Search

A mixture of perceptually congruent gustatory and olfactory flavorants (sucrose and citral) was previously shown to be detected faster than predicted by a model of probability summation that assumes stochastically independent processing of the individual gustatory and olfactory signals. This outcome suggests substantial integration of the signals. Does substantial integration also characterize responses to mixtures of incongruent flavorants? Here, we report simple response times (RTs) to detect brief pulses of 3 possible flavorants: monosodium glutamate, MSG (gustatory: "umami" quality), citral (olfactory: citrus quality), and a mixture of MSG and citral (gustatory-olfactory). Each stimulus (and, on a fraction of trials, water) was presented orally through a computer-operated, automated flow system, and subjects were instructed to press a button as soon as they detected any of the 3 non-water stimuli. Unlike responses previously found to the congruent mixture of sucrose and citral, responses here to the incongruent mixture of MSG and citral took significantly longer (RTs were greater) and showed lower detection rates than the values predicted by probability summation. This outcome suggests that the integration of gustatory and olfactory flavor signals is less extensive when the component flavors are perceptually incongruent rather than congruent, perhaps because incongruent flavors are less familiar., (© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Odorants and flavorants typically contain many components. It is generally easier to detect multicomponent stimuli than to detect a single component, through either neural integration or probability summation (PS) (or both). PS assumes that the sensory effects of 2 (or more) stimulus components (e.g., gustatory and olfactory components of a flavorant) are detected in statistically independent channels, that each channel makes a separate decision whether a component is detected, and that the behavioral response depends solely on the separate decisions. Models of PS traditionally assume high thresholds for detecting each component, noise being irrelevant. The core assumptions may be adapted, however, to signal-detection theory, where noise limits detection. The present article derives predictions of high-threshold and signal-detection models of independent-decision PS in detecting gustatory-olfactory flavorants, comparing predictions in yes/no and 2-alternative forced-choice tasks using blocked and intermixed stimulus designs. The models also extend to measures of response times to suprathreshold flavorants. Predictions derived from high-threshold and signal-detection models differ markedly. Available empirical evidence on gustatory-olfactory flavor detection suggests that neither the high-threshold nor the signal-detection versions of PS can readily account for the results, which likely reflect neural integration in the flavor system.

It is easier to detect mixtures of gustatory and olfactory flavorants than to detect either component alone. But does the detection of mixtures exceed the level predicted by probability summation, assuming independent detection of each component? To answer this question, we measured simple response times (RTs) to detect brief pulses of one of 3 flavorants (sucrose [gustatory], citral [olfactory], sucrose-citral mixture) or water, presented into the mouth by a computer-operated, automated flow system. Subjects were instructed to press a button as soon as they detected any of the 3 nonwater stimuli. Responses to the mixtures were faster (RTs smaller) than predicted by a model of probability summation of independently detected signals, suggesting positive coactivation (integration) of gustation and retronasal olfaction in flavor perception. Evidence for integration appeared mainly in the fastest 60% of the responses, indicating that integration arises relatively early in flavor processing. Results were similar when the 3 possible flavorants, and water, were interleaved within the same session (experimental condition), and when each flavorant was interleaved with water only (control conditions). This outcome suggests that subjects did not attend selectively to one flavor component or the other in the experimental condition and further supports the conclusion that (late) decisional or attentional strategies do not exert a large influence on the gustatory-olfactory flavor integration.

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.

Animal studies have shown that olfactory sensitivity is greater when fasted than when fed. However, human research has generated inconsistent results. One possible explanation for these conflicting findings is metabolic health. Many metabolic peptides, including ghrelin, are moderated by adiposity and influence olfaction and olfactory-guided behaviors. We tested whether the effect of a meal on the perceived intensity of suprathreshold chemosensory stimuli is influenced by body mass index and/ or metabolic response to a meal. We found that overweight or obese (n = 13), but not healthy weight (n = 20) subjects perceived odors, but not flavored solutions, as more intense when hungry than when sated. This effect was correlated with reduced postprandial total ghrelin suppression (n = 23) and differential brain response to odors in the cerebellum, as measured with functional magnetic resonance imaging. In contrast, it was unrelated to circulating leptin, glucose, insulin, triglycerides, or free fatty acids; or to odor pleasantness or sniffing (n = 24). These findings demonstrate that the effect of a meal on suprathreshold odor intensity perception is associated with metabolic measures such as body weight and total ghrelin reactivity, supporting endocrine influences on olfactory perception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare health-related quality of life and depression between individuals with an inability to smell (anosmia) and a comparison group of individuals with a normal sense of smell. Methods: Ninety individuals from an anosmia organization (anosmia based on self-report) were compared to 89 individuals with a normal sense of smell. The SF-36 and Beck Depression Inventory-II-NL (BDI-II-NL) were administered, along with the Questionnaire for Olfactory Dysfunction (QOD) to assess the degree of problems in daily life related to the smell impairment. Results: Compared to the comparison group, scores in the anosmia group differed on: the QOD-subscale Life Quality (related to tasting and smelling: p < .001) and Parosmia (Smelling odors as different: p < .00l); and the SF-36 subscales of Social Functioning, Vitality, Mental Health and General Health (p's < .05). Persons with anosmia scored higher on the BDI-II-NL than persons from the comparison group (p < .01). Discussion: Once a smell dysfunction is recognized, interventions aiming at dealing with the loss of smell as a source of information and enjoyment, as well as at improvement of emotional wellbeing, social interaction, energy, and depression should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Perception of the smell of a food precedes its ingestion and perception of its flavor. The neurobiological underpinnings of this association are not well understood. Of central interest is whether the same neural circuits code for anticipatory and consummatory phases. Here, we show that the amygdala and mediodorsal thalamus respond preferentially to food odors that predict immediate arrival of their associated drink (FO+) compared to food odors that predict delivery of a tasteless solution (FO−) and compared to the receipt of the drink. In contrast, the left insula/operculum responds preferentially to the drink, whereas the right insula/operculum and left orbitofrontal cortex respond to FO+ and drink. These findings indicate separable and overlapping representation of anticipatory and consummatory chemosensation. Moreover, since ratings of perceived pleasantness of FO+, FO−, and drink were similar, the response in the amygdala and thalamus cannot reflect acquired affective value but rather predictive meaning or biological relevance. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The human orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) plays an important role in representing taste, flavor, and food reward. The primary role of the OFC in taste is thought to be the encoding of affective value and the computation of perceived pleasantness. The OFC also encodes retronasal olfaction and oral somatosensation. During eating, distinct sensory inputs fuse into a unitary flavor percept, and there is evidence that this percept is encoded in the orbital cortex. Studies examining the effect of internal state on neural representation of food and drink further suggest that processing in the OFC is critical for representing the reward value of foods. Thus, it is likely that, in addition to serving as higher-order gustatory cortex, the OFC integrates multiple sensory inputs and computes reward value to guide feeding behavior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0–100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19−; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19− groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: −82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19−: −59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g. fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0–10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Participants in cluster 2 (orange,N= 1724; bottom center) are generally characterized by ratings that reflect smell/taste loss with preserved chemesthesis. Based on the centroid of each cluster, participants in cluster 1 (blue,N= 1767; top left) are generally characterized by significant smell, taste and chemesthesis loss. Loadings for participants in cluster 3 (green,N= 548; right side) are generally characterized by reduced smell and taste loss, and preserved chemesthesis. [Extracted from the article]

Two experiments, using different ranges and numbers of stimuli, examined how linguistic labels affect the identification of flavor mixtures containing different proportions of sucrose (gustatory flavorant) and citral (olfactory flavorant). Both experiments asked subjects to identify each stimulus as having either "mostly sugar" or "mostly citrus." In one condition, no labels preceded the flavor stimuli. In another condition, each flavor stimulus followed a label, either SUGAR or CITRUS, which, the subjects were informed, usually though not always named the stronger flavor component; that is, the labels were probabilistically valid. The results of both experiments showed that the labels systematically modified the identification responses: Subjects responded "sugar" or "citrus" more often when the flavor stimulus followed the corresponding label, SUGAR or CITRUS. But the labels hardly affected overall accuracy of identification. Accuracy was possibly limited, however, by both the confusability of the flavor stimuli per se and the way that confusability could limit the opportunity to discern the probabilistic associations between labels and individual flavor stimuli. We describe the results in terms of a decision-theoretic model, in which labels induce shifts in response criteria governing the identification responses, or possibly effect changes in the sensory representations of the flavorants themselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The Global Consortium of Chemosensory Research (GCCR) was founded in Spring 2020. • Results from GCCR research on COVID19 and the chemical senses are summarized. • Some open science approaches used by the GCCR are highlighted. In March 2020, the Global Consortium of Chemosensory Research (GCCR) was founded by chemosensory researchers to address emerging reports of unusual smell and taste dysfunction arising from the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Over the next year, the GCCR used a highly collaborative model, along with contemporary Open Science practices, to produce multiple high impact publications on chemosensation and COVID19. This invited manuscript describes the founding of the GCCR, the tools and approaches it used, and a summary of findings to date. These findings are contextualized within a summary of some of the broader insights about chemosensation (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) and COVID19 gained over the last 18 months, including potential mechanisms of loss. Also, it includes a detailed discussion of some current Open Science approaches and practices used by the GCCR to increase transparency, rigor, and reproducibility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]