快速嗅觉阈值测定使用上升限制程序

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 Neuroscience
Rik Sijben, Claudia Panzram, Rea Rodriguez-Raecke, Thomas Haarmeier, Jessica Freiherr
{"title":"快速嗅觉阈值测定使用上升限制程序","authors":"Rik Sijben,&nbsp;Claudia Panzram,&nbsp;Rea Rodriguez-Raecke,&nbsp;Thomas Haarmeier,&nbsp;Jessica Freiherr","doi":"10.1007/s12078-017-9239-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Sniffin’ Sticks test battery is currently considered the best alternative for the measurement of olfactory threshold, discrimination and identification capabilities. These tests still suffer from limitations, however. Most noticeably, the olfactory threshold test is an intensive task which requires participants to smell a large number of olfactory stimuli. This proves especially problematic when measuring olfactory performance of elderly patients or screening research subjects, as sensory adaptation plays an important role in olfactory perception.</p><p>In the current study, we have determined that the cause of this limitation lies with the test’s single-staircase procedure (SSP). Consequentially, we have devised an alternative ascending limits procedure (ALP). We here compared data obtained using both procedures, following a within-subject design with 40 participants. Olfactory threshold scores as well as number of trials required to complete the two procedures were investigated.</p><p>The results show that the ALP provides reliable and correct olfactory threshold ratings, as the values showed a good correlation with those obtained using the SSP and mean values did not differ significantly. Task duration, however, did show a highly significant difference, completing the SSP required participants to complete over 40% more trials compared to the ALP.</p><p>The here presented methodological improvement can save time and, more importantly, reduce participants’ cognitive and sensory strain, which is not only more comfortable, but also limits the influence of adaptation, making any measured data more reliable.</p><p>Improving standard screening methods can directly enhance the reliability of any future study using this procedure.</p>","PeriodicalId":516,"journal":{"name":"Chemosensory Perception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12078-017-9239-1","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fast Olfactory Threshold Determination Using an Ascending Limits Procedure\",\"authors\":\"Rik Sijben,&nbsp;Claudia Panzram,&nbsp;Rea Rodriguez-Raecke,&nbsp;Thomas Haarmeier,&nbsp;Jessica Freiherr\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12078-017-9239-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The Sniffin’ Sticks test battery is currently considered the best alternative for the measurement of olfactory threshold, discrimination and identification capabilities. These tests still suffer from limitations, however. Most noticeably, the olfactory threshold test is an intensive task which requires participants to smell a large number of olfactory stimuli. This proves especially problematic when measuring olfactory performance of elderly patients or screening research subjects, as sensory adaptation plays an important role in olfactory perception.</p><p>In the current study, we have determined that the cause of this limitation lies with the test’s single-staircase procedure (SSP). Consequentially, we have devised an alternative ascending limits procedure (ALP). We here compared data obtained using both procedures, following a within-subject design with 40 participants. Olfactory threshold scores as well as number of trials required to complete the two procedures were investigated.</p><p>The results show that the ALP provides reliable and correct olfactory threshold ratings, as the values showed a good correlation with those obtained using the SSP and mean values did not differ significantly. Task duration, however, did show a highly significant difference, completing the SSP required participants to complete over 40% more trials compared to the ALP.</p><p>The here presented methodological improvement can save time and, more importantly, reduce participants’ cognitive and sensory strain, which is not only more comfortable, but also limits the influence of adaptation, making any measured data more reliable.</p><p>Improving standard screening methods can directly enhance the reliability of any future study using this procedure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemosensory Perception\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-11-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12078-017-9239-1\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemosensory Perception\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12078-017-9239-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Neuroscience\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemosensory Perception","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12078-017-9239-1","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

摘要

嗅探棒测试电池目前被认为是测量嗅觉阈值、辨别和识别能力的最佳选择。然而,这些测试仍然存在局限性。最值得注意的是,嗅觉阈值测试是一项密集的任务,要求参与者闻到大量的嗅觉刺激。这在测量老年患者的嗅觉表现或筛选研究对象时尤其成问题,因为感觉适应在嗅觉感知中起着重要作用。在目前的研究中,我们已经确定这种限制的原因在于测试的单阶梯程序(SSP)。因此,我们设计了一个替代的上升极限程序(ALP)。我们在这里比较了使用这两种方法获得的数据,遵循40名参与者的受试者内设计。嗅觉阈值得分以及完成这两个程序所需的试验次数进行了调查。结果表明,ALP提供了可靠和正确的嗅觉阈值评级,因为这些值与使用SSP获得的值显示出良好的相关性,并且平均值没有显着差异。然而,任务持续时间确实显示出高度显著的差异,完成SSP需要参与者比ALP多完成40%以上的试验。本文提出的方法改进可以节省时间,更重要的是减少参与者的认知和感觉紧张,这不仅更舒适,而且限制了适应的影响,使任何测量数据更可靠。改进标准筛选方法可以直接提高使用该程序的任何未来研究的可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Fast Olfactory Threshold Determination Using an Ascending Limits Procedure

Fast Olfactory Threshold Determination Using an Ascending Limits Procedure

The Sniffin’ Sticks test battery is currently considered the best alternative for the measurement of olfactory threshold, discrimination and identification capabilities. These tests still suffer from limitations, however. Most noticeably, the olfactory threshold test is an intensive task which requires participants to smell a large number of olfactory stimuli. This proves especially problematic when measuring olfactory performance of elderly patients or screening research subjects, as sensory adaptation plays an important role in olfactory perception.

In the current study, we have determined that the cause of this limitation lies with the test’s single-staircase procedure (SSP). Consequentially, we have devised an alternative ascending limits procedure (ALP). We here compared data obtained using both procedures, following a within-subject design with 40 participants. Olfactory threshold scores as well as number of trials required to complete the two procedures were investigated.

The results show that the ALP provides reliable and correct olfactory threshold ratings, as the values showed a good correlation with those obtained using the SSP and mean values did not differ significantly. Task duration, however, did show a highly significant difference, completing the SSP required participants to complete over 40% more trials compared to the ALP.

The here presented methodological improvement can save time and, more importantly, reduce participants’ cognitive and sensory strain, which is not only more comfortable, but also limits the influence of adaptation, making any measured data more reliable.

Improving standard screening methods can directly enhance the reliability of any future study using this procedure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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