Chemical Senses Advance Access originally published online on May 7, 2007
Chemical Senses 2007 32(6):515-523; doi:10.1093/chemse/bjm020
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sniff Magnitude Test: Relationship to Odor Identification, Detection, and Memory Tests in a Clinic Population
Smell and Taste Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
Correspondence to be sent to: Isabelle Tourbier, Department of Otorhinolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery, Smell and Taste Center, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. e-mail: isabelle.tourbier{at}uphs.upenn.edu
 |
Abstract |
|---|
Recently a novel measure of olfactory function, the Sniff Magnitude Test (SMT), was developed that relies on changes in inhalation in response to an odor. The relationship of this unique test to that of other olfactory tests has received little investigation. In this study, we assessed, in 132 patients presenting to a chemosensory disorders clinic, the relationship of SMT scores to those from 3 standardized psychophysical tests: the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), a phenyl ethyl alcohol odor detection threshold test, and a short-term odor memory/discrimination test. SMT scores were roughly related to olfactory dysfunction categories defined for the UPSIT and correlated moderately with the other tests. Malodors (1% and 3% methylthiobutyrate [MTB], 1% ethyl 3-mercaptoproprionate) exhibited stronger correlations than nonmalodors (3% phenyl ethyl alcohol [PEA], 3% amyl acetate, 3% n-butanol) and elicited greater sniff suppression. In a principal component analysis, the SMT measures loaded on components different from those of the other tests, which loaded on a separate component. Anticipatory responses (i.e., smaller sniffs) occurred across trials for the first malodor (1% MTB), but not for the first nonmalodor (3% PEA), that was encountered. These results, along with those of an earlier factor analysis, suggest that sniff magnitude is influenced by odorant quality and intensity, as well as by cognitive factors.
Key words: factor analysis, odor identification, odor memory, odor threshold, sniff magnitude, UPSIT
Accepted 12 March 2007
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  L. Sela, Y. Sacher, C. Serfaty, Y. Yeshurun, N. Soroker, and N. Sobel Spared and Impaired Olfactory Abilities after Thalamic Lesions J. Neurosci., September 30, 2009; 29(39): 12059 - 12069. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Lotsch, H. Reichmann, and T. Hummel Different Odor Tests Contribute Differently to the Evaluation of Olfactory Loss Chem Senses, January 1, 2008; 33(1): 17 - 21. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|