Rik Sijben, Claudia Panzram, Rea Rodriguez-Raecke, Thomas Haarmeier, Jessica Freiherr
{"title":"Fast Olfactory Threshold Determination Using an Ascending Limits Procedure","authors":"Rik Sijben, Claudia Panzram, Rea Rodriguez-Raecke, Thomas Haarmeier, Jessica Freiherr","doi":"10.1007/s12078-017-9239-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Sniffin’ Sticks test battery is currently considered the best alternative for the measurement of olfactory threshold, discrimination and identification capabilities. These tests still suffer from limitations, however. Most noticeably, the olfactory threshold test is an intensive task which requires participants to smell a large number of olfactory stimuli. This proves especially problematic when measuring olfactory performance of elderly patients or screening research subjects, as sensory adaptation plays an important role in olfactory perception.</p><p>In the current study, we have determined that the cause of this limitation lies with the test’s single-staircase procedure (SSP). Consequentially, we have devised an alternative ascending limits procedure (ALP). We here compared data obtained using both procedures, following a within-subject design with 40 participants. Olfactory threshold scores as well as number of trials required to complete the two procedures were investigated.</p><p>The results show that the ALP provides reliable and correct olfactory threshold ratings, as the values showed a good correlation with those obtained using the SSP and mean values did not differ significantly. Task duration, however, did show a highly significant difference, completing the SSP required participants to complete over 40% more trials compared to the ALP.</p><p>The here presented methodological improvement can save time and, more importantly, reduce participants’ cognitive and sensory strain, which is not only more comfortable, but also limits the influence of adaptation, making any measured data more reliable.</p><p>Improving standard screening methods can directly enhance the reliability of any future study using this procedure.</p>","PeriodicalId":516,"journal":{"name":"Chemosensory Perception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12078-017-9239-1","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemosensory Perception","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12078-017-9239-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Neuroscience","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
The Sniffin’ Sticks test battery is currently considered the best alternative for the measurement of olfactory threshold, discrimination and identification capabilities. These tests still suffer from limitations, however. Most noticeably, the olfactory threshold test is an intensive task which requires participants to smell a large number of olfactory stimuli. This proves especially problematic when measuring olfactory performance of elderly patients or screening research subjects, as sensory adaptation plays an important role in olfactory perception.
In the current study, we have determined that the cause of this limitation lies with the test’s single-staircase procedure (SSP). Consequentially, we have devised an alternative ascending limits procedure (ALP). We here compared data obtained using both procedures, following a within-subject design with 40 participants. Olfactory threshold scores as well as number of trials required to complete the two procedures were investigated.
The results show that the ALP provides reliable and correct olfactory threshold ratings, as the values showed a good correlation with those obtained using the SSP and mean values did not differ significantly. Task duration, however, did show a highly significant difference, completing the SSP required participants to complete over 40% more trials compared to the ALP.
The here presented methodological improvement can save time and, more importantly, reduce participants’ cognitive and sensory strain, which is not only more comfortable, but also limits the influence of adaptation, making any measured data more reliable.
Improving standard screening methods can directly enhance the reliability of any future study using this procedure.
期刊介绍:
Coverage in Chemosensory Perception includes animal work with implications for human phenomena and explores the following areas:
Identification of chemicals producing sensory response;
Identification of sensory response associated with chemicals;
Human in vivo response to chemical stimuli;
Human in vitro response to chemical stimuli;
Neuroimaging of chemosensory function;
Neurological processing of chemoreception;
Chemoreception mechanisms;
Psychophysics of chemoperception;
Trigeminal function;
Multisensory perception;
Contextual effect on chemoperception;
Behavioral response to chemical stimuli;
Physiological factors affecting and contributing to chemoperception;
Flavor and hedonics;
Memory and chemoperception.