The majority of olfactory psychophysics data are from low odor labs using pure odors delivered directly to the nostrils. While useful, these experiments tell us little about human olfaction in natural environments, most commonly the built environment. We asked volunteers at Londonarea markets to smell four odors in order to determine if environmental signals (e.g., fish stalls, cooking foods) interfered with identifying odors under one's nose. We found that less than one odor per person was correctly identified. Further, we found that lemon had the highest market identification rate but was not as well identified in the lab. Do some odors have greater significance when smelled in the wild? While this study was limited (e.g., lack of repeated . CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license It is made available under a (which was not peer-reviewed) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity.The copyright holder for this preprint . http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/270744 doi: bioRxiv preprint first posted online Feb. 23, 2018; 2 measures, small samples), we feel it uncovers the value of incorporating ecology into research that seeks to understand the functional use of human olfaction.
Objectives: We know little about human olfactory ability in natural settings because current knowledge derives from lab-based studies using nonrepresentative samples of convenience. The primary objective was to use a validated lab tool, the five-item odor identification test, to assess variation in olfactory ability in different environments. Methods: Using the five-item test, we conducted two repeated measures experiments that assessed participant ability to correctly identify an odor source in different odor environments. We also examined consistency in odor labelling due to documented potential bias from idiosyncrasies in odor terms. Results: We found no variation in olfactory ability due to environment, but this may be due to methodological biases. First, subjective bias results from idiosyncratic differences in participant labelling and researcher coding of answer correctness. Second, better ability to learn odors may provide an advantage to women. Third, reducing positive female learning bias by analyzing consistency in response (regardless of correct odor source identification) results in no sex differences but fails to assess the functional aspect of olfactory ability (naming the correct odor source). Fourth, functional olfactory ability is significantly better in women, especially in food-rich odor environments. Conclusions: Environment was not a significant factor in olfactory ability in this study but that result may be confounded by methodological biases. We do not recommend odor identification as a field tool. Functional olfactory ability exhibits a sex-based pattern but consistency in recognizing the same odor does not. Food-rich odors may enhance olfactory ability in females. We discuss evolutionary and ecological implications of superior female functional olfactory ability relative to food foraging activity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.