A mobile APP-based, customizable automated device for self-administered olfactory testing and an implementation of smell identification test.

Olfactory tests are used for the evaluation of ability to detect and identify common odors in humans psychophysically. Olfactory tests are currently administered by professionals with a set of given odorants. Manual administration of such tests can be labor and cost intensive and data collected as such are confounded with experimental variables, which adds personnel costs and introduces potential errors and data variability. For large-scale and longitudinal studies, manually recorded data must be collected and compiled from multiple sites. It is difficult to standardize the way data are collected and recorded. There is a need for a computerized smell test system for psychophysical and clinical applications. A mobile digital olfactory testing system (DOTS) was developed, consisting of an odor delivery system (DOTS-ODD) and a mobile application program (DOTS-APP) connected wirelessly. The University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test was implemented in DOTS and compared to its commercial product on a cohort of 80 normosmic subjects and a clinical cohort of 12 Parkinson's disease patients. A test-retest was conducted on 29 subjects of the normal cohort. The smell identification scores obtained from the DOTS and standard UPSIT commercial test are highly correlated (r = 0.714, P < 0.001), and test-retest reliability coefficient was 0.807 (r = 0.807, P < 0.001). The DOTS is customizable and mobile compatible, which allows for the implementation of standardized olfactory tests and the customization of investigators' experimental paradigms. The DOTS-APP on mobile devices offers capabilities for a broad range of on-site, online, or remote clinical and scientific chemosensory applications.

Odour identification impairment is a trait but not a disease-specific marker for bipolar disorders: Comparisons of bipolar disorder with different episodes, major depressive disorder and schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: Olfactory deficits have been reported in bipolar disorder, but this finding is controversial. This study investigated whether olfactory deficit can serve as a specific marker for bipolar disorder by comparing olfactory function in different mood episodes of bipolar disorder. We also compared olfactory function in bipolar disorder and other mental disorders - namely, major depressive disorder and schizophrenia. METHODS: The study consisted of two experiments. Experiment 1 enrolled 175 bipolar disorder patients (70 depressed subgroup, 70 manic subgroup and 35 euthymic subgroup) and 47 controls. Experiment 2 enrolled the participants from Experiment 1, along with 85 major depressive disorder and 90 schizophrenia patients. The Sniffin' Sticks test was used to evaluate odour identification ability and odour threshold (as a measure of odour sensitivity). The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale and Young Mania Rating Scale were used to assess depressive symptoms in all subjects and manic symptoms in bipolar disorder patients, respectively. We also used the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale to assess clinical symptoms in schizophrenia patients. RESULTS: All three bipolar disorder patient subgroups (depressed, manic and euthymic subgroup) showed reduced odour identification ability compared to controls; however, only patients in the acute phase of a mood episode (depressed, and manic subgroup) showed impaired odour sensitivity. Clinical symptoms were negatively correlated with odour sensitivity but not odour identification ability. Bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder patients showed less odour identification and sensitivity impairment than schizophrenia patients. CONCLUSION: Odour sensitivity is a potential dopaminergic marker for distinguishing between bipolar disorder patients in acute phase vs remission, while odour identification is a trait but a nonspecific marker of bipolar disorder.

Olfactory identification impairment in early-and late-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Early-onset obsessive-compulsive disorder (EOCD) is a comparatively severe subtype of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Olfactory dysfunction is a common symptom of OCD, but all previous studies have focused on late-onset OCD (LOCD). METHODS: The current study compared olfactory identification ability in EOCD patients and age-matched and sex-matched LOCD patients and healthy controls. Thirty patients with EOCD, 30 patients with LOCD and 30 healthy controls were included in the study. Olfactory function was measured using the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. The Logical Memory and Visual Reproduction components of the Revised Wechsler Memory Scale were used to evaluate verbal and visual memory. RESULTS: There were significant differences in olfactory identification ability between the three groups. EOCD patients were comparable to LOCD patients, while both patients' group showing worse olfactory identification ability than controls. Olfactory identification ability was not significantly correlated with verbal and visual memory or clinical symptoms in the EOCD group or the LOCD group. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that olfactory identification ability may be a relatively stable indicator of OCD, independent of age, duration of illness, verbal and visual memory, and severity of clinical symptoms.

Development and Standardization of a New Cognitive Assessment Test Battery for Chinese Aphasic Patients: A Preliminary Study.

BACKGROUND: Nonlinguistic cognitive impairment has become an important issue for aphasic patients, but currently there are few neuropsychological cognitive assessment tests for it. To get more information on cognitive impairment of aphasic patients, this study aimed to develop a new cognitive assessment test battery for aphasic patients, the Non-language-based Cognitive Assessment (NLCA), and evaluate its utility in Chinese-speaking patients with aphasia. METHODS: The NLCA consists of five nonverbal tests, which could assess five nonlinguistic cognitive domains such as visuospatial functions, attention test, memory, reasoning, and executive functions of aphasic patients. All tests are modified from the nonverbal items of the current existed tests with some changes to the characteristics of Chinese culture. The NLCA was tested in 157 participants (including 57 aphasic patients, 50 mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients, and 50 normal controls), and was compared with other well-established relative neuropsychological tests on the reliability, validity, and utility. RESULTS: The NLCA was fully applicable in the MCI patients and the normal controls, almost working in the aphasic patients (57/62 patients, 91.9%). The NLCA scores were 66.70 ± 6.30, 48.67 ± 15.04, and 77.58 ± 2.56 for the MCI group, the aphasic group, and the control group, respectively , and a significant difference was found among three groups (F = 118.446, P < 0.001). The Cronbach's alpha of the NLCA as an index of internal consistency was 0.805, and the test-retest and interrater reliability was adequate (r=0.977 and r= 0.970, respectively). The correlations of the cognitive subtests and their validation instruments were between 0.540 and 0.670 (all P < 0.05). Spearman's correlation analysis indicated that the coefficient of internal consistency of each subtest itself was higher than other subtests. When choosing the Montreal Cognitive Assessment score of <26 as the diagnostic criteria of cognitive impairment, the area under the curve for all participants in the control and MCI groups was 0.942 (95% confidence interval: 0.895-0.989), and an optimal cutoff point of 75.00 seemed to provide the best balance between sensitivity and specificity. Age (r = -0.406, P < 0.001) was the main influence factor for the NLCA. CONCLUSIONS: The NLCA could efficiently differentiate the cognitive impairment patients from the normal controls and is a reliable and valid cognitive assessment test battery to specially find nonlinguistic cognitive function for aphasic patients.