Dependency of olfactory localization on non-olfactory cues☆☆☆

Schneider, Robert A.; Schmidt, Charles E.

doi:10.1016/0031-9384(67)90084-4

Cited by 55 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The stimuli employed, however, likely had considerable trigeminal impact (benzol, eucalyptus, cloves, and lavender). A previous study (von Skramlik, 1925) and more recent work (Kobal, Van Toller, and Hummel, 1989;Schneider and Schmidt, 1967) presented robust data showing that localization to one or the other nostril is only possible via trigeminal and not olfactory activation. Thus, nasal localization thresholds can be measured in normosmics and in anosmics using a forced-choice procedure, and provide a mean to probe into nasal trigeminal sensitivity devoid of olfactory interference.…”

Section: B Functional Dissociation Of Trigeminal and Olfactory Respomentioning

confidence: 92%

Trigeminal Chemosensation

Cometto‐Muñiz¹,

Doty²

2003

Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: B Functional Dissociation Of Trigeminal and Olfactory Respomentioning

confidence: 92%

Trigeminal Chemosensation

Cometto‐Muñiz¹,

Doty²

2003

Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Other investigations have concluded that localization may occur only via chemesthesis, and not olfaction (Kobal et al 1989, Schneider andSchmidt 1967). This outcome suggested the possibility that when a vapor can just be lateralized, it has just reached the threshold of true pungency in either the anosmic or the normosmic subject.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 93%

Trigeminal and olfactory sensitivity: comparison of modalities and methods of measurement

1998

International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The principal objective was to chart sensitivity for human nasal irritation by alternative psychophysical methods, a common detection procedure vs. a nasal lateralization procedure that required the subject to indicate whether a vapor had stimulated the left or right nostril. This objective relates to the broader issues: a) whether subjects with normal olfaction (normosmics) can yield, through novel methodology, an index of sensitivity to nasal irritation comparable to that obtained from subjects without olfaction (anosmics) and b) whether both types of subjects have similar irritation sensitivity in general. This study sought to gauge interconvertability both between types of subjects and between modes of stimulus presentation, for irritative and, where appropriate, olfactory stimulation.Methods: Static dilution series of four n-aliphatic alcohols, chosen to represent volatile organic compounds (VOCs), provided the source of calibrated olfactory and irritative vapors, emitted from their squeezable containers into the nose or eye by either a mechanical device or by hand.Standard psychophysical methodology (forced-choice; ascending strength of stimulation) served to chart detection thresholds for irritation and odor and an analogous procedure served to chart the threshold for localization of stimulation.Results: Within the limits of resolution, detection thresholds and nasal localization thresholds yielded comparable indices of the potency of the VOCs to evoke nasal irritation. The thresholds agreed well with those for detection of eye irritation, though only the eyes proved able to detect irritation from 1-octanol. The method of emitting the stimulus had little material effect on measures of either irritative or olfactory detection. Conclusions:The threshold for nasal localization offers a suitable way to measure nasal irritation in normosmic persons. Olfactory stimulation does not interfere with the measure since subjects cannot localize on that basis. Anosmic and normosmic persons have comparable sensitivity to nasal and ocular irritation. If anosmic persons have any lower sensitivity, as sometimes claimed, it would seem to have only trivial consequences for estimates of the irritative potency of VOCs.

show abstract

“…The task of nasal lateralization (or localization), whereby the subject seeks to identify the nostril (right or left) receiving the chemical stimulus when the other nostril simultaneously receives an identical puff of blank air, has proven a convenient tool to probe into detection of nasal chemesthesis unbiased by smell (Wysocki et al 1997;Cometto-Muñiz and Cain 1998;Dalton et al 2000). The approach relies on the observation that nasal lateralization is only achieved through trigeminal chemesthetic activation, not through olfactory stimulation (Schneider and Schmidt 1967;Kobal et al 1989). In the eyes, chemical stimulation with vapors exclusively activates chemesthesis, resulting in eye irritation (Belmonte et al 2004), and olfactory cues can be easily avoided by plugging the nose of the subject.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Concentration-detection functions for eye irritation evoked by homologous n-alcohols and acetates approaching a cut-off point

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We measured concentration-detection (i.e., psychometric) functions for the eye irritation evoked by three homologous n-alcohols (1-nonanol, 1-decanol, and 1-undecanol) and two homologous acetates (nonyl and decyl acetate). A vapor delivery device based on a dynamic dilution of stimuli in nitrogen served to present various concentrations of each compound, including the undiluted vapor, to the subjects (n≥26).Delivered concentrations were quantified by gas chromatography. Detection probability (P) was assessed via a three-alternative, forced-choice procedure, and quantified on a scale ranging from P = 0.0 (chance detection) to P = 1.0 (perfect detection). Flowrate to the eye equaled 2.5 L/min and time of exposure was 6 sec. The functions for 1-undecanol and decyl acetate plateau at P ≈ 0.5 and P ≈ 0.25, respectively, such that further increases in concentration failed to increase detection notably. Thus, both series reached a break-point, or cut-off, in detection of ocular irritation. The present outcome provides additional evidence that the cut-off does not rest on the low vapor concentration of the homolog but, more likely, on the homolog exceeding a critical molecular dimension(s) which prevents it from interacting effectively with the appropriate receptors.

show abstract

Dependency of olfactory localization on non-olfactory cues☆☆☆

Cited by 55 publications

References 6 publications

Trigeminal Chemosensation

Trigeminal Chemosensation

Trigeminal and olfactory sensitivity: comparison of modalities and methods of measurement

Concentration-detection functions for eye irritation evoked by homologous n-alcohols and acetates approaching a cut-off point

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About