Brain responses to odor mixtures with sub-threshold components

Although most odorants we encounter in daily life are mixtures of several chemical substances, we still lack significant information on how we perceive and how the brain processes mixtures of odorants. We aimed to investigate the processing of odor mixtures using behavioral measures and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). The odor mixture contained a target odor (ambroxan) in a concentration at which it could be perceived by half of the subjects (sensitive group); the other half could not perceive the odor (insensitive group). In line with previous findings on multi-component odor mixtures, both groups of subjects were not able to distinguish a complex odor mixture containing or not containing the target odor. However, sensitive subjects had stronger activations than insensitive subjects in chemosensory processing areas such as the insula when exposed to the mixture containing the target odor. Furthermore, the sensitive group exhibited larger brain activations when presented with the odor mixture containing the target odor compared to the odor mixture without the target odor; this difference was smaller, though present for the insensitive group. In conclusion, we show that a target odor presented within a mixture of odors can influence brain activations although on a psychophysical level subjects are not able to distinguish the mixture with and without the target. On the practical side these results suggest that the addition of a certain compound to a mixture of odors may not be detected on a cognitive level; however, this additional odor may significantly change the cerebral processing of this mixture. In this context, FMRI offers unique possibilities to look at the subliminal effects of odors

Structural and Functional MRI Differences in Master Sommeliers: A Pilot Study on Expertise in the Brain

Our experiences, even as adults, shape our brains. Regional differences have been found in experts, with the regions associated with their particular skill-set. Functional differences have also been noted in brain activation patterns in some experts. This study uses multimodal techniques to assess structural and functional patterns that differ between experts and nonexperts. Sommeliers are experts in wine and thus in olfaction. We assessed differences in Master Sommeliers’ brains, compared with controls, in structure and also in functional response to olfactory and visual judgment tasks. MRI data were analyzed using voxel-based morphometry as well as automated parcellation to assess structural properties, and group differences between tasks were calculated. Results indicate enhanced volume in the right insula and entorhinal cortex, with the cortical thickness of the entorhinal correlating with experience. There were regional activation differences in a large area involving the right olfactory and memory regions, with heightened activation specifically for sommeliers during an olfactory task. Our results indicate that sommeliers’ brains show specialization in the expected regions of the olfactory and memory networks, and also in regions important in integration of internal sensory stimuli and external cues. Overall, these differences suggest that specialized expertise and training might result in enhancements in the brain well into adulthood. This is particularly important given the regions involved, which are the first to be impacted by many neurodegenerative diseases

Dissociated Representations of Pleasant and Unpleasant Olfacto-Trigeminal Mixtures: An fMRI Study

How the pleasantness of chemosensory stimuli such as odorants or intranasal trigeminal compounds is processed in the human brain has been the focus of considerable recent interest. Yet, so far, only the unimodal form of this hedonic processing has been explored, and not its bimodal form during crossmodal integration of olfactory and trigeminal stimuli. The main purpose of the present study was to investigate this question. To this end, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) was used in an experiment comparing brain activation related to a pleasant and a relatively unpleasant olfacto-trigeminal mixture, and to their individual components (CO2 alone, Orange alone, Rose alone). Results revealed first common neural activity patterns in response to both mixtures in a number of regions: notably the superior temporal gyrus and the caudate nucleus. Common activations were also observed in the insula, although the pleasant mixture activated the right insula whereas the unpleasant mixture activated the left insula. However, specific activations were observed in anterior cingulate gyrus and the ventral tegmental area only during the perception of the pleasant mixture. These findings emphasized for the firs time the involvement of the latter structures in processing of pleasantness during crossmodal integration of chemosensory stimuli

Clinical Olfactory Working Group Consensus statement on the treatment of post infectious olfactory dysfunction

Background: Respiratory tract viruses are the second most common cause of olfactory dysfunction. As we learn more about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), with the recognition that olfactory dysfunction is a key symptom of this disease process, there is a greater need than ever for evidence-based management of postinfectious olfactory dysfunction (PIOD). Objective: Our aim was to provide an evidence-based practical guide to the management of PIOD (including post–coronavirus 2019 cases) for both primary care practitioners and hospital specialists. Methods: A systematic review of the treatment options available for the management of PIOD was performed. The written systematic review was then circulated among the members of the Clinical Olfactory Working Group for their perusal before roundtable expert discussion of the treatment options. The group also undertook a survey to determine their current clinical practice with regard to treatment of PIOD. Results: The search resulted in 467 citations, of which 107 articles were fully reviewed and analyzed for eligibility; 40 citations fulfilled the inclusion criteria, 11 of which were randomized controlled trials. In total, 15 of the articles specifically looked at PIOD whereas the other 25 included other etiologies for olfactory dysfunction. Conclusions: The Clinical Olfactory Working Group members made an overwhelming recommendation for olfactory training; none recommended monocycline antibiotics. The diagnostic role of oral steroids was discussed; some group members were in favor of vitamin A drops. Further research is needed to confirm the place of other therapeutic options

Systemic corticosteroids in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19)‐related smell dysfunction: an international view

The frequent association between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) and olfactory dysfunction is creating an unprecedented demand for a treatment of the olfactory loss. Systemic corticosteroids have been considered as a therapeutic option. However, based on current literature, we call for caution using these treatments in early COVID‐19–related olfactory dysfunction because: (1) evidence supporting their usefulness is weak; (2) the rate of spontaneous recovery of COVID‐19–related olfactory dysfunction is high; and (3) corticosteroids have well‐known potential adverse effects. We encourage randomized placebo‐controlled trials investigating the efficacy of systemic steroids in this indication and strongly emphasize to initially consider smell training, which is supported by a robust evidence base and has no known side effects