Hedonic appreciation and verbal description of pleasant and unpleasant odors in untrained, trainee cooks, flavorists, and perfumers

Two-Year Follow-Up on Chemosensory Dysfunction and Adaptive Immune Response after Infection with SARS-CoV-2 in a Cohort of 44 Healthcare Workers

Persistent chemosensory dysfunction (PCD) is a common symptom of long-COVID. Chemosensory dysfunction (CD) as well as SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody levels and CD8⁺ T-cell immunity were investigated in a cohort of 44 healthcare workers up to a median of 721 days after a positive PCR test. CD was assessed using questionnaires and psychophysical screening tests. After 721 days, 11 of 44 (25%) participants reported PCD, with five describing an impaired quality of life. One participant reported hyperosmia (increased sense of smell). The risk of PCD at 721 days was higher for participants reporting qualitative changes (parosmia (altered smell), dysgeusia (altered taste), or phantosmia (hallucination of smell)) during initial infection than in those with isolated quantitative losses during the first COVID-19 infection (62.5% vs. 7.1%). The main recovery rate occurred within the first 100 days and did not continue until follow-up at 2 years. No correlation was found between antibody levels and CD, but we observed a trend of a higher percentage of T-cell responders in participants with CD. In conclusion, a significant proportion of patients suffer from PCD and impaired quality of life 2 years after initial infection. Qualitative changes in smell or taste during COVID-19 pose a higher risk for PCD.

Odour hedonics and the ubiquitous appeal of vanilla

Our food choices and consumption behaviours are often influenced by odour hedonics, especially in the case of those orthonasally experienced aromas (that is, those odours that are food-related). The origins of odour hedonics remain one of the most intriguing puzzles in olfactory science and, over the years, several fundamentally different accounts have been put forwards to try and explain the varying hedonic responses that people have to a wide range of odorants. Associative learning, innate and molecular accounts of odour pleasantness have all been suggested. Here the origins of the hedonic response to vanilla, which is one of the most liked smells cross-culturally, are explored. The history of vanilla's use in food and medicine is outlined, with a focus on its neurocognitive appeal. While vanilla is one of the most widely liked aromas, it is also rated as smelling sweet to most people. Food scientists are becoming increasingly interested in the possibility that such 'sweet smells' could be used to help maintain the sweetness of commercial food products while, at the same time, reducing the use of calorific sweeteners. Such an approach is likely to be facilitated by the low cost of artificial vanilla flavouring (when compared with the high and fluctuating price of natural vanilla pods).

Data-science based analysis of perceptual spaces of odors in olfactory loss

Diminished sense of smell impairs the quality of life but olfactorily disabled people are hardly considered in measures of disability inclusion. We aimed to stratify perceptual characteristics and odors according to the extent to which they are perceived differently with reduced sense of smell, as a possible basis for creating olfactory experiences that are enjoyed in a similar way by subjects with normal or impaired olfactory function. In 146 subjects with normal or reduced olfactory function, perceptual characteristics (edibility, intensity, irritation, temperature, familiarity, hedonics, painfulness) were tested for four sets of 10 different odors each. Data were analyzed with (i) a projection based on principal component analysis and (ii) the training of a machine-learning algorithm in a 1000-fold cross-validated setting to distinguish between olfactory diagnosis based on odor property ratings. Both analytical approaches identified perceived intensity and familiarity with the odor as discriminating characteristics between olfactory diagnoses, while evoked pain sensation and perceived temperature were not discriminating, followed by edibility. Two disjoint sets of odors were identified, i.e., d = 4 “discriminating odors” with respect to olfactory diagnosis, including cis-3-hexenol, methyl salicylate, 1-butanol and cineole, and d = 7 “non-discriminating odors”, including benzyl acetate, heptanal, 4-ethyl-octanoic acid, methional, isobutyric acid, 4-decanolide and p-cresol. Different weightings of the perceptual properties of odors with normal or reduced sense of smell indicate possibilities to create sensory experiences such as food, meals or scents that by emphasizing trigeminal perceptions can be enjoyed by both normosmic and hyposmic individuals.

Accounting for Subjectivity in Experimental Research on Human Olfaction

Although olfaction is a modality with great interindividual perceptual disparities, its subjective dimension has been let aside in modern research, in line with the overall neglect of consciousness in experimental psychology. However, following the renewed interest for the neural bases of consciousness, some methodological leads have been proposed to include subjectivity in experimental protocols. Here, we argue that adapting such methods to the field of olfaction will allow to rigorously acquire subjective reports, and we present several ways to do so. This will improve the understanding of diversity in odor perception and its underlying neural mechanisms.

Categorizing Smells: A Localist Approach

Humans are poorer at identifying smells and communicating about them, compared to other sensory domains. They also cannot easily organize odor sensations in a general conceptual space, where geometric distance could represent how similar or different all odors are. These two generalities are more or less accepted by psychologists, and they are often seen as connected: If there is no conceptual space for odors, then olfactory identification should indeed be poor. We propose here an important revision to this conclusion: We believe that the claim that there is no odor space is true only if by odor space, one means a conceptual space representing all possible odor sensations, in the paradigmatic sense used for instance for color. However, in a less paradigmatic sense, local conceptual spaces representing a given subset of odors do exist. Thus the absence of a global odor space does not warrant the conclusion that there is no olfactory conceptual map at all. Here we show how a localist account provides a new interpretation of experts and cross-cultural categorization studies: Rather than being exceptions to the poor olfactory identification and communication usually seen elsewhere, experts and cross-cultural categorization are here taken to corroborate the existence of local conceptual spaces.

Comparative Evaluation of the Autonomic Response to Cognitive and Sensory Stimulations through Wearable Sensors

Psychological stress is known to activate the autonomic nervous system (ANS), thus representing a useful target to be monitored to understand the physiological, unconscious effect of stress on the human body. However, little is known about how differently the ANS responds to cognitive and sensory stimulations in healthy subjects. To this extent, we enrolled 23 subjects and administered a stress protocol consisting of the administration of sensory (olfactory) and cognitive (mathematical) stressors. Autonomic parameters were unobtrusively monitored through wearable sensors for capturing electrocardiogram and skin conductance signals. The results obtained demonstrated an increase of the heart rate during both stress protocols, with a similar decrease of the heart rate variability. Cognitive stress test appears to affect the autonomic parameters to a greater extent, confirming its effects on the human body. However, olfactory stimulation could be useful to study stress in specific experimental settings when the administration of complex cognitive testing is not feasible.

Chemical features mining provides new descriptive structure-odor relationships

An important goal in researching the biology of olfaction is to link the perception of smells to the chemistry of odorants. In other words, why do some odorants smell like fruits and others like flowers? While the so-called stimulus-percept issue was resolved in the field of color vision some time ago, the relationship between the chemistry and psycho-biology of odors remains unclear up to the present day. Although a series of investigations have demonstrated that this relationship exists, the descriptive and explicative aspects of the proposed models that are currently in use require greater sophistication. One reason for this is that the algorithms of current models do not consistently consider the possibility that multiple chemical rules can describe a single quality despite the fact that this is the case in reality, whereby two very different molecules can evoke a similar odor. Moreover, the available datasets are often large and heterogeneous, thus rendering the generation of multiple rules without any use of a computational approach overly complex. We considered these two issues in the present paper. First, we built a new database containing 1689 odorants characterized by physicochemical properties and olfactory qualities. Second, we developed a computational method based on a subgroup discovery algorithm that discriminated perceptual qualities of smells on the basis of physicochemical properties. Third, we ran a series of experiments on 74 distinct olfactory qualities and showed that the generation and validation of rules linking chemistry to odor perception was possible. Taken together, our findings provide significant new insights into the relationship between stimulus and percept in olfaction. In addition, by automatically extracting new knowledge linking chemistry of odorants and psychology of smells, our results provide a new computational framework of analysis enabling scientists in the field to test original hypotheses using descriptive or predictive modeling.

An important issue in olfaction sciences deals with the question of how a chemical information can be translated into percepts. This is known as the stimulus-percept problem. Here, we set out to better understand this issue by combining knowledge about the chemistry and cognition of smells with computational olfaction. We also assumed that not only one, but several physicochemical models may describe a given olfactory quality. To achieve this aim, a first challenge was to set up a database with ~1700 molecules characterized by chemical features and described by olfactory qualities (e.g. fruity, woody). A second challenge consisted in developing a computational model enabling the discrimination of olfactory qualities based on these chemical features. By meeting these 2 challenges, we provided for several olfactory qualities new chemical models describing why an odorant molecule smells fruity or woody (among others). For most qualities, multiple (rather than a single) chemical models were generated. These findings provide new elements of knowledge about the relationship between odorant chemistry and perception. They also make it possible to envisage concrete applications in the aroma and fragrance field where chemical characterization of smells is an important step in the design of new products.

Learning to name smells increases activity in heteromodal semantic areas

Semantic description of odors is a cognitively demanding task. Learning to name smells is, however, possible with training. This study set out to examine how improvement in olfactory semantic knowledge following training reorganizes the neural representation of smells. First, 19 nonexpert volunteers were trained for 3 days; they were exposed (i) to odorants presented without verbal labels (perceptual learning) and (ii) to other odorants paired with lexicosemantic labels (associative learning). Second, the same participants were tested in a brain imaging study (fMRI) measuring hemodynamic responses to learned odors presented in both the perceptual and associative learning conditions. The lexicosemantic training enhanced the ability to describe smells semantically. Neurally, this change was associated with enhanced activity in a set of heteromodal areas-including superior frontal gyrus-and parietal areas. These findings demonstrate that odor-name associative learning induces recruitment of brain areas involved in the integration and representation of semantic attributes of sensory events. They also offer new insights into the brain plasticity underlying the acquisition of olfactory expertise in lay people. Hum Brain Mapp 38:5958-5969, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Individual Differences in Verbal and Non-Verbal Affective Responses to Smells: Influence of Odor Label Across Cultures

Olfactory perception is highly variable from one person to another, as a function of individual and contextual factors. Here, we investigated the influence of 2 important factors of variation: culture and semantic information. More specifically, we tested whether cultural-specific knowledge and presence versus absence of odor names modulate odor perception, by measuring these effects in 2 populations differing in cultural background but not in language. Participants from France and Quebec, Canada, smelled 4 culture-specific and 2 non-specific odorants in 2 conditions: first without label, then with label. Their ratings of pleasantness, familiarity, edibility, and intensity were collected as well as their psychophysiological and olfactomotor responses. The results revealed significant effects of culture and semantic information, both at the verbal and non-verbal level. They also provided evidence that availability of semantic information reduced cultural differences. Semantic information had a unifying action on olfactory perception that overrode the influence of cultural background.

Odorant Normative Data for Use in Olfactory Memory Experiments: Dimension Selection and Analysis of Individual Differences

The present study reports normative ratings for 200 food and non-food odors. One hundred participants rated odors across measures of verbalisability, perceived descriptive ability, context availability, pleasantness, irritability, intensity, familiarity, frequency, age of acquisition, and complexity. Analysis of the agreement between raters revealed that four dimensions, those of familiarity, intensity, pleasantness, and irritability, have the strongest utility as normative data. The ratings for the remaining dimensions exhibited reduced discriminability across the odor set and should therefore be used with caution. Indeed, these dimensions showed a larger difference between individuals in the ratings of the odors. Familiarity was shown to be related to pleasantness, and a non-linear relationship between pleasantness and intensity was observed which reflects greater intensity for odors that elicit a strong hedonic response. The suitability of these data for use in future olfactory study is considered, and effective implementation of the data for controlling stimuli is discussed.

Not All Flavor Expertise Is Equal: The Language of Wine and Coffee Experts

People in Western cultures are poor at naming smells and flavors. However, for wine and coffee experts, describing smells and flavors is part of their daily routine. So are experts better than lay people at conveying smells and flavors in language? If smells and flavors are more easily linguistically expressed by experts, or more “codable”, then experts should be better than novices at describing smells and flavors. If experts are indeed better, we can also ask how general this advantage is: do experts show higher codability only for smells and flavors they are expert in (i.e., wine experts for wine and coffee experts for coffee) or is their linguistic dexterity more general? To address these questions, wine experts, coffee experts, and novices were asked to describe the smell and flavor of wines, coffees, everyday odors, and basic tastes. The resulting descriptions were compared on a number of measures. We found expertise endows a modest advantage in smell and flavor naming. Wine experts showed more consistency in how they described wine smells and flavors than coffee experts, and novices; but coffee experts were not more consistent for coffee descriptions. Neither expert group was any more accurate at identifying everyday smells or tastes. Interestingly, both wine and coffee experts tended to use more source-based terms (e.g., vanilla) in descriptions of their own area of expertise whereas novices tended to use more evaluative terms (e.g., nice). However, the overall linguistic strategies for both groups were en par. To conclude, experts only have a limited, domain-specific advantage when communicating about smells and flavors. The ability to communicate about smells and flavors is a matter not only of perceptual training, but specific linguistic training too.