Literature DB >> 8734544

Life-span development of odor identification, learning, and olfactory sensitivity.

W S Cain1, J C Stevens, C M Nickou, A Giles, I Johnston, M R Garcia-Medina.   

Abstract

In the first of three studies, children (aged 8 to 14 years) were found to perform worse than young and middle-aged adults in unprompted identification of doors, with average performance much like that of elderly adults. Comparisons on other tasks, specifically odor threshold, prompted odor identification, and object naming (Boston Naming Test), across the life span (five groups) revealed that children have the same excellent olfactory sensitivity as young adults and merely lack odor-specific knowledge that accumulates slowly through life. Such knowledge apparently accumulates so slowly that age-associated discriminative losses, measurable by early middle age, begin to wear away gains obtained through experience before odors can become overlearned. In the second study, a novel adaptive psychophysical method, the step procedure, confirmed the equivalent sensitivity of children and young adults. In the third study, a paired-associate task illustrated the sluggish course of odor learning. Young adults outperformed children, though the youngest group, first graders, made up ground relatively fast. For children and adults, common odors facilitated performance relative to novel odors. The outcome highlighted the relevance of semantic factors in odor learning irrespective of age.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 8734544     DOI: 10.1068/p241457

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Perception        ISSN: 0301-0066            Impact factor:   1.490


  18 in total

1.  Olfactory training: what is the evidence?

Authors:  Justin H Turner
Journal:  Int Forum Allergy Rhinol       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 3.858

2.  Odor detection thresholds in a population of older adults.

Authors:  Carla R Schubert; Mary E Fischer; A Alex Pinto; Barbara E K Klein; Ronald Klein; Karen J Cruickshanks
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2016-12-21       Impact factor: 3.325

3.  Odor quality: discrimination versus free and cued identification.

Authors:  R A de Wijk; W S Cain
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-07

4.  Limitations in odour simulation may originate from differential sensory embodiment.

Authors:  Artin Arshamian; Patricia Manko; Asifa Majid
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 6.237

5.  Correlation between olfactory bulb volume and olfactory function in children and adolescents.

Authors:  T Hummel; M Smitka; S Puschmann; J C Gerber; B Schaal; D Buschhüter
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-08-13       Impact factor: 1.972

6.  Olfactory deficits, cognition and negative symptoms in early onset psychosis.

Authors:  Cheryl Corcoran; Agnes Whitaker; Eliza Coleman; Jane Fried; Judith Feldman; Nora Goudsmit; Dolores Malaspina
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2005-08-26       Impact factor: 4.939

7.  Implicit and explicit memory for odors: hemispheric differences.

Authors:  Mats J Olsson; William S Cain
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-01

8.  Neuroanatomical correlates of olfactory performance.

Authors:  Johannes Frasnelli; Johan N Lundström; Julie A Boyle; Jelena Djordjevic; Robert J Zatorre; Marilyn Jones-Gotman
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.972

9.  Variability of olfactory threshold and its role in assessment of aging.

Authors:  J C Stevens; A D Dadarwala
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1993-09

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

Authors:  M Scheibe; O Opatz; T Hummel
Journal:  Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol       Date:  2008-11-11       Impact factor: 2.503

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.