A new method for measuring reaction times for odour detection at iso-intensity: Comparison between an unpleasant and pleasant odour
Introduction
The discrimination between “good” and bad” smells is one of the main functions of the human olfactory system. Bad smells act as a warning signal and require a rapid decision. They may also require a response, for example, avoidance or withdrawal. The same is not true for non-malodours. Malodours therefore have a greater immediate biological significance to our survival than non-malodours. In terms of the evolution of adaptation, it is important that organisms move away from “bad” stimuli and unfavourable situations and move towards “good” stimuli and situations favourable to their well-being [1]. In our recent study on the response to pleasant and unpleasant odours [2] we found that the olfactory system adapted/habituated more rapidly to malodours than to pleasant odours. At first this seemed counterintuitive, but there was a steep inverse relationship between adaptation and concentration of malodour such that if the system was exposed to a change (increase) in malodour strength, some adaptation was removed and the sensitivity recovered. On the other hand, there was very little change in the degree of adaptation with concentration of pleasant odours. This phenomenon has also been observed in the anterior piriform cortex by functional magnetic resonance imaging where activity was sustained in response to vanillin but decreased steadily over time with the malodour 4-methyl pentanoic acid [3]. The olfactory system therefore achieves a greater sensitivity to changes in malodour concentration than to changes in the concentration of pleasant smells. This has obvious survival advantages. Following from this we hypothesised that malodours would be detected more rapidly than pleasant smells at the same intensity and in this study we use a reaction time odour detection paradigm with intensity matching to test this hypothesis. On the basis of several biophysical characteristics (e.g. dose–response, stimulus frequency, sensitivity) we found that malodours, as a group, behaved similarly [2], so we selected valeric acid as a representative malodour and amyl acetate as a pleasant smell.
Section snippets
Olfactometry
Odour stimulation was achieved using an olfactometer as described previously [4]. Briefly, humidified (70%), warmed air was presented to the nostril at a flow rate of 3 l min− 1. Odorised air could be injected into the flow line (at 1 l min− 1), without altering the pressure or flow rate, by switching between a control odour reservoir (water), the amyl acetate reservoir or the valeric acid reservoir, using teflon-lined solenoid valves (Cole Palmer, Bishops Stortford, UK). A single tube, inserted
Results
The pooled reaction time data for all subjects, male and female, for amyl acetate (pleasant odour) and valeric acid (unpleasant odour) are given in Fig. 1(A) and (B) respectively. The ordinate represents the number of correct odour pulse detections per 200 ms time bin. Odour pulse widths ranged from 35 to 200 ms and are represented by different colours. It can be seen that with increasing pulse duration (increasing stimulus strength) there is a decreasing reaction time. Because the intensity of
Discussion
In a task designed to determine the time taken for the olfactory system to detect an odour, without hedonic judgement, we demonstrate that a malodour, valeric acid, is detected more rapidly than a pleasant odour, amyl acetate, across the range of stimulus strengths in spite of the fact that the olfactory system adapts more rapidly to malodours than pleasant odours [2]. The reaction time at the 50% detection level was 1.74 s for amyl acetate and 1.36 s for valeric acid. Reaction time was found
References (29)
- et al.
Psychophysical evaluation of responses to pleasant and mal-odour stimulation in human subjects; adaptation, dose response and gender differences
Int J Psychophysiol
(2003) - et al.
The correlation between physiological and psychological responses to odour stimulation in human subjects
Clin Neurophysiol
(2002) - et al.
Electro-olfactogram (EOG) in olfactometry
Auris Nasus Larynx (Tokyo)
(1989) - et al.
A new non-invasive method for recording the electro-olfactogram using external electrodes
Clin Neurophysiol
(2004) Constraints imposed on taste physiology by human taste reaction time data
Neurosci Biobehav Rev
(1986)- et al.
Effect of stimulus presentation duration on gustatory reaction time
Physiol Behav
(1979) - et al.
Asymmetry of pleasant vs. unpleasant odor processing during affective judgements in humans
Neurosci Lett
(2002) - et al.
Perceptual, affective, and cognitive judgements of odors: pleasantness and handedness effects
Brain Cogn
(2003) Human facial expressions in response to taste and smell stimulation
- et al.
The use of odour in the study of emotion
Functional heterogeneity in human olfactory cortex: an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study
J Neurosci
Handedness is a determining factor in lateralized olfactory discrimination
Chem Senses
The electro-olfactogram
Regional distribution of rat electroolfactogram
J Neurophysiol
Cited by (27)
A cross-cultural study on odor-elicited life stage-associations
2023, Food Quality and PreferenceExpanded olfactometer for measuring reaction time to a target odor during background odor presentation
2019, HeliyonCitation Excerpt :Kobal and colleagues (Kobal, 1985; Kobal and Hummel, 1988) succeeded in developing an olfactometer that satisfies all these criteria. In conventional measurements of reaction time (Boesveldt et al., 2010; Jacob and Wang, 2006; La Buissonnière-Ariza et al., 2013; Olofsson et al., 2013) to a target odor, the odor is inserted as a pulse into a flow of odorless air. However, in everyday life, we often unexpectedly notice another odor during exposure to an odor of interest, e.g., city gas odor appears when we are cooking, or cigarette odor appears when we are sitting at the dinner table.
The silver sensory experience - A review of senior consumers' food perception, liking and intake
2016, Food Quality and PreferenceCitation Excerpt :These findings may suggest greater attentional demands for olfactory processing or age-related changes in memory processing, or compensatory use of different neural systems. Furthermore, fMRI studies indicate the existence of two different systems dedicated to processing pleasant and unpleasant odours, with the latter being processed faster than pleasant ones (Grabenhorst, Rolls, Margot, da Silva, & Velazco, 2007; Jacob & Wang, 2006; Joussain, Thevenet, Rouby, & Bensafi, 2013; Rolls, Kringelbach, & de Araujo, 2003). Comparison of EEG responses of younger adults and seniors showed significantly decreased activity in seniors only for pleasant odours (Joussain et al., 2013).
Unpleasant odors increase aversion to monetary losses
2015, Biological PsychologyCitation Excerpt :Unpleasant odors have been shown to increase the aversive startle reflex (Ehrlichman, Kuhl, Zhu, & Warrenburg, 1997; Miltner, Matjak, Braun, Diekmann, & Brody, 1994). Detection of unpleasant odors compared to pleasant odors occurs faster (Bensafi, Rouby, Farget, Vigoroux, & Holley, 2002; Boesveldt, Frasnelli, Gordon, & Lundstrom, 2010; Jacob & Wang, 2006), and unpleasant odors are associated with a stronger autonomic arousal than pleasant odors (Aoui-Ismaïli, Vernet-Maury, Dittmar, Delhomme, & Chanel, 1997; Brauchli, Ruegg, Etzweiler, & Zeir, 1995). Odors have also been shown to shift hedonic evaluations of previously neutral visual stimuli toward negative or positive depending on the hedonic quality of the odor (Bone & Jantrania, 1992; Todrank, Byrnes, Wrzesniewski, & Rozin, 1995).
A portable experimental apparatus for human olfactory fMRI experiments
2013, Journal of Neuroscience MethodsCitation Excerpt :Results showed that in average, subjects reached an accuracy of 85.5% for this detection task. Moreover, mean reaction time was 1246.8 ms (±620 ms) which is in accordance with the literature: reaction time studies showed that odor detection takes between 1000 ms and 2000 ms depending on the experiment (Bensafi et al., 2003; Jacob and Wang, 2006; Royet et al., 1999). Finally, it is worth noting that the detection occurred before the end participant's inspiration phase since the latter was in average of 1800 ms.