Assessment of odor hedonic perception: the Sniffin' sticks parosmia test (SSParoT)

David T Liu, Antje Welge-Lüssen, Gerold Besser, Christian A Mueller, Bertold Renner, David T Liu, Antje Welge-Lüssen, Gerold Besser, Christian A Mueller, Bertold Renner

Abstract

Qualitative olfactory dysfunction is characterized as distorted odor perception and can have a profound effect on quality of life of affected individuals. Parosmia and phantosmia represent the two main subgroups of qualitative impairment and are currently diagnosed based on patient history only. We have developed a test method which measures qualitative olfactory function based on the odors of the Sniffin' Sticks Identification subtest. The newly developed test is called Sniffin' Sticks Parosmia Test (SSParoT). SSParoT uses hedonic estimates of two oppositely valenced odors (pleasant and unpleasant) to assess hedonic range (HR) and hedonic direction (HD), which represent qualitative olfactory perception. HR is defined as the perceivable hedonic distance between two oppositely valenced odors, while HD serves as an indicator for overall hedonic perception of odors. This multicenter study enrolled a total of 162 normosmic subjects in four consecutive experiments. Cluster analysis was used to group odors from the 16-item Sniffin' Sticks Identification test and 24-additional odors into clusters with distinct hedonic properties. Eleven odor pairs were found to be suitable for estimation of HR and HD. Analysis showed agreement between test-retest sessions for all odor pairs. SSparoT might emerge as a valuable tool to assess qualitative olfactory function in health and disease.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(a) Hedonic and (b) intensity ratings from odors used for the SSParoT. Columns are presented as mean ± standard deviation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Bland–Altman plots of hedonic range (HR) for all 11 odor pairs. (A) Peppermint and Fish (B) Apple and Garlic (C) Pineapple and Turpentine (D) Banana and Clove (E) Peach and Butter; (F) Coco and n-Butyric acid (G) Caramel and iso-Butyric acid (H) Raspberry and Indole (I) Ice bonbon and Skatole (J) Lemon and Civet (K) Orange and Valeric acid. The dotted line represents the bias and 95% limits of agreement are indicated by the grey area.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Bland–Altman plots of hedonic direction (HD) for all 11 odor pairs. (A) Peppermint and Fish (B) Apple and Garlic (C) Pineapple and Turpentine (D) Banana and Clove (E) Peach and Butter; (F) Coco and n-Butyric acid (G) Caramel and iso-Butyric acid (H) Raspberry and Indole (I) Ice bonbon and Skatole (J) Lemon and Civet (K) Orange and Valeric acid. The dotted line represents the bias and 95% limits of agreement are indicated by the grey area.

References

    1. Wesson DW, Wilson DA, Nixon RA. Editorial: Should olfactory dysfunction be used as a biomarker of Alzheimer’s disease? Expert Rev. Neurother. 2010;10:633–635. doi: 10.1586/ern.10.33.
    1. Rahayel S, Frasnelli J, Joubert S. The effect of Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease on olfaction: a meta-analysis. Behav. Brain Res. 2012;231:60–74. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2012.02.047.
    1. Marin C, et al. Olfactory dysfunction in neurodegenerative diseases. Curr. Allergy Asthma Rep. 2018;18:42. doi: 10.1007/s11882-018-0796-4.
    1. Naudin M, et al. State and trait olfactory markers of major depression. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e46938. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046938.
    1. Atanasova B, Gaillard P, Minier F, Belzung C, El-Hage W. Hedonic olfactory perception in depression: relationship between self-evaluation and autonomic response. Psychology. 2012;3:959–965. doi: 10.4236/psych.2012.311144.
    1. Atanasova B, et al. Olfactory anhedonia and negative olfactory alliesthesia in depressed patients. Psychiatry Res. 2010;176:190–196. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2008.11.016.
    1. Hummel T, et al. Position paper on olfactory dysfunction. Rhinol. Suppl. 2017;54:1–30. doi: 10.4193/Rhino16.248.
    1. Leopold D. Distortion of olfactory perception: diagnosis and treatment. Chem. Senses. 2002;27:611–615. doi: 10.1093/chemse/27.7.611.
    1. Hong SC, Holbrook EH, Leopold DA, Hummel T. Distorted olfactory perception: a systematic review. Acta Otolaryngol. 2012;132:27–31. doi: 10.3109/00016489.2012.659759.
    1. Frasnelli J, et al. Clinical presentation of qualitative olfactory dysfunction. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2004;261:411–415. doi: 10.1007/s00405-003-0703-y.
    1. Croy I, Nordin S, Hummel T. Olfactory disorders and quality of life-an updated review. Chem. Senses. 2014;39:185–194. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjt072.
    1. Keller A, Malaspina D. Hidden consequences of olfactory dysfunction: a patient report series. BMC Ear Nose Throat Disord. 2013;13:8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6815-13-8.
    1. Bonfils P, Avan P, Faulcon P, Malinvaud D. Distorted odorant perception: analysis of a series of 56 patients with parosmia. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2005;131:107–112. doi: 10.1001/archotol.131.2.107.
    1. Chen C, et al. Olfactory auras in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy. Epilepsia. 2003;44:257–260. doi: 10.1046/j.1528-1157.2003.25902.x.
    1. Coleman ER, Grosberg BM, Robbins MS. Olfactory hallucinations in primary headache disorders: case series and literature review. Cephalalgia. 2011;31:1477–1489. doi: 10.1177/0333102411423315.
    1. Nordin S, Brämerson A, Millqvist E, Bende M. Prevalence of parosmia: the Skövde population-based studies. Rhinology. 2007;45:50–53.
    1. Sjölund S, Larsson M, Olofsson JK, Seubert J, Laukka EJ. Phantom smells: prevalence and correlates in a population-based sample of older adults. Chem. Senses. 2017;42:309–318. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjx006.
    1. Quint C, et al. Patterns of non-conductive olfactory disorders in eastern Austria: a study of 120 patients from the Department of Otorhinolaryngology at the University of Vienna. Wien. Klin. Wochenschr. 2001;113:52–57.
    1. Deems DA, et al. Smell and Taste Disorders, A Study of 750 Patients From the University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center. Arch. Otolaryngol. Neck Surg. 1991 doi: 10.1001/archotol.1991.01870170065015.
    1. Nordin S, et al. Prevalence and assessment of qualitative olfactory dysfunction in different age groups. Laryngoscope. 1996;106:739–744. doi: 10.1097/00005537-199606000-00014.
    1. Reden J, Maroldt H, Fritz A, Zahnert T, Hummel T. A study on the prognostic significance of qualitative olfactory dysfunction. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2007;264:139–144. doi: 10.1007/s00405-006-0157-0.
    1. Hummel T, Lötsch J. Prognostic factors of olfactory dysfunction. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2010;136:347–351. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2010.27.
    1. Liu, D. T. et al. Parosmia is associated with relevant olfactory recovery after olfactory training. Authorea
    1. Welge-Luessen A, Hummel T, Stojan T, Wolfensberger M. What is the correlation between ratings and measures of olfactory function in patients with olfactory loss? Am. J. Rhinol. 2005;19:567–571. doi: 10.1177/194589240501900606.
    1. Landis BN, Hummel T, Hugentobler M, Giger R, Lacroix JS. Ratings of overall olfactory function. Chem. Senses. 2003;28:691–694. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjg061.
    1. Lötsch J, Hummel T. Clinical usefulness of self-rated olfactory performance: a data science-based assessment of 6000 patients. Chem Senses. 2019;44:357–364. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjz029.
    1. Landis BN, Frasnelli J, Croy I, Hummel T. Evaluating the clinical usefulness of structured questions in parosmia assessment. Laryngoscope. 2010;120:1707–1783. doi: 10.1002/lary.20955.
    1. Liu DT, et al. Association between orthonasal olfaction and chemosensory perception in patients with smell loss. Laryngoscope. 2020 doi: 10.1002/lary.28773.
    1. Kobal G, et al. Sniffin’’ sticks": screening of olfactory performance. Rhinology. 1996;34:222–226.
    1. Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, Pauli E, Kobal G. ‘Sniffin’ sticks’. Olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem. Senses. 1997;22:39–52. doi: 10.1093/chemse/22.1.39.
    1. Oleszkiewicz A, Schriever VA, Croy I, Hähner A, Hummel T. Updated Sniffin’ Sticks normative data based on an extended sample of 9139 subjects. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2019;276:719–728. doi: 10.1007/s00405-018-5248-1.
    1. Hummel T, Kobal G, Gudziol H, Mackay-Sim A. Normative data for the ‘Sniffin’’ Sticks" including tests of odor identification, odor discrimination, and olfactory thresholds: an upgrade based on a group of more than 3,000 subjects’. Eur. Arch. Oto-Rhino-Laryngol. 2007;264:237–243. doi: 10.1007/s00405-006-0173-0.
    1. Doty RL, et al. Smell identification ability: changes with age. Science. 1984;226:1441–1443. doi: 10.1126/science.6505700.
    1. Doty RL. An examination of relationships between the pleasantness, intensity, and concentration of 10 odorous stimuli. Percept. Psychophys. 1975;17:492–496. doi: 10.3758/BF03203300.
    1. Royet JP, et al. Rating of different olfactory judgements in Alzheimer’s disease. Chem. Senses. 2001;6:409–417. doi: 10.1093/chemse/26.4.409.
    1. Jiang T, et al. Alliesthesia to food cues: Heterogeneity across stimuli and sensory modalities. Physiol. Behav. 2008;95:464–470. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2008.07.014.
    1. Ayabe-Kanamura S, et al. Differences in perception of everyday odors: a Japanese-German cross-cultural study. Chem. Senses. 1998;23:31–38. doi: 10.1093/chemse/23.1.31.
    1. Pospichalova K, Vodicka J, Kopal A. New test of odor pleasantness in Parkinson’s disease. Funct. Neurol. 2016;31:149–155.
    1. Vodička J, Meloun M, Příhodová L. Brief evaluation of pleasantness of olfactory and trigeminal stimulants. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2010;136:901–907. doi: 10.1001/archoto.2010.150.
    1. Thomas-Danguin T, et al. The perception of odor objects in everyday life: a review on the processing of odor mixtures. Front. Psychol. 2014;5:504. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00504.
    1. Wise PM, Olsson MJ, Cain WS. Quantification of odor quality. Chem. Senses. 2000;25:429. doi: 10.1093/chemse/25.4.429.
    1. Kermen F, et al. Molecular complexity determines the number of olfactory notes and the pleasantness of smells. Sci. Rep. 2011;1:206. doi: 10.1038/srep00206.
    1. Walsh-Messinger J, et al. Sex differences in hedonic judgement of odors in schizophrenia cases and healthy controls. Psychiatry Res. 2018;269:345–353. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2018.08.058.
    1. Hummel T, Knecht M, Kobal G. Peripherally obtained electrophysiological responses to olfactory stimulation in man: electro-olfactograms exhibit a smaller degree of desensitization compared with subjective intensity estimates. Brain Res. 1996;717:160–164. doi: 10.1016/0006-8993(96)00094-7.
    1. Zernecke R, et al. Correlation analyses of detection thresholds of four different odorants. Rhinology. 2011;49:331–336.
    1. Mueller C, et al. Quantitative assessment of gustatory function in a clinical context using impregnated “taste strips”. Rhinology. 2003;41:2–6.
    1. Gudziol H, Hummel T. Normative values for the assessment of gustatory function using liquid tastants. Acta Otolaryngol. 2007;127:658–661. doi: 10.1080/00016480600951491.
    1. Besser G, et al. Retronasal olfactory testing using candies sent by post and for screening purposes: a feasibility study. Rhinology. 2020;58:218–225.
    1. Liu DT, et al. Odor mixtures in identification testing using Sniffin’ Sticks: The SSomix Test. Sci. Rep. 2020;10:8155. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-65028-7.
    1. Leopold DA, Loehrl TA, Schwob JE. Long-term follow-up of surgically treated phantosmia. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2002;128:642–647. doi: 10.1001/archotol.128.6.642.
    1. Leopold DA, et al. Successful treatment of phantosmia with preservation of olfaction. Arch. Otolaryngol. Neck Surg. 1991;117:1402–1406. doi: 10.1001/archotol.1991.01870240094016.
    1. Landis BN, Konnerth CG, Hummel T. A study on the frequency of olfactory dysfunction. Laryngoscope. 2004;114:1764–1769. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200410000-00017.
    1. Jones LV, Peryam DR, Thurstone LL. Development of a scale for measuring soldiers’ food preferences. J. Food Sci. 1955;20:512–520. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1955.tb16862.x.
    1. Peryam DR, Pilgrim FJ. Hedonic scale method of measuring food preferences. Food Technol. 1957;11:9–14.
    1. AWMF Leitlinie. Riech- und Schmeckstörungen. (2016).
    1. Bensafi M, Rouby C, Farget V, Vigouroux M, Holley A. Asymmetry of pleasant vs. unpleasant odor processing during affective judgment in humans. Neurosci. Lett. 2002;328:309–313. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3940(02)00548-7.
    1. Croy I, Maboshe W, Hummel T. Habituation effects of pleasant and unpleasant odors. Int. J. Psychophysiol. 2013;88:104–108. doi: 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2013.02.005.
    1. Distel H. Perception of everyday odors correlation between intensity, familiarity and strength of hedonic judgement. Chem. Senses. 1999;24:191–199. doi: 10.1093/chemse/24.2.191.
    1. Henion KE. Odor pleasantness and intensity: a single dimension? J. Exp. Psychol. 1971;90:275–279. doi: 10.1037/h0031549.
    1. Moskowitz HR, Dravnieks A, Klarman LA. Odor intensity and pleasantness for a diverse set of odorants. Percept. Psychophys. 1976;19:122–128. doi: 10.3758/BF03204218.
    1. Mueller C. Quantitative assessment of gustatory function in a clinical context using impregnated ‘taste strips’. Rhinology. 2003;41:2–6.
    1. Mrochen A, et al. From sweet to sweat: Hedonic olfactory range is impaired in Parkinson’s disease. Parkinson Relat. Disord. 2016;22:9–14. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2015.09.035.
    1. Berglund B, Engen T. A comparison of self-adaptation and cross-adaptation to odorants presented singly and in mixtures. Perception. 1993;22:103–111. doi: 10.1068/p220103.
    1. Cain WS. Odor intensity after self-adaptation and cross-adaptation. Percept. Psychophys. 1970;7:271–275. doi: 10.3758/BF03210163.
    1. Cain WS, Engen T. Olfactory adaptation and the scaling of odor intensity. In: Pfaffmann C, editor. Olfaction and Taste. New York: Springer; 1969.
    1. Green BG, et al. Evaluating the ‘labeled magnitude scale’ for measuring sensations of taste and smell. Chem. Senses. 1996;21:323–334. doi: 10.1093/chemse/21.3.323.
    1. Bartoshuk LM, et al. Valid across-group comparisons with labeled scales: The gLMS versus magnitude matching. Physiol. Behav. 2004;82:109–114. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.02.033.
    1. Poncelet J, et al. Semantic knowledge influences prewired hedonic responses to odors. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e13878. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013878.
    1. Kamath V, Turetsky BI, Moberg PJ. Identification of pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant odors in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res. 2011;187:30–35. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.12.011.
    1. Sokal RR. A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. Univ. Kans. Sci. Bull. 1958;38:1409–1438.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Measuring agreement in method comparison studies. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 1999;8:135–160. doi: 10.1177/096228029900800204.
    1. Renner B, Zapf S, Esmi AH, Esfandevari I, Mueller CA. A new test for qualitative olfactory dysfunction using an extended version of the “Sniffin’Sticks”. Front. Neurosci. Hum. Chemosens. 2010 doi: 10.3389/conf.fnins.2011.85.00001.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel