The impact of health, management, and microbiota on olfactory function in canines has not been examined in review. The most important characteristic of the detection canine is its sense of smell. Olfactory receptors are primarily located on the ethmoturbinates of the nasal cavity. The vomeronasal organ is an additional site of odor detection that detects chemical signals that stimulate behavioral and/or physiological changes. Recent advances in the genetics of olfaction suggest that genetic changes, along with the unique anatomy and airflow of the canine nose, are responsible for the macrosmia of the species. Inflammation, alterations in blood flow and hydration, and systemic diseases alter olfaction and may impact working efficiency of detection canines. The scientific literature contains abundant information on the potential impact of pharmaceuticals on olfaction in humans, but only steroids, antibiotics, and anesthetic agents have been studied in the canine. Physical stressors including exercise, lack of conditioning, and high ambient temperature impact olfaction directly or indirectly in the canine. Dietary fat content, amount of food per meal, and timing of meals have been demonstrated to impact olfaction in mice and dogs. Gastrointestinal (GI) microbiota likely impacts olfaction via bidirectional communication between the GI tract and brain, and the microbiota is impacted by exercise, diet, and stress. The objective of this literature review is to discuss the specific effects of health, management, and microbiota shifts on olfactory performance in working canines.

Previous studies have found that infrequent targets can reduce dogs' vigilance. The purpose of this study was to develop a laboratory model to evaluate the effects of infrequent targets on dogs' search behavior and performance. Dogs (n = 18) were trained to detect smokeless powder in an automated olfactometer in two distinct rooms (“operational” and “training”). During baseline, the dogs received five daily sessions at a high target odor frequency (90%) in both rooms. Subsequently, the frequency of the target odor was decreased to 10% only in the “operational” room but remained at 90% in the training room. Last, the odor prevalence was returned to 90% in both rooms. All dogs showed a significant decrement in detection performance in the operational room when the target odor frequency was decreased but simultaneusly mantained high performance in the training room. This decrement was largely due to decreases in adequate search behavior. All dogs recovered performance when the odor frequency was increased again to 90%. Trial accuracy was associated with tail position, search score, latency, and duration of environmentally directed behaviors. The data show that low target odor prevalence significantly reduced search behavior and performance and that there are behaviors that can be used by handlers to assess their dog's search state.

Detection dogs are commonly trained and tested under conditions in which the handler or the evaluator knows the true presence or absence of a target odor. Previous research has demonstrated that when handlers are deceived and led to believe that a target odor is present, more false alerts occur. However, many detection teams operate under unknown conditions, and it remains unclear how handler knowledge (or lack thereof) of odor presence/absence influences the dog's behavior. The aim of this study was to evaluate if knowing the number of hides placed influenced detection dog performance in an applied search environment. Professional (n = 20) and sport (n = 39) detection handler-dog teams were asked to search three separate areas (area 1 had one hide, area 2 had one hide, area 3 was blank). Handlers in the Unknown Group were not told any information on the number of hides whereas the Known Group were told there was a total of two hides in the three areas. The sport Unknown Group spent a longer duration (69.04 s) searching in area 3 compared to the sport Known Group (p = 0.004). Further, sport dogs in the Unknown group looked back to the handler more frequently. When a miss did occur, dogs of both sport and professional handlers showed an increase interest in the location of the target odor compared to a comparison location. Critically, however, there was no difference in false alerts between the Known Group and Unknown Group for sport or professional handlers. In a second experiment, fourteen professional, and thirty-nine sport teams from Experiment 1 conducted an additional search double-blind and an additional search single-blind. Both sport and professional-handler dog teams had statistically similar accuracy rate under single and double blind conditions. Overall, when handlers knew the number of hides, it led to significant changes in search behavior of the detection team but did not influence the overall false alert rates.

No abstract

Despite dogs’ widespread use as detection systems, little is known about how dogs generalize to variations of an odorant’s concentration. Further, it is unclear whether dogs can be trained to discriminate between similar concentration variations of an odorant. Four dogs were trained to an odorant (0.01 air dilution of isoamyl acetate) in an air-dilution olfactometer, and we assessed spontaneous generalization to a range of concentrations lower than the training stimulus (Generalization Test 1). Dogs generalized to odors within a 10-fold range of the training odorant. Next, we conducted discrimination training to suppress responses to concentrations lower than a concentration dogs showed initial responding towards in Generalization Test 1 (0.0025 air dilution). Dogs successfully discriminated between 0.0025 and 0.01, exceeding 90% accuracy. However, when a second generalization test was conducted (Generalization Test 2), responding at the 0.0025 concentration immediately recovered and was no different than in Generalization Test 1. Dogs were then tested in another generalization test (Compound Discrimination and Generalization) in which generalization probes were embedded within discrimination trials, and dogs showed suppression of responding to the 0.0025 concentration and lower concentrations in this preparation. These data suggest dogs show limited spontaneous generalization across odor concentration and that dogs can be trained to discriminate between similar concentrations of the same odorant. Stimulus control, however, may depend on the negative stimulus, suggesting olfactory concentration generalization may depend on relative stimulus control. These results highlight the importance of considering odor concentration as a dimension for generalization in canine olfactory research.