1 1 Symposium Chemosensory Receptors Satellite DEVELOPMENT ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

181 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory Measurement,Psychophysical, Clinical Olfactory, and TrigeminalSPECIFIC ANOSMIA FOR SELECTED NOR-ISOPRENOIDFLAVOR COMPOUNDS IN ORANGE JUICEPlotto A. 1 , Barnes K.W. 2 , Goodner K.L. 1 1 Citrus & SubtropicalProducts Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service (ARS), WinterHaven, FL; 2 Danisco USA Inc., Lakeland, FLThresholds for flavor volatiles have been traditionally calculated inwater or air, but they may vary widely in more complex food matrices.Thresholds of orange flavor compounds were measured in a deodorizedorange juice matrix (pumpout) using the Three-Alternative-Forced-Choice (3-AFC) method (ASTM: E-679). A bimodal distribution wasfound among panelists for sensitivity to β-ionone and β-damascenonewhereas thresholds for other tested compounds followed a normaldistribution. Orthonasal thresholds for β-ionone and β-damascenonewere respectively 985 and 690 times higher for non-perceivers thanperceivers. Panelists who could not perceive β-ionone were otherwisegood perceivers of most compounds tested, including α-ionone, aconstitutional isomer of β-ionone. All three compounds were re-testedin water using the same panelists, and with another set of panelists.Differences between non-perceivers and perceivers of β-ionone were4900 and 4600 times higher for ortho- and retronasal thresholds,respectively. No such differences were found for β-damascenone whenmeasured in water. Results for β-damascenone indicate that half of thepanelists could not differentiate the compound from the backgroundwhen tested in pumpout. Differences between low and high thresholdsfor β-damascenone in pumpout indicate that the response to thatstimulus could be processed at the cognitive level in the complexmatrix. In conclusion, specific anosmia was only observed for β-ionone,but not for α-ionone or β-damascenone.182 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory Measurement,Psychophysical, Clinical Olfactory, and TrigeminalHUMAN ODOR DETECTION OF HOMOLOGOUSCARBOXYLIC ACIDS AND THEIR BINARY MIXTURESMiyazawa T. 1 , Gallagher M. 2 , Preti G. 2 , Wise P. 2 1 Flavor System &Technology Laboratory, Ogawa & Co., Ltd., Philadelphia, PA; 2 MonellChemical Senses Center, Philadelphia, PADoes structural similarity of odorants influence detectability of theirmixtures? To address this question, psychometric (probability of correctdetection vs. concentration) functions were measured for aliphaticcarboxylic acids and selected binary mixtures thereof. Unmixed stimuliincluded acetic (C 2 ), butyric (C 4 ), hexanoic (C 6 ), and octanoic (C 8 )acids. Mixtures included C 2 +C 4 , C 2 +C 6 , and C 2 +C 8 . Vapor-phaseconcentrations of individual compounds, as measured by a combinationof SPME and GC/MS, were always the same, whether presented singlyor in a binary mixture. A response-additivity model (independentprocessing of mixture-components) was applied to the data for unmixedcompounds to generate theoretical predictions for the psychometricfunction for each binary mixture. For C 2 +C 6 and C 2 +C 8 , psychometricfunctions agreed well with theoretical predictions from near-chancedetection to near-perfect detection. These results suggest independentprocessing of mixture-components. For C 2 +C 4 , however, detectiondeviated from predictions in a concentration-dependent fashion. At lowconcentrations, proportion correct exceeded additivity (synergy). Athigher concentrations, proportion correct fell below additivity(suppression). Thus, results with C 2 +C 4 partially agree with pastfindings that detection tends to fall below additivity for more easilydetected mixtures (e.g., Behav. Brain Res., 156; 115-23; 2005). Unlikepast research, the current results suggest that a high degree of structuralsimilarity is needed for mixture-interactions, i.e., deviations fromindependent processing, to occur. Future studies can determine if thisresult is particular to carboxylic acids.183 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory Measurement,Psychophysical, Clinical Olfactory, and TrigeminalSWEET ODOURS INCREASE PAIN TOLERANCEWilkie J. 1 , Prescott J. 1 1 Psychology, James Cook University, Cairns,Queensland, AustraliaSeveral studies in humans have documented an impact of odours inreducing measures of pain. One hypothesis is that odour pleasantnessinfluences pain, possibly via its impact on mood. Sweet tastes reducepain, and we tested whether odours that are sweet-smelling throughprior association with such tastes might similarly reduce pain. In thestudy reported here, adult subjects (Ss) underwent a pain-inducing coldpressortest (CPT) during which they inhaled air containing a sweetsmellingodour. To test for potential odor-induced mood effects on pain,and to distinguish between effects due to pleasantness versus those dueto a specific sweet smell (necessary, since many sweet-smelling odoursare also pleasant), Ss in two control groups also underwent the CPTwith other non-sweet odors of similar intensity, but varying inpleasantness. In the CPT, Ss immersed their dominant forearm in waterat ~5 degC for up to 4 minutes on two occasions, 15 mins apart: oncewith the odour present (CPT+), and once without (CPT-), orderbalanced across Ss. For each S, we then determined the impact of thedifferent odours by comparing latencies (secs) to remove their arm inthe two CPTs. Ss also rated the pain intensity immediately afterimmersion, again after another 30 secs, and then immediately onwithdrawing their arm from the water. The group receiving the sweetodour had a significantly longer mean latency during the CPT+ than theCPT- condition, and a longer latency than both control groups for eitherCPT+ or CPT-. There were no group differences in pain ratings at anyof the rating periods. Hence, these results most likely reflect differencesin pain tolerance rather than pain reduction per se. These results arediscussed in terms of associative conditioning models.184 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory Measurement,Psychophysical, Clinical Olfactory, and TrigeminalTHE INFLUENCE OF SMELLING COFFEE ON OLFACTORYHABITUATIONSecundo L. 1 , Sobel N. 1 1 Neuroscience, University of California,Berkeley, Berkeley, CAPerfume stores often encourage customers to clear their olfactorypallet by smelling coffee in between samples of perfume. We set out totest this in the laboratory. 16 subjects participated in an experimentwhere A computer controlled olfactometr was used to deliver one ofthree perfumes, clean air, or coffee, in a design that maximizedhabituation. Each trial consisted of 7 consecutive sniffs separated byjudgments on a VAS scale. An example of a “perfume A” trial is: 1.sniff perfume A > estimate intensity > 2. sniff perfume A > estimatepleasantness > 3. sniff coffee or air > estimate intensity > 4. sniffperfume A or B or C > estimate same/different (as previous) > 5. sniffperfume as previous > estimate intensity > 6. sniff perfume as previous> estimate pleasantness > 7. sniff coffee or air > estimate pleasantness.An experiment consisted of 24 trials (ITI = 20 s) containing all possibleorders of perfumes A, B, and C. 12 consecutive trials were “coffeetrials” (coffee in sniffs 3 and 7), and 12 were “air trials” (air in sniffs 3and 7). The order of air and coffee trials was counterbalanced acrosssubjects. Accuracy at match-to-sample was the same following sniffs ofair or coffee (mean coffee = 74% ± 13%, mean air = 70% ± 15%,binomial p < 0.4). Whereas estimates of odorant pleasantness weresimilar after sniffing coffee or air (10 of 16 subjects, binomial p < .4),estimates of odorant intensity were preserved following sniffs of coffeeyet reduced (habituated) following sniffs of air (13 of 16 subjects,binomial p < 0.02). In further testing we will use other odorants to askwhether this influence on intensity perception is specific to coffee, andif yes, what component of coffee exerts this effect.46
185 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory Measurement,Psychophysical, Clinical Olfactory, and TrigeminalPREDICTING NOSTRIL-SPECIFIC DETECTIONTHRESHOLDSPorter J.A. 1 , Anand T. 2 , Kennedy K. 3 , Khan R.M. 4 , Noam S. 41 Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA;2 Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CA;3 Pierce College, Woodland Hills, CA; 4 Helen Wills NeuroscienceInstitute, University of California, Berkeley, Berkeley, CAEvidence from frog electrophysiology and human psychophysicssuggest that both the chemical properties of an odorant, and the velocitywith which it passes over the olfactory epithelium affect the magnitudeof the olfactory response. Based on these past results we constructed asimple model of olfactory response as a function of airflow velocity andchemical sorption rate. We hypothesized that the percent coverage ofthe olfactory epithelium would be directly related to the olfactoryresponse. We then propose a simple equation that might model theepithelial coverage as % coverage = 100(c/cmaxcov) – k(FR – SR)2 ,where c is the odorant concentration, cmaxcov is the concentration thatwould be needed for maximal coverage of the epithelium, FR is theairflow velocity of odorant over the epithelium, and SR is the sorptionrate of the odorant. This simple model predicts that for a given odorant,the detection threshold should vary with airflow velocity. Consideringthat airflow velocity is different across nostrils, this model furtherpredicts nostril-specific detection thresholds. In order to test thishypothesis we have measured monorhinal detection thresholds using theML-PEST method (maximum likelihood parameter estimation bysequential testing). To date we have collected monorhinal detectionthresholds from 7 subjects using the odorant octane, a low sorption rateodorant. As predicted by our model, 5 of 7 subjects had a lowerdetection threshold in their low airflow velocity nostril compared totheir high airflow velocity nostril. Data from additional subjects andadditional odorants will be presented as a test of the model. Funding:NIH/NIDCD186 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory Measurement,Psychophysical, Clinical Olfactory, and TrigeminalODOR MEMORY AND LABELING IN ADULTS ANDCHILDRENHorning S.M. 1 , Bailie J.M. 1 , Rybalsky K.A. 1 , Frank R.A. 2 1 Psychology,Univ Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH; 2 Psychology/Office of Vice Presidentfor Research & Advance, Univ Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OHChildren are well documented to perform poorly on odoridentification tasks (Doty et al., 1984), but the reasons are not wellunderstood. One reason for poor memory performance in children maybe inaccurate odor labeling. Lumeng, et al., (2005) investigated the roleof verbal labeling in flavor memory in preschool-aged children usingflavors of jelly beans in an “old”-“new” flavor recall task. It was foundthat recall for flavors improved with age and was associated with theability to correctly label the flavor. However, the children generallyperformed poorly on the flavor recall task, with mean performancebeing only slightly better than chance, and no comparative data on adultperformance was collected. The purpose of the present study was todetermine how healthy adults perform on the flavor recall task used byLumeng et al., (2005) so as to further explore memory for flavors andthe role of verbal labeling on flavor memory. Healthy young adultsreceived ten randomly selected flavors of jelly beans during the initialphase of the experiment and were asked to identify the flavor. After afifteen minute retention interval, the participants were asked to tastetwenty more jelly beans; ten previously tasted and ten new distractors.Participants were first asked if they had previously tasted the jelly beanflavor and again asked to identify the flavor. Responses were scored forhits, false alarms, accuracy and consistency of labeling. Strikingsimilarities were observed when the performance of the children andadults was compared. In general, the study confirms that odor memorytasks are difficult for both adults and children.187 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory Measurement,Psychophysical, Clinical Olfactory, and TrigeminalVERBAL ASSOCIATIONS AND ODOR MEMORYMoeller P. 1 , Hansen D. 1 , Mojet J. 2 , Koester E.P. 2 1 Sensory Systems,Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg, Denmark;2 Wageningen University Research, Agrotechnology and FoodInnovations, Wageningen, NetherlandsAre verbal associations to uncommon odors helpful in rememberingthese odors? Two groups of young subjects (each 12 female and 12male) learned to associate three one-syllable nonsense words to threeuncommon odors and were exposed equally often to three other odors ina same-different test. The odors in the learning condition of the firstgroup were the odors in the same-different test in the second group andvice versa. The same words were used for learning in both groups. Theorder of learning and exposure was systematically varied oversubgroups. Association learning performance, odor memory and odorwordassociation memory were measured. No significant difference inodor memory between the odors in the “verbally associated” and the“same-different” conditions was found. Odor memory and verbalassociation learning performance were unrelated. Odor memory wasalmost perfect; verbal-odor association memory was not. When both thetargets and the distractors of the first memory test were used again thenext day in a memory test with new distractors under the instruction tofind only the originally learned stimuli, the odor memory for theoriginal targets was still high for stimuli from both learning conditions.The much less frequently encountered first-day distractors were alsowell remembered as was shown in the large number of false alarms theyproduced. The implications of these findings for understanding odormemory are discussed.188 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory Measurement,Psychophysical, Clinical Olfactory, and TrigeminalIT SMELLS SO GOOD I CAN ALMOST TASTE IT: EVIDENCETHAT FOOD AND NONFOOD ODORS ARE LOCALIZEDDIFFERENTLY WITHIN THE NASAL CAVITYNewhouse K.J. 1 , Green B. 2 , Small D.M. 3 1 InterdepartmentalNeuroscience Program, Yale University, New Haven, CT; 2 Surgery(Otolaryngology), Yale University, New Haven, CT; 3 Psychology, YaleUniversity, New Haven, CTWe investigated whether perceiving an odor as a food or nonfoodaffects where in the nose it is localized. We hypothesized thatexperience with an odor as a flavor that emanates from the mouthcauses the odor to be localized toward the posterior region of the nasalcavity. We defined odor localization as where in the nasal cavity asubject perceives a sniffed odor to be distributed. Subjects were shownthree MRI cross-sections of the head depicting hypotheticaldistributions of odor within the anterior, mid or posterior portions of thenasal cavity. They were told that that these images represent possibledistributions of an odor in the nose. Subjects sniffed six food and sixnonfood odors and selected the distribution that best matched theperception of each. In two separate subjects (n = 14 and n= 20), Chisquare analyses showed that subjects selected the posterior distributionmore frequently for food compared to nonfood odors (p < 0.02 and p
Page 1 and 2: 1 Symposium Chemosensory Receptors
Page 3 and 4: 9 Symposium Chemosensory Receptors
Page 5 and 6: 17 Givaudan LectureFISHING FOR NOVE
Page 7 and 8: 25 Symposium Impact of Odorant Meta
Page 10 and 11: 37 Poster Peripheral Olfaction and
Page 24 and 25: 93 Poster Chemosensory Coding and C
Page 26 and 27: 101 Poster Chemosensory Coding and
Page 36 and 37: sniffing behavior. Furthermore, we
Page 38 and 39: 149 Slide Chemosensory Coding and C
Page 40 and 41: 157 Slide Taste ChemoreceptionHTAS2
Page 42 and 43: 165 Poster Multimodal, Chemosensory
Page 58 and 59: 229 Slide Molecular Genetic Approac
Page 60 and 61: 237 Poster Central Olfaction and Ch
Page 76 and 77: 301 Slide Central OlfactionOLFACTOR
Page 78 and 79: 309 Poster Chemosensory Molecular G
Page 94 and 95: 373 Symposium Olfactory Bulb Comput
Page 96 and 97:
381 Symposium Presidential: Why Hav
Page 98 and 99:
389 Poster Central Taste and Chemos
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
437 Symposium Neural Dynamics and C
Page 112 and 113:
445 Poster Developmental, Neurogene
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Brody, Carlos, 438Brown, R. Lane, 3
Page 130 and 131:
Gilbertson, Timothy Allan, 63, 64,
Page 132 and 133:
Klouckova, Iveta, 150Klyuchnikova,
Page 134 and 135:
Ni, Daofeng, 93Nichols, Zachary, 35
Page 136 and 137:
Sorensen, Peter W., 23, 288, 289Sou
Page 138:
Zeng, Musheng, 466Zeng, Shaoqun, 26
show all

1 1 Symposium Chemosensory Receptors Satellite DEVELOPMENT ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?