Perception of components in binary odour mixtures

Laing, David G.; Willcox, M. E.

doi:10.1093/chemse/7.3-4.249

Cited by 97 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with mixture suppression, odors of many common foods and fragrances appear to be dominated by notes of single compounds that impart characteristic, albeit crude, identities [20,25,26,61]. Because odor-component identification is suppressed in mixtures [44,45,46], we surmise that olfactory notes originate from very few components that dominate odors of mixtures due to their relative strength at a given point in time [39,56]. "Top note," "middle note" and "bottom note" [62] are terms used to specify the timing of successive odors emerging from fragrant stimulus mixtures.…”

Section: Mixture Component Identification Reveals Analytic Odor Prmentioning

confidence: 75%

“…The subjects easily learned to use odor labels for single components before testing sessions. The 4 compounds, with concentrations adjusted to moderate odor intensities consistent with mixture suppression [39], exhibited mixture suppression during testing. Control identification proved to be reduced in 3 and 4 component mixtures (F(1,13) = 28.80, p < 0.0001) even though odors of the 4 single compounds were not recognized with equal frequency (F(3,39) = 4.27, p < 0.009).…”

Section: Mixture Component Identification Reveals Analytic Odor Prmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Characteristic component odors emerge from mixtures after selective adaptation

Goyert

Frank

Gent

et al. 2007

Brain Research Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans cannot reliably identify the distinctive characteristic odors of components in mixtures containing more than three compounds. In the present study we demonstrate that selective adaptation can improve component identification. Characteristic component odors, lost in mixtures, were identifiable after presenting other mixture constituents for a few seconds. In mixtures of vanillin, isopropyl alcohol, l-menthol and phenethyl alcohol, this rapid selective adaptation unmasked each component. We suggest that these findings relate directly to how olfactory qualities are coded: olfactory receptors do not act as detectors of isolated molecular features, but likely recognize entire molecules closely associated with perceived olfactory qualities or "notes." Rapid and focused activation of a few distinct receptor types may dominate most odor percepts, emphasizing the importance of many dynamic and specific neural signals. An interaction between two fundamental coding strategies, mixture suppression and selective adaptation, with hundreds of potential olfactory notes, explains humans experiencing the appearance and disappearance of identifiable odors against ambient mixture backgrounds.

show abstract

Section: Mixture Component Identification Reveals Analytic Odor Prmentioning

confidence: 75%

Section: Mixture Component Identification Reveals Analytic Odor Prmentioning

confidence: 97%

Characteristic component odors emerge from mixtures after selective adaptation

Goyert

Frank

Gent

et al. 2007

Brain Research Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Laing and Willcox reported that (1) mixtures composed of two odors of equal perceived (unmixed) intensity were profiled as a combination of the separate odor profiles, even though some features were missing in the mixture; and (2) very small changes in the ratio of the perceived intensities of the individual components shifted the perception of the mixture largely in the direction of the stronger component. Laing and Willcox (1983) noted in their study that their profiling technique was not necessarily sensitive enough to detect whether participants could actually discriminate between the binary mixtures even though the profiles may have been similar. Their results implied that when the perceived intensity of one of the mixture components increased over that of the other, the profiling of the stimulus shifted categorically in the direction of the more intense.…”

Section: Implications For Mixture Perceptionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Experience facilitates olfactory quality discrimination

Rabin

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

192

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Perceptual learning in olfactory quality discrimination was investigated in two experiments. In Experiment 1, it was asked whether training participants to label target odorants would improve subsequent discrimination performance. Four groups participated. Prior to discrimination testing, one group was asked to provide a name for each of seven target odors and received training to ensure that reliable naming occurred (label training). A second group profiled the quality of the target odorants, using an odor-adjective attribute list (profile group). A third group was trained to label seven control odorants, and a fourth received no prior experience. Discrimination performance by each group ranked as follows: [label training on targets] > [profile experience on targets] > [label training on controls = no prediscrimination experience]. Experiment 2 was designed to relate the odor knowledge a participant brought into the experiment to performance on a discrimination task wherein an odorant (the target) was paired either with itself or with a mixture consisting of target odorant plus a familiar or an unfamiliar contaminant (target transform). Six different targets were selected for each participant, to represent three familiar and three unfamiliar odors. Familiar targets and familiar contaminants facilitated discrimination. Taken together, these two experiments demonstrate that olfactory quality discrimination can be improved through training, or via experience naturally accumulated over time.

show abstract

“…This suggestion implies that, if the total nasal perceived intensity of the mixtures is broken down by the subjects into perceived odor and perceived pungency (see Cain, 1976), odor should show hypoaddition, as has been the case in olfactory studies (Berglund, 1974;Berglund, Berglund, & Lindvall, 1971Cain, 1975;Cain & Drexler, 1974;Foster, 1963;Jones & Woskow, 1964;Laffort & Dravnieks, 1982;Laing, Panhuber, Willcox, & Pittman, 1984;Laing & Willcox, 1983;Lawless, 1987;Moskowitz & Barbe, 1977;Patte & Laffort, 1979;Zwaardemaker, 1907), with very few exceptions (Baker, 1964;Koster, 1969;Rosen, Peter, & Middleton, 1962), whereas pungency should show simple addition and even hyperaddition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Odorous and pungent attributes of mixed and unmixed odorants

Cometto-Muñniz

Hernández

1990

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to explore functional properties of the olfactory and common chemical senses as well as their relation to the total nasal sensation experienced, various concentrations of two pungent odorants were presented alone and in the presence of different backgrounds of the other irritant. Stimuli comprised formaldehyde (at 1.0, 3.5, 6.9, and 16.7 ppm), ammonia (at 210, 776, 1,172, and 1,716 ppm), and their 16 possible binary mixtures. Subjects were asked to estimate the total nasal perceived intensity, and then to assess the olfactory (odor) and common chemical (pungency) attributes of the evoked sensations. The results showed that stimulus-response functions for pungency are steeper than those for odor. Furthermore, odor was always hypoadditive in mixtures (i.e., mixtures were perceived as less intense than the sum of their components), whereas pungency was, mainly, additive, and even suggested hyperadditivity. Total perceived intensity of the stimuli, alone and in mixtures, followed the stimulus-response patterns for pungency, which, therefore, emerged as the dominating attribute used by subjects in scaling the explored range of concentrations. The relationship between total nasal perceived intensity of the mixtures and that of their components reflected hypoaddition, resembling the outcome for the odor attribute.Humans are able to detect airborne chemicals in the environment by means of two sensory systems present in the nose: the olfactory sense and the common chemical sense (CCS). Common chemical sensitivity is not restricted to the nasal mucosa, but extends to the oral mucosa and the conjunctiva. So far as is known, the CCS lacks specialized receptors, which the other chemical sensestaste and smell-have, so the sensations aroused by CCS stimulation are mediated principally by free nerve endings of the trigeminal nerve (Beidler,

show abstract

Perception of components in binary odour mixtures

Cited by 97 publications

References 0 publications

Characteristic component odors emerge from mixtures after selective adaptation

Characteristic component odors emerge from mixtures after selective adaptation

Experience facilitates olfactory quality discrimination

Odorous and pungent attributes of mixed and unmixed odorants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About