Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lötsch, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hummel, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lötsch, J.
Right arrow Articles by Hummel, T.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Chem. Senses 29: 311-317, 2004
© Oxford University Press 2004

A Simple and Reliable Method for Clinical Assessment of Odor Thresholds

Jörn Lötsch1, Cornelia Lange2 and Thomas Hummel2

1 Pharmazentrum Frankfurt, Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Theodor Stern Kai 7, D-60590 Frankfurt am Main, Germany and 2 Smell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Dresden Medical School, Fetscherstr. 74, D-01307 Dresden, Germany

Correspondence to be sent to: Dr Thomas Hummel, Smell and Taste Clinic, Department of Otorhinolaryngology, University of Dresden Medical School, Fetscherstr. 74, 01307 Dresden, Germany. e-mail: thummel{at}rcs.urz.tu-dresden.de

We investigated whether presenting of dilutions of phenyl ethyl alcohol at random succession according to the method of constant stimuli can replace the standard procedure of presenting a various number of dilutions in a staircase paradigm. Forty-six men and 44 women, aged 19–76 years, participated in this study. Phenyl ethyl alcohol was diluted in a ratio of 1:2, starting from 4%. Presentation of the odorant followed a three-alternative, temporal forced-choice paradigm with two blanks in addition to the odorant. Twenty dilutions were administered in a randomized order. Odor threshold was obtained by logistic regression of the correct and incorrect identifications of the probe containing the odorant. Thresholds were also calculated on the basis of the first 16 dilution steps only. Results from these procedures were compared with ‘gold-standard’ threshold assessment employing a three-alternative, temporal forced-choice staircase paradigm with seven reversals using 16 dilutions of phenyl ethyl alcohol. The method of constant stimuli took a shorter and less variable testing time than the staircase technique. The use of 20 dilution steps provided no better results than the use of 16 steps. The method of constant stimuli exhibited a good test–retest reliability (r = 0.7; P < 0.001) comparable to that of the staircase method and provided unbiased results highly correlated (r = 0.8; P < 0.001) with those of the staircase technique with similar inter-test variability. Applying 16 dilutions (1:2 steps) of phenyl ethyl alcohol at random succession in a three-alternative, temporal forced-choice paradigm is thus a simple and reliable procedure for the reproducible assessment of odor thresholds that may be contemplated as an alternative to the ‘gold-standard’ staircase method of clinical odor threshold assessment.

Key words: logistic regression, olfaction, smell, staircase technique, threshold


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.