| Literature DB >> 26083418 |
Ana B Fagundo1, Susana Jiménez-Murcia2, Cristina Giner-Bartolomé1, Mohammed Anisul Islam1, Rafael de la Torre3, Antoni Pastor4, Felipe F Casanueva5, Ana B Crujeiras5, Roser Granero6, Rosa Baños7, Cristina Botella8, Jose M Fernández-Real9, Gema Frühbeck10, Javier Gómez-Ambrosi10, José M Menchón11, Francisco J Tinahones12, Fernando Fernández-Aranda2.
Abstract
The prefrontal (PFC) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) appear to be associated with both executive functions and olfaction. However, there is little data relating olfactory processing and executive functions in humans. The present study aimed at exploring the role of olfaction on executive functioning, making a distinction between primary and more cognitive aspects of olfaction. Three executive tasks of similar difficulty were used. One was used to assess hot executive functions (Iowa Gambling Task-IGT), and two as a measure of cold executive functioning (Stroop Colour and Word Test-SCWT and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-WCST). Sixty two healthy participants were included: 31 with normosmia and 31 with hyposmia. Olfactory abilities were assessed using the ''Sniffin' Sticks'' test and the olfactory threshold, odour discrimination and odour identification measures were obtained. All participants were female, aged between 18 and 60. Results showed that participants with hyposmia displayed worse performance in decision making (IGT; Cohen's-d = 0.91) and cognitive flexibility (WCST; Cohen's-d between 0.54 and 0.68) compared to those with normosmia. Multiple regression adjusted by the covariates participants' age and education level showed a positive association between odour identification and the cognitive inhibition response (SCWT-interference; Beta = 0.29; p = .034). The odour discrimination capacity was not a predictor of the cognitive executive performance. Our results suggest that both hot and cold executive functions seem to be associated with higher-order olfactory functioning in humans. These results robustly support the hypothesis that olfaction and executive measures have a common neural substrate in PFC and OFC, and suggest that olfaction might be a reliable cognitive marker in psychiatric and neurologic disorders.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26083418 PMCID: PMC4471115 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0130319
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Descriptives for sample.
| Normosmia (n = 31) | Hyposmia(n = 31) |
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years); | 26.39 (8.45) | 25.42 (8.57) | t = 0.448 | 60 | .656 |
| Civil status; | χ2 = 3.093 | 2 | .213 | ||
|
| 63.3% | 71.0% | |||
|
| 36.7% | 22.6% | |||
|
| 0% | 6.5% | |||
| Employment status; | 54.8% | 35.5% | χ 2 = 2.345 | 1 | .126 |
| Education level; | χ 2 = 0.848 | 2 | .654 | ||
|
| 6.5% | 12.9% | |||
|
| 54.8% | 54.8% | |||
|
| 38.7% | 32.3% | |||
| Years of education; | 16.84 (2.92) | 15.65 (2.54) | t = 1.717 | 60 | .091 |
| Use of oral contraceptives; | 29.0% | 12.9% | χ 2 = 2.433 | 1 | .119 |
| Smoker; | 25.8% | 32.3% | χ 2 = 0.313 | 1 | .576 |
| Number of cigarettes-day; | 2.61 (5.36) | 2.32 (4.61) | t = 0.229 | 60 | .820 |
|
| |||||
|
| 13.55 (1.39) | 11.35 (1.76) | t = 5.448 | 60 | < .001 |
|
| 13.71 (1.42) | 11.26 (1.55) | t = 6.499 | 60 | < .001 |
|
| 34.57 (2.24) | 27.77 (2.62) | t = 10.98 | 60 | < .001 |
Results are presented as Mean (Standard deviation). TDI: threshold test
Comparison of cognitive scores between normosmia and hyposmia.
| Normosmia | Hyposmia | Mean comparison: T-TEST | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| Sig. | Mean | 95% CI | Cohen’s | |||
| Mean | SD | Mean | SD |
|
| differ. | for mean differ. |
| |
|
| |||||||||
| Interference | 5.03 | 9.69 | 4.11 | 6.91 | 0.430 | .669 | 0.92 | -3.38; 5.22 | 0.11 |
|
| |||||||||
| Total trials | 80.58 | 11.02 | 89.81 | 21.16 | 2.154 |
| -9.23 | -17.80; -0.66 | 0.55 |
| Total corrects | 67.77 | 5.04 | 64.87 | 9.06 | 1.541 | .125 | 2.91 | -0.83; 6.65 | 0.40 |
| Total errors | 12.81 | 6.76 | 24.68 | 25.60 | 2.496 |
| -11.87 | -21.38; -2.36 | 0.63 |
| Perseverative responses | 7.35 | 4.58 | 12.39 | 12.86 | 2.052 |
| -5.03 | -9.94; -0.13 | 0.52 |
| Perseverative errors | 7.00 | 4.01 | 11.55 | 11.32 | 2.109 |
| -4.55 | -8.86; -0.23 | 0.54 |
| Non-persev. Errors | 5.81 | 3.48 | 13.13 | 15.32 | 2.596 |
| -7.32 | -12.97; -1.68 | 0.66 |
| Total categories completed | 6.00 | 0.00 | 4.93 | 2.23 | 2.667 |
| 1.07 | 0.27; 1.87 | 0.68 |
| Trials to first category | 11.45 | 1.15 | 29.90 | 42.12 | 2.439 |
| -18.45 | -33.59; -3.31 | 0.62 |
|
| |||||||||
| Total | 40.39 | 21.17 | 17.61 | 28.37 | 3.583 |
| 22.77 | 10.06; 35.49 | 0.91 |
1p-value includes Simes’ correction procedure for multiple comparisons. SD: standard deviation. Bold: significant comparison (.05 level).
*Moderate to high effect size (|d|≥0.50).
Fig 1Scatter-plots for the odor threshold discrimination-identification score and the IGT-total and the WCST-total trials (dash-line represents the lineal total adjustment).
Predictive capacity of global olfactory functions on cognitive scores: beta-coefficients in multiple linear regressions.
| Odor discrimination | Odor identification | 1Model change | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |||||||||
| Interference | -0.048 | -0.364 | .717 |
| 2.171 |
| 2.478 | .093 | .073 |
|
| |||||||||
| Total trials | -0.148 | -1.162 | .250 | -0.021 | -0.162 | .872 | 0.900 | .412 | .025 |
| Total corrects | 0.092 | 0.648 | .520 | 0.146 | 1.018 | .313 | 1.177 | .316 | .040 |
| Total errors | -0.160 | -1.252 | .216 | -0.078 | -0.603 | .549 | 1.489 | .234 | .041 |
| Perseverative responses | -0.140 | -1.163 | .250 | -0.047 | -0.391 | .697 | 1.100 | .340 | .027 |
| Perseverative errors | -0.155 | -1.278 | .206 | -0.038 | -0.312 | .756 | 1.207 | .307 | .030 |
| Non-persev. Errors | -0.153 | -1.145 | .257 | -0.102 | -0.759 | .451 | 1.515 | .228 | .046 |
| Total categories completed | 0.145 | 1.073 | .288 | 0.087 | 0.640 | .525 | 1.252 | .294 | .038 |
| Trials to first category | -0.171 | -1.246 | .218 | -0.062 | -0.450 | .655 | 1.308 | .278 | .041 |
|
| |||||||||
| Total | 0.039 | 0.333 | .740 |
| 1.876 | .066 | 2.433 | .097 | .055 |
Bold: significant parameter (.05 level). 1Model change comparing first step (including the covariates age and education) and second step (adding the odor discrimination and odor identification scores).