Normative Data for the New Test of Odour Pleasantness in Healthy Participants

Czech version

Authors: P. Brothánková; J. Vodička
Authors‘ workplace: Klinika otorinolaryngologie a chirurgie hlavy a krku FZS UPa a Pardubická krajská nemocnice, a. s.
Published in: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2015; 78/111(1): 78-82
Category: Short Communication

Overview

Objective:
Olfactory test of odor pleasantness may prove to be additions to comprehensive chemosensory test batteries used in clinical settings. The goal of our work was to establish normative data of the New Test of Odor Pleasantness (NTOP).

Methods:
A total of 236 healthy participants aged 16 to 93 years were included in the study. NTOP is based on classification of 29 odorants and three chemicals with trigeminal component. The participants were asked to categorize the hedonic tone of the odorant into four classes: pleasant, neutral, unpleasant, and fetid (very unpleasant). The normative data were determined based on results of persons of 16 to 35 years old. The NTOP was compared with two standard tests – Odourized Markers Test (OMT) and Sniffin’ Sticks (identification).

Results:
Median of the NTOP was of 20 in group of age 16– 35 years, 19.5 in group of age 36– 55 years and 17 in group of > 56. Tenth percentile of the age group 16– 35 was 16 points, which is considered as lowest normal points scored. The median numbers of points decreases with age. There is statistically significant decrease in the olfactory capability with increasing age (> 56 years old).

Conclusion:
NTOP has a similar characteristics as the standard tests of subjective (psychophysical) olfactometry. At the same time the test give us information different from other olfactory tests. The goal of study was to determine the normal value the NTOP of healthy persons in Czech population.

Key words:
olfaction – odour pleasantness – subjective olfactometry – normative date

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Sources

1. Litvack JR, Mace JC, Smith TL. Olfactory function and disease severity in chronic rhinosinusitis. Am J Rhinol Allergy 2009; 23(2): 139– 144. doi: 10.2500/ ajra.2009.23.3286.

2. Vodička J, Meloun M, Příhodová L. Brief evaluation of pleasantness of olfactory and trigeminal stimulants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2010; 136(9): 901– 907. doi: 10.1001/ archoto.2010.150.

3. Doty RL, Kamath V. The influences of age on olfaction: a review. Front Psychol 2014; 5: 20. doi: 10.3389/ fpsyg.2014.00020. eCollection 2014.

4. Frank RA, Dulay MF, Gesteland RC. Assessment of the Sniff Magnitude Test as a clinical test of olfactory fiction. Physiol Behav 2003; 78(2): 195– 204.

5. Mesholam RI, Moberg PJ, Mahr RN, Doty RL. Olfaction in neurodegenerative disease: a meta‑analysis of olfactory functioning in Alzheimer‘s and Parkinson‘s diseases. Arch Neurol 1998; 55(1): 84– 90.

6. Hudry J, Thobois S, Broussole E, Adeleine P, Rozet JP. Evidence for deficiencies in perceptual and semantic olfactory processes in Parkinson’s disease. Chem Senses 2003; 28(6): 537– 543.

7. Royet JP, Croisile B, Williamson‑ Wasta R, Hilbert O, Serclerat D, Guerin J. Rating of different olfactory judgements in Alzheimer’s disease. Chem Senses 2001; 26(4): 409– 417.

8. Kamath V, Turetsky BI, Moberg PJ. Identification of pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant odors in schizophrenia. Psychiatry Res 2011; 187(1– 2): 30– 35. doi: 10.1016/ j.psychres.2010.12.011.

9. Brothánková P, Kostková Z, Vodička J, Pellant A. Vliv věku na čich a na hodnocení libosti pachů. Kontakt 2012; 14: 152– 158.

10. Hubbard EJ, Santini V, Blankevoort CG, Volkers KM, Barrup MS, Byerly L et al. Clock drawing performance in cognitively normal elderly. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2008; 23(3): 295– 327. doi: 10.1016/ j.acn.2007.12.003.

11. Hummel T, Kobal G, Gudziol H, Mackey‑ Sim A. Normative data for the „Sniffin‘ Sticks“ including tests of odor identification, odor discrimination, and olfactory thresholds: an upgrade based on a group of more than 3,000 subjects. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 2007; 264(3): 237– 243.

12. Vodička J, Menšíková A, Balatková Z, Shejbalová H,Racková R, Matoušek P et al. Fyziologické hodnoty čichových testů v české populaci. Otorinolaryng a foniat 2011; 60(3): 119– 124.

13. Bensafi M, Rouby C, Farget V, Bertrand B, Vigouroux M, Holley A. Autonomic nervous system responses to odours: the role of pleasantness and arousal. Chem Senses 2002; 27(8): 703– 709.

14. Hummel T, Doty RL, Yousem DM. Functional MRI of intranasal chemosensory trigeminal activation. Chem Senses 2005, 30 (Suppl 1): i205– i206.

15. Racková R, Shejbalová H, Vodička J. Vyšetření čichu po úrazu hlavy parfémovanými fixy. Profese On‑line 2009; 2: 51– 64.

16. Doty RL, Smith R, McKeown DA, Raj J. Tests of human olfactory function: principal components analysis suggests that most measure a common source of variance. Percept Psychophys 1994, 56(6): 701– 707.

17. Oberg C, Larsson M, Bäckman L. Differential sex effects in olfactory functioning: the role of verbal processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2002; 8(5): 691– 698.

18. Hummel T, Landis BN, Hüttenbrink KB. Smell and taste disorders. GMS Cur Top Otorhinolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2011; 10: 1– 15. doi: 10.3205/ cto000077.

19. Vodička J, Pecková L, Ehler E, Kopal A, Chrobok V. Vyšetření čichu u neurologických onemocnění pomocí Testu parfémovaných fixů. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2010; 73/ 106(1): 45– 50.

20. Doty RL, Bromley SM, Stern MB. Olfactory testing as an aid in the diagnosis of Parkinson‘s disease: development of optimal discrimination criteria. Neurodegeneration 1995; 4(1): 93– 97.

21. Xiao Q, Chen S, LE W. Hyposmia: a possible biomarker of Parkinson’s disease. Neurosci Bull 2014, 30(1): 134– 140. doi: 10.1007/ s12264‑ 013‑ 1390‑ 3.

22. Magerová H, Laczó J, Vyhnálek M, Hort J, Bojar M. Vyšetření čichu a jeho význam pro diagnostiku neurodegenerativních onemocnění. Neurol Prax 2008, 9(1): 30– 32.

23. Kazuhiko S. Classification of reduced sense of smell in women with Parkinson‘s disease. Nihon Ronen Igakkai Zasshi 2013, 50(2): 243– 248.