2009 Abstracts - Association for Chemoreception Sciences

four (4 AFC) that they believe is most representative of thestimulus. Prior to testing the subject is presented with a picture ofeach of the odor stimuli on the LCD and they must name theobject. A correct or incorrect response is recorded by theexaminer. In order to keep the participants engaged in the task,one additional modification was implemented. Before testingbegan, each participant was allowed to choose their form ofreinforcement for correctly identifying an odor stimulus. Acorrect response would either 1) “virtually” burst one balloonfrom an array of 20 displayed on the LCD; or 2) add one “virtualballoon” to a bouquet of balloons on the screen. To evaluate theutility of this test, two groups of children 6-8 years old weretested as part of a larger battery of tests that included measures ofpostural sway and auditory function. The groups were part of alarger study examining the effects of environmental manganeseexposure on childhood development. Collection of the data isongoing; results of the study will be described in detail at themeeting. Supported by NIDCD grant DC6369.#P263 Poster session VI: Chemosensory developmentand Psychophysics IComparison of two different olfactory detection thresholdtests of the Sniffin’ SticksRebekka Zernecke 1 , Birgit Vollmer 1 , Jessica Albrecht 1,2 ,Anna M. Kleemann 1 , Katrin Haegler 1 , Jennifer Linn 1 ,Gunther Fesl 1 , Hartmut Brückmann 1 , Martin Wiesmann 1,31Department of Neuroradiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universityof Munich Munich, Germany, 2 Monell Chemical Senses CenterPhiladelphia, PA, USA, 3 Department of Radiology andNeuroradiology, Helios Kliniken Schwerin Schwerin, GermanyObjectives: The olfactory test battery Sniffin’ Sticks is a test ofnasal chemosensory function which is based on pen-like devicesfor odor presentation. It consists of three subtests: odor threshold,odor discrimination and odor identification. The detectionthreshold can be measured using two different odorants – n-butanol or PEA (phenylethyl alcohol). Both test batteries arecommonly employed in published studies, but there has neverbeen a formal comparison of values obtained using them. Thepurpose of this study was to compare two different olfactorydetection threshold tests (n-butanol and PEA). Methods: Bothtests were applied to a group of 78 healthy, normosmic subjects(41 male, 37 female). The experiment was divided into twosessions performed on two different days. The order of both testswas pseudo randomized. After each threshold test adiscrimination and identification test was conducted.Results: There were significant differences in odor detectionthresholds of PEA and n-butanol. The mean score of PEAdetection threshold and PEA TDI (threshold discriminationidentification) was significantly higher compared to n-butanol.Participants detected PEA at a lower concentration than n-butanol. No significant correlation between individual PEA andn-butanol thresholds was detected. Conclusion: Previous workregarding the test-retest reliability and validity of the Sniffin’Sticks was performed using the n-butanol threshold test only.The differences between both olfactory test batteries indicatethat a formal validation of Sniffin’ Sticks test with PEA asodorant for detecting the olfactory threshold may be required.#P264 Poster session VI: Chemosensory developmentand Psychophysics ILongitudinal study of olfactory preferences during childhoodFanny Rinck 1 , Melissa Barkat-Defradas 2 , Fanny Bourgeat 1 ,Catherine Rouby 1 , Moustafa Bensafi 11CNRS UMR 5020 Lyon, France, 2 CNRS UMR 5267Montpellier, FrancePleasantness is a prominent facet to the olfactory world.Whereas some aspects of odor hedonics are innate, others areformed during development. One question that is still debated inthe current literature is the early stages of development wherebysuch formation of odor preferences occurs. In the present studywe hypothesized that a critical time-window may be between 3and 5 years old, a period of life whereby the ability to detect,name and memorize odors significantly improves. The presentstudy was aimed at testing this hypothesis through a 3-years longlongitudinal experiment. Fifteen 3-years old children participatedto 3 experimental sessions from year 1 (2006) to year 3 (2008).Participants were first asked to complete a standardized Frenchtest of language and were then exposed to 12 odors (presented foraround 2 sec in a random order). After smelling each compound,they were asked to answer two questions: 1) Do you like ordislike this odor? and 2) Can you tell me what it is? Childrenwere filmed during the session, and both verbal and behavioralresponses were analyzed to give the most reliable measure ofhedonic responses. In line with previous findings, we observedthat general language abilities (production (p