Elsevier

Physiology & Behavior

Volume 87, Issue 3, 30 March 2006, Pages 500-505
Physiology & Behavior

A new method for measuring reaction times for odour detection at iso-intensity: Comparison between an unpleasant and pleasant odour

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.11.018Get rights and content

Abstract

A psychophysical detection test was developed to measure the reaction time of human subjects to a pleasant and an unpleasant odour. The response latencies to stimulation with a malodour (valeric acid) and pleasant odorant (amyl acetate) were compared over a range of different stimulus strengths. By expressing reaction time as a function of detection rate, the responses to the two odours can be compared at iso-intensity across the concentration range. This is the first study that allows odorants to be compared at the same intensity over a range of concentrations. The malodour valeric acid was detected more rapidly than amyl acetate; at the 50% detection level the reaction time for the detection of amyl acetate was 1.74 s compared 1.36 s for valeric acid (380 ms or 22% faster). Women were significantly faster than men at detecting both the unpleasant (by 18%) and pleasant (by 26%) odour at the 50% detection level and this disparity increased with decreasing stimulus strength.

In conclusion, we demonstrate the ability of a new method for the measurement of reaction times to odour detection to discriminate between two different odours — a malodour and a non-malodour.

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)

  • J.A. Gottfried et al.

    Functional heterogeneity in human olfactory cortex: an event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study

    J Neurosci

    (2002)
  • T. Hummel et al.

    Handedness is a determining factor in lateralized olfactory discrimination

    Chem Senses

    (1998)
  • D. Ottoson

    The electro-olfactogram

  • P.I. Ezeh et al.

    Regional distribution of rat electroolfactogram

    J Neurophysiol

    (1995)
  • Cited by (27)

    • The silver sensory experience - A review of senior consumers' food perception, liking and intake

      2016, Food Quality and Preference
      Citation 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 Psychology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Thus, unpleasant odors alter hedonic evaluations of previously neutral stimuli toward less pleasant (Todrank et al., 1995; van Reekum, van den Berg, & Frijda, 1999). Unpleasant odors have also been shown to augment defensive reflexes (Ehrlichman et al., 1997; Miltner et al., 1994) and to increase motor readiness (Bensafi et al., 2002; Boesveldt et al., 2010; Jacob & Wang, 2006), and autonomic arousal (Aoui-Ismaïli et al., 1997; Brauchli et al., 1995). In addition, increases in loss aversion whilst smelling an unpleasant odor are in line with previous studies reporting that negative emotional states increase pessimistic outlooks (Lerner & Keltner, 2001), perceived likelihood for adverse life events (Johnson & Tversky, 1983), or perceived likelihood of occurrence of subsequent negative emotional states (DeSteno, Petty, Wegener, & Rucker, 2000).

    • A review of motivational models for improving hand hygiene among an increasingly diverse food service workforce

      2015, Food Control
      Citation Excerpt :

      This evidence should be considered when forming habits with odors since repetition is a main component to its intervention. Additionally, Croy et al. (2013) study demonstrated a similar conclusion to other papers that unpleasant odors produce quicker, more automatic response than pleasant odors (Alaoui-Ismaili, Vernet-Maury, Dittmar, Delhomme, & Chanel, 1997; Jacob & Wang, 2006). Disgust elicitors, as reviewed by Rozin, Haidt, and McCauley (1993), can be generalized into two groups: core and animal domains.

    • A portable experimental apparatus for human olfactory fMRI experiments

      2013, Journal of Neuroscience Methods
      Citation Excerpt :

      Odor perception can be assessed in children, young and old adults, with behavioral, psychological and psychophysical examination (Doty et al., 1984; Freiherr et al., 2012; Hummel et al., 1997; Rinck et al., 2011; Thomas-Danguin et al., 2003) or more complex odor generating devices, namely olfactometers. Olfactometry applications comprise exploration of odor perception in animals (Bodyak and Slotnick, 1999; Joly et al., 2004) and humans, using psychophysics (Ikeda et al., 1999; Jacob and Wang, 2006; Johnson et al., 2003; Kermen et al., 2011; Laudien et al., 2008; Pause et al., 2009; Rouby et al., 2009), electroencephalography (Kobal, 1981; Murphy et al., 2000; Pause et al., 2009; Poncelet et al., 2010) and functional brain imaging (Anderson et al., 2003; Bensafi et al., 2012a,b; Gottfried et al., 2002; Johnson and Sobel, 2007; Lorig et al., 1999; Lowen and Lukas, 2006; Lundstrom et al., 2010; Popp et al., 2004; Rolls et al., 2003; Small et al., 2005; Sobel et al., 1997; Sommer et al., 2012; Vigouroux et al., 2005). Sobel et al. (1997) described a system for generating olfactory stimuli for humans within a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) experimental design.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text