Chemosensory Perception

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 35–41 | Cite as

Fast Olfactory Threshold Determination Using an Ascending Limits Procedure

Article

Abstract

Introduction

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Discussion

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.

Implications

Improving standard screening methods can directly enhance the reliability of any future study using this procedure.

Keywords

Sniffin’ Sticks TDI Psychophysics n-butanol Threshold 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

The project was funded by a grant from the Interdisciplinary Centre for Clinical Research within the Faculty of Medicine at the RWTH Aachen University (IZKF Project N7-9).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

The study was approved by the ethics board of the Medical Faculty of the University Hospital, RWTH Aachen University.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Albrecht J, Anzinger A, Kopietz R, Schöpf V, Kleemann AM, Pollatos O, Wiesmann M (2008) Test–retest reliability of the olfactory detection threshold test of the Sniffin’Sticks. Chem Senses 33(5):461–467.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjn013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cain WS, Goodspeed RB, Gent JF, Leonard G (1988) Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction in the Connecticut chemosensory clinical research center. Laryngoscope 98(1):83–88.  https://doi.org/10.1288/00005537-198801000-00017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dalton P (2000) Psychophysical and behavioral characteristics of olfactory adaptation. Chem Senses 25(4):487–492.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/25.4.487 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Doty RL (1991) Olfactory system. Smell and taste in health and disease. Raven Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Fechner TG (1860) Elemente der Psychophysik vol 1. Breitkopf und Härtel, LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  6. Hall J (1968) Maximum-likelihood sequential procedure for estimation of psychometric functions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 44(1):370–370.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1970490 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, Pauli E, Kobal G (1997) ‘Sniffin’ Sticks’: olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem Senses 22(1):39–52.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/22.1.39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jacob TJ, Fraser C, Wang L, Walker V, O’Connor S (2003) Psychophysical evaluation of responses to pleasant and mal-odour stimulation in human subjects: adaptation, dose response and gender differences. International Journal of Psychophysiology: Official Journal of the International Organization of Psychophysiology 48(1):67–80.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(03)00020-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kobal G, Hummel T, Sekinger B, Barz S, Roscher S, Wolf S (1996) “Sniffin’sticks”: screening of olfactory performance. Rhinology 34(4):222–226Google Scholar
  10. Linschoten MR, Harvey LO, Eller PM, Jafek BW (2001) Fast and accurate measurement of taste and smell thresholds using a maximum-likelihood adaptive staircase procedure. Attention Perception Psychophysics 63(8):1330–1347.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Oleszkiewicz A, Pellegrino R, Pusch K, Margot C, Hummel T (2017) Chemical complexity of odors increases reliability of olfactory threshold testing. Sci Rep 7:39977.  https://doi.org/10.1038/srep39977 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Stevens JC, Cain WS, Burke RJ (1988) Variability of olfactory thresholds. Chem Senses 13(4):643–653.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/13.4.643 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wetherill G, Levitt H (1965) Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function. Br J Math Stat Psychol 18(1):1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8317.1965.tb00689.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Wolfensberger M (2000) Sniffin’Sticks: a new olfactory test battery. Acta Otolaryngol 120(2):303–306.  https://doi.org/10.1080/000164800750001134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zernecke FT, Haegler K, Albrecht J, Bruckmann H, Wiesmann M (2011) Correlation analyses of detection thresholds of four different odorants. Rhinology 49:331–336Google Scholar
  16. Zernecke et al (2010) Comparison of two different odorants in an olfactory detection threshold test of the Sniffin’Sticks. Rhinology 48:368–373Google Scholar
  17. Zizlsperger L, Sauvigny T, Haarmeier T (2012) Selective attention increases choice certainty in human decision making. PLoS One 7(7):e41136.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0041136 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zizlsperger L, Sauvigny T, Händel B, Haarmeier T (2014) Cortical representations of confidence in a visual perceptual decision. Nat Commun 5:3940.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4940 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, University HospitalRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer Institute for Process Engineering and Packaging IVV, Department of Sensory AnalyticsFreisingGermany
  3. 3.Neurology DepartmentHELIOS Klinikum KrefeldKrefeldGermany
  4. 4.Neurology Department, University HospitalRWTH Aachen UniversityAachenGermany

Personalised recommendations