A Psychological Scale for Body Odour Awareness

People differ in their awareness for odours surrounding them. Body odours are a special category because they are a medium for social communication. Body odours evoke approach and avoidance behaviours such as withdrawing from social interaction, and personal hygiene behaviours like washing or using fragranced products. So far it has remained unclear what the role of conscious awareness of body odours is in guiding social behaviour. Here, we present a new psychological scale on odour awareness, focusing specifically on body odours: the Body Odour Awareness Scale (BOAS). The scale was validated measuring body odour awareness in two dimensions (valence and source) over four domains: awareness for one’s own body odours, both favourable and unfavourable, and awareness for other persons’ body odours, both favourable and unfavourable. An explorative follow-up study suggested regional differences exist in body odour awareness, but these are not the same for every dimension of body odour awareness. Taken together, these results suggest the new BOAS is a useful tool to assess differences in awareness for body odours, and uncover the application potential for this new and validated scale

Disgust sensitivity relates to affective responses to-but not ability to detect-olfactory cues to pathogens

Hundreds of studies have assessed variation in the degree to which people experience disgust toward substances associated with pathogens, but little is known about the mechanistic sources of this variation. The current investigation uses olfactory perception and threshold methods to test whether it is apparent at the cue-detection level, at the cue-interpretation level, or both. It further tests whether relations between disgust sensitivity and olfactory perception are specific to odors associated with pathogens. Two studies (N's = 119 and 160) of individuals sampled from a Dutch university each revealed that pathogen disgust sensitivity relates to valence perceptions of odors found in pathogen sources, but not to valence perceptions of odors not associated with pathogens, nor to intensity perceptions of odors of either type. Study 2, which also assessed olfactory thresholds via a three-alternative forced-choice staircase method, did not reveal a relation between pathogen disgust sensitivity and the ability to detect an odor associated with pathogens, nor an odor not associated with pathogens. In total, results are consistent with the idea that pathogen disgust sensitivity relates to how olfactory pathogen cues are interpreted after detection, but not necessarily to the ability to detect such cues

An olfactory self-test effectively screens for COVID-19

International audienceAbstract Background Key to curtailing the COVID-19 pandemic are wide-scale screening strategies. An ideal screen is one that would not rely on transporting, distributing, and collecting physical specimens. Given the olfactory impairment associated with COVID-19, we developed a perceptual measure of olfaction that relies on smelling household odorants and rating them online. Methods Each participant was instructed to select 5 household items, and rate their perceived odor pleasantness and intensity using an online visual analogue scale. We used this data to assign an olfactory perceptual fingerprint, a value that reflects the perceived difference between odorants. We tested the performance of this real-time tool in a total of 13,484 participants (462 COVID-19 positive) from 134 countries who provided 178,820 perceptual ratings of 60 different household odorants. Results We observe that olfactory ratings are indicative of COVID-19 status in a country, significantly correlating with national infection rates over time. More importantly, we observe indicative power at the individual level (79% sensitivity and 87% specificity). Critically, this olfactory screen remains effective in participants with COVID-19 but without symptoms, and in participants with symptoms but without COVID-19. Conclusions The current odorant-based olfactory screen adds a component to online symptom-checkers, to potentially provide an added first line of defense that can help fight disease progression at the population level. The data derived from this tool may allow better understanding of the link between COVID-19 and olfaction

Placebo Effects in the Neuroendocrine System: Conditioning of the Oxytocin Responses

OBJECTIVE: There is evidence that placebo effects may influence hormone secretion. However, few studies have examined placebo effects in the endocrine system, including oxytocin placebo effects. We studied whether it is possible to trigger oxytocin placebo effects using a classical conditioning paradigm. METHODS: Ninety-nine women were assigned to a conditioned, control, or drug control group. In the two-phase conditioning paradigm, participants in the conditioned and drug control groups received an oxytocin nasal spray combined with a distinctive smell (conditioned stimulus [CS]) for three acquisition days, whereas the control group received placebo spray. Subsequently, the conditioned and control groups received placebo spray with the CS and the drug control group received oxytocin spray for three evocation days. Salivary oxytocin was measured several times during each day. Pain sensitivity and facial evaluation tests previously used in oxytocin research were also administered. RESULTS: On evocation day 1, in the conditioned group, oxytocin significantly increased from baseline to 5 minutes after CS (B[slope] = 19.55, SE = 5.88, p < .001) and remained increased from 5 to 20 (B = -10.42, SE = 5.81, p = .071) and 50 minutes (B = -0.70, SE = 3.37, p = .84). On evocation day 2, a trend for increase in oxytocin was found at 5 minutes (B = 15.22, SE = 8.14, p = .062). No placebo effect was found on evocation day 3 (B = 3.57, SE = 3.26, p = .28). Neither exogenous nor conditioned oxytocin affected pain or facial tasks. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that oxytocin release can be conditioned and that this response extinguishes over time. Triggering hormonal release by placebo manipulation offers various clinical possibilities, such as enhancing effects of pharmacological treatments or reducing dosages of medications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered as a clinical trial on www.trialregister.nl (number NTR5596)

An olfactory self-test effectively screens for COVID-19

BACKGROUND: Key to curtailing the COVID-19 pandemic are wide-scale screening strategies. An ideal screen is one that would not rely on transporting, distributing, and collecting physical specimens. Given the olfactory impairment associated with COVID-19, we developed a perceptual measure of olfaction that relies on smelling household odorants and rating them online. METHODS: Each participant was instructed to select 5 household items, and rate their perceived odor pleasantness and intensity using an online visual analogue scale. We used this data to assign an olfactory perceptual fingerprint, a value that reflects the perceived difference between odorants. We tested the performance of this real-time tool in a total of 13,484 participants (462 COVID-19 positive) from 134 countries who provided 178,820 perceptual ratings of 60 different household odorants. RESULTS: We observe that olfactory ratings are indicative of COVID-19 status in a country, significantly correlating with national infection rates over time. More importantly, we observe indicative power at the individual level (79% sensitivity and 87% specificity). Critically, this olfactory screen remains effective in participants with COVID-19 but without symptoms, and in participants with symptoms but without COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The current odorant-based olfactory screen adds a component to online symptom-checkers, to potentially provide an added first line of defense that can help fight disease progression at the population level. The data derived from this tool may allow better understanding of the link between COVID-19 and olfaction

Perceived odor and irritation of isopropanol: a comparison between naive controls and occupationally exposed workers

Objectives. To assess sensory irritation levels from isopropanol (IPA) unconfounded by subjective evaluations of odor for comparison against the recommended exposure limits (400 ppm threshold limit value (TLV); American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists). Method. The lateralization method was used to assess intra-nasal irritation thresholds for IPA, while odor detection thresholds were also measured. Thresholds for 1-butanol and phenyl ethyl alcohol (PEA) were obtained as positive and negative irritant controls. To compare potency and hedonic characteristics, subjects provided subjective ratings of odor, irritation and annoyance intensity for three concentrations of each chemical. Workers occupationally exposed to IPA (n=26) were compared with previously unexposed controls (n=26). Results. The (geometric) mean odor detection threshold for IPA was slightly higher among exposed workers than controls (39 ppm vs. 11 ppm). Lateralization thresholds measuring intra-nasal irritation were elevated when compared with controls (6,083 ppm in exposed workers vs. 3,361 ppm in naïve controls), with a significantly higher proportion of phlebotomists being unable to lateralize the maximum concentration regarded as safe, than controls. Calculations of the 6th percentile for lateralization thresholds revealed that 95% of the sample did not experience sensory irritation below 512 ppm. Thus, while odor detection thresholds were well below the current recommended exposure limits, the irritation thresholds were well above these values. The odor, irritation and annoyance from IPA was perceived, on average, as between weak and almost strong, from lowest to highest concentration. Conclusions. The results indicate that current exposure guidelines would be adequately protective of the acute adverse effect of nasal sensory irritation, as operationally defined by the intra-nasal lateralization threshold. Exposures to higher concentrations should perhaps be evaluated on the basis of existing knowledge about systemic, rather than local (e.g., irritation), toxic effects. IPA appears to be a weak sensory irritant and occupational exposure to IPA appears to elicit small changes in sensitivity that do not generalize to other odorants (e.g., PEA and 1-butanol) and are likely to be reversibl

Acute sensory irritation from exposure to isopropanol(2-propanol) at TLV in workers and controls : objective versus subjective effects

Objectives. Phlebotomists occupationally exposed to isopropanol (IPA) (2-propanol) and naïve controls (n = 12 per group) were exposed to the time-weighted average threshold limit value of 400 p.p.m. IPA for 4 h in an environmental chamber to investigate: (i) acute effects of sensory irritation using subjective health symptom reports and objective, physiological end-points; and (ii) differences in measured effects in relation to exposure history. Methods. Before, during and after exposure subjects gave self-reports of health complaints. During exposure subjects rated the intensity of the odor, sensory irritation and annoyance. Objective end-points of ocular hyperemia, nasal congestion, nasal secretion and respiration were obtained at various times before, during and after exposure. Results were compared with exposure to phenylethyl alcohol (PEA), a negative control for irritation, and to clean air (CA), a negative control for odor and irritation, using a within-subjects design. Results. Significantly higher intensity ratings of odor, irritation and annoyance were reported during the exposure to IPA, when compared with exposure to CA or PEA. Nevertheless, the overall level of reported sensory irritation to IPA was low and perceived as ‘weak’ on average. Health symptom ratings were not significantly elevated for IPA as compared with PEA or CA exposure. The only physiological end-point that showed a change exclusively in the IPA condition was respiration frequency: relative to baseline, respiration frequency increased in response to IPA in both groups. No differences were encountered between the occupationally exposed and the control groups. Conclusions. The increase in respiration frequency in response to IPA may reflect either a reflexive change due to sensory irritation (an autonomic event) or a voluntary change in breathing in response to perception of an unpleasant, solvent-like odor (a physiological event caused by cognitive mediation). Our findings on objective end-points, including nasal and ocular sensory irritation, did not confirm subjective irritation reports. Irritation reports and odor intensity decreased, rather than increased, over time, lending credence to the cognitive argument and suggesting that the elevated subjective responses to IPA may be mediated by responses to its odor