Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two Rapid Odor Threshold Methods Compared to a Modified Method of Constant Stimuli

  • Published:
Chemosensory Perception

Abstract

Sensory thresholds are defined according to a criterion level of performance in a particular psychophysical task. Thus, thresholds are a function of both subject sensitivity and method. However, relatively few studies have directly compared methods using the same subjects and stimulus. In the current work, thresholds for amyl acetate were measured for 19 subjects using three different methods. Results from a modified method of constant stimuli, which directly measures full detection functions, served as a “gold standard” to establish validity. These results were compared to two less intensive “shortcut” methods, viz., a forced-choice ascending method of limits and a staircase procedure. Both rapid methods produced mean threshold values comparable to those from the method of constant stimuli. Thus, both methods provided a reasonable estimate of average threshold. For characterizing individual differences, the validity of both methods seemed largely limited by their reliability. The staircase procedure may outperform the ascending method of limits in characterizing individual differences, but neither method is exceptionally strong in this respect.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allen MJ, Yen WM (2002) Introduction to measurement theory. Waveland Press, Long Grove, IL, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Amoore JE, Hautala E (1983) Odor as an aid to chemical safety: odor thresholds compared with threshold limit values and volatilities for 214 industrial chemicals in air and water dilution. J Appl Toxicol 3(6):272–290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • ASTM International (2004) E679-04: Standard practice for determination of odor and taste threshold by a forced-choice ascending concentration series method of limits. ASTM International, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohrnstedt GW (1983) Measurement. In: Rossi PH, Wright JD, Anderson AB (eds) Handbook of survey research. Academic, San Diego, CA, USA, pp 69–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown KS, Maclean CM, Robinette RR (1968) The distribution of the sensitivity to chemical odors in man. Hum Biol 40(4):456–472

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cain WS, Gent JF (1991) Olfactory sensitivity: reliability, generality, and association with aging. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 17(2):382–391

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cain WS, Schmidt R, Wolkoff P (2007) Olfactory detection of ozone and d-limonene: reactants in indoor spaces. Indoor Air 17(5):337–347

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS, Hiraishi T, Abraham MH, Gola JM (2000) Comparison of two stimulus-delivery systems for measurement of nasal pungency thresholds. Chem Senses 25(3):285–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS (1995) Olfactory adaptation. In: Doty (ed) Handbook of olfaction and gustation. Marcel Dekker, New York, USA, pp 257–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS, Abraham MH (2003) Quantification of chemical vapors in chemosensory research. Chem Senses 28(6):467–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Muñiz JE, Cain WS, Abraham MH (2005) Odor detection of single chemicals and binary mixtures. Behav Brain Res 156(1):115–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devos M, Patte F, Rouault J, Laffort P, Van Gemert LJ (1990) Standardized human olfactory thresholds. IRL Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Doty RL, McKeown DA, Lee WW, Shaman P (1995) A study of the test–retest reliability of 10 olfactory tests. Chem Senses 20(6):645–656

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • García-Pérez MA (1998) Forced-choice staircases with fixed step sizes: asymptotic and small-sample properties. Vis Res 38(12):1861–1881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaffney SH, Paustenbach DJ (2007) A proposed approach for setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants based on chemosensory models. Ann Occup Hyg 51(4):345–356

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey LO Jr (1986) Efficient estimation of sensory thresholds. Behav Res Meth Instrum Comput 18(6):623–632

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkes C (2006) Olfaction in neurodegenerative disorder. Adv Otorhinolaryngol 63(1):133–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawless HT, Heyman H (1998) Sensory evaluation of food: principles and practices. Chapman & Hall, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitt H (1970) Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J Acoust Soc Am 49(2):476–477

    Google Scholar 

  • Linschoten MR, Harvey LO, Eller PM, Jafek BW (2001) Fast and accurate measurement of taste and smell thresholds using a maximum-likelihood adaptive staircase procedure. Percept Psychophys 63(8):1330–1347

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lötsch J, Lange C, Hummel T (2004) A simple and reliable method for clinical assessment of odor thresholds. Chem Senses 29(4):311–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lötsch J, Reichmann H, Hummel T (2008) Different odor tests contribute differently to the evaluation of olfactory loss. Chem Senses 33:17–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan NA, Creelman CD (1991) Detection theory: a user’s guide. Cambridge University Press, New York, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Menashe I, Abaffy T, Hasin Y, Goshen S, Yahalom V, Luetje CW, Lancet D (2007) Genetic elucidation of human hyperosmia to isovaleric acid. PLoS Biol 5(11):e284 DOI 10.1371/journal.pbio.0050284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punter PH (1983) Measurements of human olfactory thresholds for several groups of structurally related compounds. Chem Senses 7(3):215–235

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smeets MA, Bulsing PJ, van Rooden S, Steinmann R, de Ru JA, Ogink NW, van Thriel C, Dalton PH (2007) Odor and irritation thresholds for ammonia: a comparison between static and dynamic olfactometry. Chem Senses 32(1):11–20

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens JC, Cain WS (1987a) Detecting gas odor in old age. Ann NY Acad Sci 510(1):644–646

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens JC, Cain WS (1987b) Old-age deficits in the sense of smell as gauged by thresholds, magnitude matching, and odor identification. Psychol Aging 2(1):36–42

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens JC, Cain WS, Burke RJ (1988) Variability of olfactory thresholds. Chem Senses 13(4):643–653

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gemert LJ (1999) Compilations of odour threshold values in air and water. TNO Nutrition and Food Research Institute, Boelens Aroma Chemical Information Service (BACIS), Huizen, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker JC, Hall SB, Walker DB, Kendal-Reed MS, Hood AF, Niu XF (2003) Human odor detectability: new methodology used to determine threshold and variation. Chem Senses 28(9):817–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wetherill G, Levitt H (1965) Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function. Br J Math Stat Psychol 18(1):1–10

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wise PM, Miyazawa T, Gallagher M, Preti G (2007) Human odor detection of homologous carboxylic acids and their binary mixtures. Chem Senses 32(5):475–482

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wysocki CJ, Beauchamp GK (1984) Ability to smell androstenone is genetically determined. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 81(15):4899–4902

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wysocki CJ, Cowart BJ, Radil T (2003) Nasal trigeminal chemosensitivity across the adult life span. Percept Psychophys 65(1):115–122

    Google Scholar 

  • Wysocki CJ, Wise P (2003) Methods, approaches, and caveats for functionally evaluating olfaction and chemesthesis. In: Deibler KD, Delwiche J (eds) Handbook of flavor characterization: sensory analysis, chemistry and physiology. Marcel Dekker, New York, USA, pp 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoshida M (1984) Correlation analysis of detection threshold data for ‘standard test’ odors. Bulletin of the Faculty of Science and Engineering Chuo University 27(2):343–353

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Monell Chemical Senses Center, 3500 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA

    Paul M. Wise, Nancy Bien & Charles J. Wysocki

Authors
  1. Paul M. Wise
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nancy Bien
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles J. Wysocki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul M. Wise.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wise, P.M., Bien, N. & Wysocki, C.J. Two Rapid Odor Threshold Methods Compared to a Modified Method of Constant Stimuli. Chem. Percept. 1, 16–23 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-008-9010-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-008-9010-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation