Pauli; G Kobal
Journal:  Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol       Date:  1994-09
View more
  3 in total

1.  A time-saving method for recording chemosensory event-related potentials.

Authors:  Friederike Schaub; Michael Damm
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2012-01-17       Impact factor: 2.503

2.  Sex differences in chemosensation: sensory or emotional?

Authors:  Kathrin Ohla; Johan N Lundström
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2013-09-26       Impact factor: 3.169

3.  Odor habituation can modulate very early olfactory event-related potential.

Authors:  Kwangsu Kim; Jisub Bae; Youngsun Jin; Cheil Moon
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-22       Impact factor: 4.379

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.