Skip Navigation


Chemical Senses Advance Access originally published online on June 1, 2006
Chemical Senses 2006 31(6):581-593; doi:10.1093/chemse/bjj063
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
31/6/581    most recent
bjj063v1
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 (7)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Scott, J. W.
Right arrow Articles by Sherrill, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Scott, J. W.
Right arrow Articles by Sherrill, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Effects of Concentration and Sniff Flow Rate on the Rat Electroolfactogram

John W. Scott, Humberto P. Acevedo and Lisa Sherrill

Department of Cell Biology, 405 N Whitehead Biomedical Research Building, 615 Michael Street, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

Correspondence to be sent to: John W. Scott, Department of Cell Biology, 405 N Whitehead Biomedical Research Building, 615 Michael Street, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 30322-3030, USA. e-mail: johns{at}cellbio.emory.edu

Previous reports using the electroolfactogram (EOG) to study the spatial and temporal aspects of response in the rodent olfactory epithelium had focused on high odorant concentrations that gave large responses. This investigation has used lower concentrations to test the difference between responses in the rat dorsomedial and lateral recesses with a range of nasal flow rates and a range of chemical properties. The responses to a highly polar, more hydrophilic odorant changed more steeply with flow rate than responses to a very nonpolar, hydrophobic odorant. With low flow rates there was a response delay in the lateral recess, which is consistent with the models indicating lower flow rates in that region. We observed significant volume conduction effects in which large responses in the dorsomedial region obscured smaller initial portions of the lateral responses. These effects could be removed by destroying the dorsomedial response with a high concentration of a low molecular weight ester. We caution that investigators of EOG recordings from the intact epithelium must attend to the possible presence of volume conduction, which can be assessed by attention to the selectivity of odorant response, response waveform, and response latency.

Key words: hydrophobicity, olfactory coding, olfactory epithelium


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


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Chem SensesHome page
D. W. Wesson, T. N. Donahou, M. O. Johnson, and M. Wachowiak
Sniffing Behavior of Mice during Performance in Odor-Guided Tasks
Chem Senses, June 5, 2008; (2008) bjn029v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
C. A. Lowry and L. M. Kay
Chemical Factors Determine Olfactory System Beta Oscillations in Waking Rats
J Neurophysiol, July 1, 2007; 98(1): 394 - 404.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
J. W. Scott, H. P. Acevedo, L. Sherrill, and M. Phan
Responses of the Rat Olfactory Epithelium to Retronasal Air Flow
J Neurophysiol, March 1, 2007; 97(3): 1941 - 1950.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


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.