Sniff Olfactometer (SO) Protocols
Ni, J. L.; Tang, Q.; Huang, J. D.; Solla, A. L.; Kelson, H.; Weeks, M. D.; Alcott, Z. M.-L.; Ong, J. M.; Gomez, A.; Ding, K.; Acree, T. E.
Show abstract
Most olfactometers used to study human olfaction have stimulus durations of more than 1 second and often lasting minutes(Dravnieks 1975; Leland et al. 2001; Schmidt and Cain 2010). During long stimulations, olfactory receptor responses and their resulting behaviors are modulated by adaptation and habituation to the stimulus(Pellegrino et al. 2017; Rankin 2009; Wilson and Linster 2008). For example, EOG results from the first deorphanized olfactory receptor tissue reached a maximum in [~]1 s, dropping to 1/2 maximum in the next second, and showing little signal reduction until the stimulation stopped after 6 seconds(Zhao et al. 1998). Longer stimulations can result in complete habituation; receptors still respond even though the behavior shows complete habituation (Barwich 2014). To minimize the effects of adaption and habituation on stimulus responses, the sniff olfactometer (SO) combined the precision of a blast olfactometer with the gentleness of a stream olfactometer by blasting a brief odorant puff (70ms duration) into a subjects self-imposed inhalation air stream(Rochelle 2017; Rochelle et al. 2017b; Wyckoff and Acree 2017). Here we describe SO protocols for threshold determinations of odorants in aqueous headspaces using odorant recognition probabilities associated with Log(odorant-concentrations(Rochelle et al. 2017a)). During a single trial a subject, preconditioned to associate a veridical name with a given odor (e.g., a pyrazine with "nuts" when the odor was detected and "not nuts" if it wasnt) was cued to "inhale" and 750ms later, a 15ml-70ms puff of odorant headspace was delivered into their inhalation airstream. A session consisted of 12 randomized double-blind trials of 3 different odorant concentrations. Additional sessions with different concentrations were conducted until the response probability to the samples ranged from below 0.2 to above 0.8. The robustness of the fitted function and the size of their confidence intervals depended on the difference between the concentrations of the odorants during a single session: small differences in sample concentration resulted in the data failing to fit a logistic function; larger concentration differences resulted in a better fit to the model. However, if one of the stimuli had no odorant at all i.e., a blank, the response to the blank was random.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The effect of odor enrichment on olfactory acuity: Olfactometric testing in mice using two mirror-molecular pairs. 95%
- Hyperbolic odorant mixtures as a basis for more efficient signaling between flowering plants and bees 93%
- Air-liquid interface exposure of A549 human lung cells to characterize the hazard potential of a gaseous bio-hybrid fuel blend 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Optokinetic response in D. Melanogaster reveals the nature of common repellent odorants. 92%
- Aerosol emission rates from playing wind instruments – Implications for COVID-19 transmission during music performance 91%
- Geosmin suppresses defensive behaviour and elicits unusual neural responses in honey bees. 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A layered, hybrid machine learning analytic workflow for mouse risk assessment behavior 92%
- PeerPub: A device for concurrent operant oral self-administration by multiple rats 92%
- Strawberry additive increases nicotine vapor sampling and systemic exposure but does not enhance Pavlovian-based nicotine reward in mice 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.