Advertisement

Production and Perception of Individual Specific Body Odors: A New Area of Research in Clinical Psychology

  • Roman Ferstl
  • Frank Eggert
Chapter
Part of the Applied Clinical Psychology book series (NSSB)

Abstract

This report wants to stress the issue that research in clinical psychology in recent years neglected the significance of chemical senses and particularly olfaction in their contribution to abnormal behavior.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albane, E.S. (1984). Mammalian Semiochemistry: The Investigation of Chemical Signals Between Mammals. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, G., Gilbert, A., Yamazaki, K. & Boyse, E.A. (1986). Genetic basis for individual discriminations: The major histocompatibility complex of the mouse. In D. Müller-Schwarze & R.M. Silverstein (Eds.), Chemical Signals in Vertebrates IV (pp. 413–422). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, G.K., Yamazaki, K. & Boyse, E.A. (1985). The chemosensory recognition of genetic individuality. Scientific American, 253, 86–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauchamp, G.K., Yamazaki, K., Bard, J. & Boyse, E.A. (1988). Preweaning experience in the control of mating preferences by genes in the major histocompatibility complex of the mouse. Behavior Genetics, 18, 537–547.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beauchamp, G.K., Yamazaki, K., Wysocki, C.J., Slotnick, B.M., Thomas, L. & Boyse, E.A. (1985). Chemosensory recognition of mouse major histocompatibility types by another species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 82, 4186–4188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowers, J.M. & Alexander, B.K. (1967). Mice: Individual recognition by olfactory cues. Science, 158, 1208–1210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boyse, E.A., Beauchamp, G.K. & Yamazaki, K. (1987). The genetics of body scent Trends in Genetics, 3, 97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyse, E.A., Beauchamp, G.K. & Yamazaki, K. (1983). The sensory perception of genotypic polymorphism of the major histocompatibility complex and other genes: Some physiological and phylogenetic implications. Human Immunology, 6, 177–183.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyse, E.A., Yamazaki, K., Yamaguchi, M. & Thomas, L. (1980). Sensory communication among mice according to their MHC types. In G. Doria & A. Eshkol (Eds.), The Immune System: Functions and Therapy of Dysfunctions (pp. 45–53). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, D.S. & Johnston, R.E. (1983). Individual Discrimination on the basis of urine in dogs and wolves. In D. Müller-Schwarze & R.M. Silverstein (Eds.), Chemical Signals in Vertebrates 3 (pp. 343–346). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, R.E., Roser, B. & Singh, P.B. (1989). Class I and class II regions of the major histocompatibility complex both contribute to individual odors in congenic inbred strains of rats. Behavior Genetics, 19, 659–674.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brown, R.E., Singh, P.B. & Roser, B. (1987). The major histocompatibility complex and the chemosensory recognition of individuality in rats. Physiology & Behavior, 40, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bruce, H. (1959). An exteroceptive block to pregnancy in the mouse. Nature, 184, 105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cazzullo, C.L. (1989). Brain and the immune system in mental disorders. In C.N. Stefanis, C.R. Soldates & A.D. Rabavilas (Eds.), Psychiatry Today (VIII. World Congress of Psychiatry). Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica.Google Scholar
  15. Cemoch, J.M. & Porter, R.H. (1985). Recognition of maternal axillary odors by infants. Child Development, 56, 1593–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Engen, T. (1982). The Perception of Odors. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Engen, T. (1988). The acquisition of odor hedonics. In S. van Toller & G.H. Dodd (Eds.), Perfumery. The Psychology and Biology of Fragrance (pp. 79–90). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Ferstl, R., Eggert, F. & Luszyk, D. (1988). Die experimentelle Untersuchung der olfaktorischen Diskriminationsleistung bei Ratten. In W. Schönpflug (Hrsg.), Bericht über den 36. Kongrex der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Berlin 1988, Band 1 (S. 425–426). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  19. Ferstl, R., Welzel, C., Florian, M., Blank, M. & Müller- Ruchholtz, W. (1988). Ist das Knochenmark der einzige Ursprung körpereigener Duftkomponenten? Ein Beitrag zur Immunopsychologie. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 35, 201–217.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Gilbert, A.N., Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G.K. & Thomas, L. (1986). Olfactory discrimination of mouse strains (Mus musculus) and major histocompatibility types by humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 100, 262–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giphart, M.J. & D’Amaro, J. (1983). HLA and reproduction? Journal of Immunogenetics, 10, 25–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldstein, E.B. (1989). Sensation and Perception. Behmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  23. Holmes, W.G. & Sherman, P.W. (1983). Kin recognition in animals. American Scientist, 71, 46–55.Google Scholar
  24. Kaitz, M., Good, A., Rokem, A.M. & Eidelman, A.I. (1987). Mothers’ recognition of their new-boms by olfactory cues. Developmental Psychobiology, 20, 587–591.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kalmus, H. (1955). The discrimination by the nose of the dog of individual human odours and in particular of the odours of twins. British Journal of Animal Behaviour, 3, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kussin, S. & Bösel, R. (1988). Inhaltsstoffe des Achselschweißes bei emotions- und kognitions-bezogenem Coping. In W. Schönpflug (Hrsg.), Bericht über den 36. Kongrex der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie in Berlin 1988, Band 1 (S. 113–114). Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  27. Liddell, K. (1976). Smell as a diagnostic marker. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 52, 136–138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lord, T. & Kasprzak, M. (1989). Identification of self through olfaction. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 219–224.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Luszyk, D., Eggert, F., Ferstl, R., Blank, M. & Müller-Ruchholtz, W. (1989). Der Austausch des hämatopoetischen Systems verändert die chemosensorische Identität. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 36, 239–250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Müller, N., Hofschuster, E., Ackenheil, M., Eckstein, R. & Mempel, W. (1989). Immune function and immunogenetics in endogenous psychoses. In C.N. Stefanis, CR. Soldatos & A.D. Rabavilas (Eds.), Psychiatry Today (VIII. World Congress of Psychiatry). Amsterdam: Excerpta Medica.Google Scholar
  31. Nordlander, C., Hammarström, L., Lindblom, B. & Smith, C.I.E.E. (1983). No role of HLA in mate selection. Immunogenetics, 18, 429–431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Porter, R.H. & Moore, J.D. (1981). Human kin recognition by olfactory cues. Physiology & Behavior, 27, 493–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Porter, R.H., Cemoch, J.M, & McLaughlin, F.J. (1983). Maternal recognition of neonates through olfactory cues. Physiology & Behavior, 30, 151–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenberg, L.T., Cooperman, D. & Payne, R. (1983). HLA and mate selection. Immunogenetics, 17, 89–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schwende, F.J., Jorgenson, WJ. & Novotny, M. (1984). Possible chemical basis for histocom-patibility-related mating preference in mice. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 10, 1603–1615.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Singh, P.B., Brown, R.E. & Roser, B. (1987). MHC antigens in urine as olfactory recognition cues. Nature, 327, 161–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Singh, P.B., Brown, R.E. & Roser, B. (1988). Class I transplantation antigens in solution in body fluids and in the urine: Individuality signals to the environment Journal of Experimental Medicine, 168, 195–211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, K. & Sines, J.O (1960). Demonstration of a peculiar odor in the sweat of schizophrenic patients. Archives of General Psychiatry, 2, 184–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sobottka, B., Eggert, F., Ferstl, R. & Müller-Ruchholtz, W. (1989). Veränderte chemosensorische Identität nach experimenteller Knochenmarktransplantation: Erkennung durch eine andere Spezies. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle und Angewandte Psychologie, 36, 654–664.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Stoddart, D.M. (1980). The Ecology of Vertebrate Olfaction. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stoddart, D.M. (1988). Human odour culture: A zoological perspective. In S. van Toller & G.H. Dodd (Eds.), Perfumery. The Psychology and Biology of Fragrance (pp. 3–18). London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  42. Wells, P.A. (1987). Kin recognition in humans. In D.J.C. Fletcher & C.D. Michener (Eds.), Kin Recognition in Animals (pp. 395–415). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Yamaguchi, M., Yamazaki, K. & Boyse, E.A. (1978). Mating preference tests with the recombinant congenic strain BALB.HTG. Immunogenetics, 6, 261–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yamaguchi, M., Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G.K., Bard, J., Thomas, L. & Boyse, E.A. (1981). Distinctive urinary odors governed by the major histocompatibility complex of the mouse. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 78, 5817–5820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G.K., Kupniewski, D., Bard, J., Thomas, L. & Boyse, E.A. (1988). Familial imprinting determines H-2 selective mating preferences. Science, 240, 1331–1332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G.K., Kupniewski, D., Stahlbaum, C., Bard, J., Thomas, L. & Boyse, E.A. (1987). Relation of MHC-related mating preferences to post-natal chemosensory imprinting. Chemical Senses, 12, 711.Google Scholar
  47. Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G.K., Thomas, L. & Boyse, E.A. (1985). The hematopoietic system is a source of odorants that distinguish major histocompatibility types. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 162, 1377–1380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G.K., Wysocki, CJ., Bard, J., Thomas, L. & Boyse, E.A. (1983). Recognition of H-2 types in relation to the blocking of pregnancy in mice. Science, 221, 186–188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yamazaki, K., Boyse, E.A., Mike, V., Thaler, H.T., Mathieson, B.J., Abbott, J., Boyse, J., Zayas, Z.A. & Thomas, L. (1976). Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 144, 1324–1335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yamazaki, K., Yamaguchi, M., Baranoski, L., Bard, J., Boyse, E.A. & Thomas, L. (1979). Recognition among mice: Evidence from the use of a y-maze differentially scented by congenic mice of different mayor histocompatibility types. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 150, 755–760.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yamazaki, K., Yamaguchi, M., Beauchamp, G.K., Bard, J., Boyse, E.A. & Thomas, L. (1981). Chemosensation: An aspea of the uniqueness of the individual. In R.H. Cagan & M.R. Kare (Eds.), Biochemistry of Taste and Olfaction (pp. 85–91). New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yamazaki, K., Yamaguchi, M., Boyse, E.A. & Thomas, L. (1980). The major histocompatibility complex as a source of odors imparting individuality among mice. In D. Müller-Schwarze & R.M. Silverstein (Eds.), Chemical Signals: Vertebrates and Aquatic Invertebrates (pp. 267–273). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roman Ferstl
    • 1
  • Frank Eggert
    • 1
  1. 1.Institut für PsychologieChristian-Albrechts-UniversitätKielGermany

Personalised recommendations