Chem. Senses 25: 429-443,
2000
© Oxford University Press 2000
REVIEW |
Quantification of Odor Quality
Chemosensory Perception Laboratory, Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0957, USA and 1 Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, S-75142 Uppsala, Sweden
Correspondence to be sent to: William S. Cain, Chemosensory Perception Laboratory, Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), Mail Code 0957, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0957, USA. e-mail: wcain{at}ucsd.edu
The relationship between odor quality and molecular properties is arguably the most important issue in olfaction. Despite sophistication in the chemical characterization of molecules, accompanying perceptual characterization has had little quantitative usefulness, relying mostly on enumerative description. As a result of weak interest in the topic outside industry and little agreement regarding how to measure quality, the field of olfactory psychophysics has failed to develop a substantial database for odor quality and has offered little help to other researchers, e.g. neurobiologists, in choice of stimuli, interpretation of outcome or testable hypotheses. This review scrutinizes how psychophysicists and others have measured quality and offers criteria for useful techniques. Most measures have had a subjective component that makes them anachronistic with modern methodology in experimental behavioral science, indeterminate regarding the extent of individual differences, unusable with infrahumans and of unproved ability to discern small differences. Techniques based upon performance, rather than on the more common reporting of mental content, offer firmer possibilities for growth. These techniques inevitably tap the discriminative basis of perception. The nonsubjective techniques have high sensitivity, can have counterparts in infrahuman research, are suitable to examine individual differences and yield non-negotiable answers with potential archival value. Discriminative techniques have their limitations, too—principally excess sensitivity that abridges their use to comparisons between similar-smelling stimuli. Research has begun to extend that range and may overcome the limitation. Application of discriminative methods may have the side-effect of shifting focus in structure–activity research from searches for molecular least common denominators that underlie often vague similarity to the search for molecular properties of importance in discrimination of small differences.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  V. Chen and B. P. Halpern Retronasal but Not Oral-Cavity-Only Identification of "Purely Olfactory" Odorants Chem Senses, February 1, 2008; 33(2): 107 - 118. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Daly, L. A. Carrell, and E. Mwilaria Characterizing Psychophysical Measures of Discrimination Thresholds and the Effects of Concentration on Discrimination Learning in the Moth Manduca sexta Chem Senses, January 1, 2008; 33(1): 95 - 106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Keller and L. B. Vosshall Influence of odorant receptor repertoire on odor perception in humans and fruit flies PNAS, March 27, 2007; 104(13): 5614 - 5619. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. N. Lundstrom, S. Seven, M. J. Olsson, B. Schaal, and T. Hummel Olfactory Event-Related Potentials Reflect Individual Differences in Odor Valence Perception Chem Senses, October 1, 2006; 31(8): 705 - 711. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. E. Cometto-Muniz, W. S. Cain, M. H. Abraham, and R. Sanchez-Moreno Chemical Boundaries for Detection of Eye Irritation in Humans from Homologous Vapors Toxicol. Sci., June 1, 2006; 91(2): 600 - 609. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Laska Olfactory Discrimination Ability for Aliphatic C6 Alcohols as a Function of Presence, Position, and Configuration of a Double Bond Chem Senses, November 1, 2005; 30(9): 755 - 760. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. U. Jonsson, A. Tchekhova, P. Lonner, and M. J. Olsson A Metamemory Perspective on Odor Naming and Identification Chem Senses, May 1, 2005; 30(4): 353 - 365. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Laska Olfactory Discrimination Ability of Human Subjects for Enantiomers with an Isopropenyl Group at the Chiral Center Chem Senses, February 1, 2004; 29(2): 143 - 152. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Laska and N. Grimm SURE, Why Not? The SUbstitution-REciprocity Method for Measurement of Odor Quality Discrimination Thresholds: Replication and Extension to Nonhuman Primates Chem Senses, February 1, 2003; 28(2): 105 - 111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Laska Olfactory Discrimination Ability for Aromatic Odorants as a Function of Oxygen Moiety Chem Senses, January 1, 2002; 27(1): 23 - 29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Wilson Receptive Fields in the Rat Piriform Cortex Chem Senses, June 1, 2001; 26(5): 577 - 584. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|