Chem. Senses 26: 351-358,
2001
© Oxford University Press 2001
Human Responses to Propionic Acid. II. Quantification of Breathing Responses and their Relationship to Perception
Bowman Gray Technical Center, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Winston-Salem, NC 27102, 1 School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 and 2 Department of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA 3 Present address: Sensory Research Institute, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA 4 Present address: Section on Pulmonary Medicine, Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC 27105, USA
Correspondence to be sent to: J.C. Walker, Sensory Research Institute, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. e-mail: jwalker{at}psy.fsu.edu
In 20 normal and four anosmic participants, instantaneous inhalation and exhalation flow rates were recorded in response to 15 s stimulations with clean air or propionic acid concentrations (0.16, 1.14, 8.22 and 59.15 p.p.m., v/v) that ranged from peri-threshold for normals to clearly supra-threshold for anosmics. Each odorant/irritant delivery to the face-mask began with an exhalation. This allowed concentration to reach full value before stimulus onset, defined as the point where the participant began to bring the stimulus into the nose by inhalation. Two seconds after this stimulus onset, normals exhibited cumulative inhaled volume (CIV) declines of 39 and 14%, and latencies of 500 and 710 ms, with presentations of 59.15 and 8.22 p.p.m., respectively. With anosmics, 59.15 p.p.m. caused a 19% decline in CIV that began at 730 ms. Examination of the first inhalation after stimulus onset shows that the CIV declines in normals were achieved by a progressive decline in volume (InVol), beginning with a slight drop at 1.14 p.p.m., and a marked decline in duration (InDur) with only the highest concentration. Anosmics exhibited declines in InDur and InVol with only the 59.15 p.p.m. stimulus, and these declines were much more modest than the changes seen in normals. Comparison of these breathing results with perceptual responses from this same experiment demonstrates that: (i) in normals, odor perception rises slightly, but breathing does not change, with the lowest concentration; (ii) the higher breathing sensitivity (declines in InVol) of normals is paralleled by both the higher nasal irritation of these individuals and the presence of odor sensation; (iii) InDur declines in normals only with a stimulus concentration sufficient to cause marked nasal irritation in anosmics; and iv) in anosmics, modest but reliable declines in both InDur and InVol mirror the marked elevation in nasal irritation magnitude seen with only the highest concentration. In view of the failure of prior work to provide evidence that olfactory activation alone can cause any of the breathing changes we observed, we conclude that some breathing parameters are quite useful as rapid and sensitive measures of nasal irritation that arises from activation of nasal trigeminal afferents alone or in combination with the olfactory nerve.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. Frasnelli, B. Schuster, and T. Hummel Interactions between Olfaction and the Trigeminal System: What Can Be Learned from Olfactory Loss Cereb Cortex, October 1, 2007; 17(10): 2268 - 2275. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. H. Gaffney and D. J. Paustenbach A Proposed Approach for Setting Occupational Exposure Limits for Sensory Irritants Based on Chemosensory Models Ann. Hyg., June 30, 2007; (2007) mem019v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J Frasnelli, B Schuster, and T Hummel Subjects with Congenital Anosmia Have Larger Peripheral but Similar Central Trigeminal Responses Cereb Cortex, February 1, 2007; 17(2): 370 - 377. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. N. Johnson, C. Russell, R. M. Khan, and N. Sobel A Comparison of Methods for Sniff Measurement Concurrent with Olfactory Tasks in Humans Chem Senses, November 1, 2006; 31(9): 795 - 806. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. A. Frank, R. C. Gesteland, J. Bailie, K. Rybalsky, A. Seiden, and M. F. Dulay Characterization of the sniff magnitude test. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, May 1, 2006; 132(5): 532 - 536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Mainland and N. Sobel The Sniff Is Part of the Olfactory Percept Chem Senses, February 1, 2006; 31(2): 181 - 196. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. D. Mainland, B. N. Johnson, R. Khan, R. B. Ivry, and N. Sobel Olfactory Impairments in Patients with Unilateral Cerebellar Lesions Are Selective to Inputs from the Contralesional Nostril J. Neurosci., July 6, 2005; 25(27): 6362 - 6371. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. N. Johnson, J. D. Mainland, and N. Sobel Rapid Olfactory Processing Implicates Subcortical Control of an Olfactomotor System J Neurophysiol, August 1, 2003; 90(2): 1084 - 1094. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. Shusterman Individual Factors in Nasal Chemesthesis Chem Senses, July 1, 2002; 27(6): 551 - 564. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|