Rapid Assessment of Olfactory Sensitivity Using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 Neuroscience
Maria Pössel, Jessica Freiherr, Annette Horstmann
{"title":"Rapid Assessment of Olfactory Sensitivity Using the “Sniffin’ Sticks”","authors":"Maria Pössel,&nbsp;Jessica Freiherr,&nbsp;Annette Horstmann","doi":"10.1007/s12078-019-09261-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Assessment of olfactory performance is of high clinical interest in the contexts of smell loss as well as neurological diseases, and recently gained attention in obesity research. Available olfactory tests, especially for assessing olfactory sensitivity, are time-consuming and require high cognitive capacity. Therefore, we aimed to establish a short procedure for reliably testing olfactory sensitivity using a subtest of the “Sniffin’ Sticks” battery. Evaluation criteria are test duration, validity, and test-retest reliability.</p><p>In a preliminary study using a within-subject repeated-measures design, we measured olfactory sensitivity for <i>n</i>-butanol in 20 young and healthy participants. We compared sensitivity obtained with three different measures during two sessions in a pseudo-randomized order: a standard single-staircase three-alternative forced-choice procedure with seven reversals (SSP_7); an abbreviated version with five reversals (SSP_5); and an ascending presentation of 16 dilution steps from lowest to highest odor concentration (brief ascending procedure, BAP).</p><p>Compared to the SSP_7, the BAP was 51%, and the SSP_5 26% shorter in duration. Both the BAP and SSP_5 scores were highly correlated with the SSP_7. The test-retest reliability in all three tests was similar to that typically reported in olfactory research.</p><p>The abbreviated tests are valid measures of olfactory sensitivity. Especially, the BAP is as reliable as the standard method, but remarkably faster and easier to perform.</p><p>Thus, the short procedures bear potential for both research and clinical practice, especially for complex study designs with time constraints on olfactory testing and for patient populations with attention deficits.</p>","PeriodicalId":516,"journal":{"name":"Chemosensory Perception","volume":"13 1","pages":"37 - 44"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12078-019-09261-z","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemosensory Perception","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12078-019-09261-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Neuroscience","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Assessment of olfactory performance is of high clinical interest in the contexts of smell loss as well as neurological diseases, and recently gained attention in obesity research. Available olfactory tests, especially for assessing olfactory sensitivity, are time-consuming and require high cognitive capacity. Therefore, we aimed to establish a short procedure for reliably testing olfactory sensitivity using a subtest of the “Sniffin’ Sticks” battery. Evaluation criteria are test duration, validity, and test-retest reliability.

In a preliminary study using a within-subject repeated-measures design, we measured olfactory sensitivity for n-butanol in 20 young and healthy participants. We compared sensitivity obtained with three different measures during two sessions in a pseudo-randomized order: a standard single-staircase three-alternative forced-choice procedure with seven reversals (SSP_7); an abbreviated version with five reversals (SSP_5); and an ascending presentation of 16 dilution steps from lowest to highest odor concentration (brief ascending procedure, BAP).

Compared to the SSP_7, the BAP was 51%, and the SSP_5 26% shorter in duration. Both the BAP and SSP_5 scores were highly correlated with the SSP_7. The test-retest reliability in all three tests was similar to that typically reported in olfactory research.

The abbreviated tests are valid measures of olfactory sensitivity. Especially, the BAP is as reliable as the standard method, but remarkably faster and easier to perform.

Thus, the short procedures bear potential for both research and clinical practice, especially for complex study designs with time constraints on olfactory testing and for patient populations with attention deficits.

Abstract Image

用“嗅探棒”快速评估嗅觉灵敏度
嗅觉表现的评估在嗅觉丧失和神经系统疾病的背景下具有很高的临床价值,最近在肥胖研究中得到了关注。现有的嗅觉测试,特别是评估嗅觉敏感性的测试,耗时且需要很高的认知能力。因此,我们的目标是建立一个简短的程序,使用“嗅探棒”电池的子测试来可靠地测试嗅觉灵敏度。评估标准包括测试持续时间、有效性和测试重测信度。在一项使用受试者重复测量设计的初步研究中,我们测量了20名年轻健康参与者对正丁醇的嗅觉敏感性。我们以伪随机顺序比较了两次会议中三种不同测量方法获得的灵敏度:标准的单楼梯三种选择强制选择程序,7次逆转(SSP_7);包含5个反转的缩写版本(SSP_5);以及从最低到最高气味浓度的16个稀释步骤的上升呈现(简短上升程序,BAP)。与SSP_7相比,BAP缩短51%,SSP_5持续时间缩短26%。BAP和SSP_5得分与SSP_7得分高度相关。这三个测试的重测信度与嗅觉研究的典型报告相似。简略试验是嗅觉灵敏度的有效测量方法。特别是,BAP与标准方法一样可靠,但执行起来明显更快、更容易。因此,短程序在研究和临床实践中都具有潜力,特别是对于嗅觉测试时间限制的复杂研究设计和患有注意力缺陷的患者群体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Chemosensory Perception
Chemosensory Perception 农林科学-神经科学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Coverage in Chemosensory Perception includes animal work with implications for human phenomena and explores the following areas: Identification of chemicals producing sensory response; Identification of sensory response associated with chemicals; Human in vivo response to chemical stimuli; Human in vitro response to chemical stimuli; Neuroimaging of chemosensory function; Neurological processing of chemoreception; Chemoreception mechanisms; Psychophysics of chemoperception; Trigeminal function; Multisensory perception; Contextual effect on chemoperception; Behavioral response to chemical stimuli; Physiological factors affecting and contributing to chemoperception; Flavor and hedonics; Memory and chemoperception.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信