Demystifying wine expertise through the lens of imagination: Descriptions and imagery vividness across sensory modalities.

For most untrained novices, talking about wine or imagining the smells and flavours of wine is difficult. Wine experts, on the other hand, have been found to have better imagery for wine, and are also more proficient in describing wine. Some scholars have suggested that imagery and language are based on similar underlying processes, but no conclusive evidence has been found regarding mental imagery and language production. In this study, we examined the relationship between imagery and language use in both novices and experts. In an online experiment, wine experts and novices were asked to imagine the colour, smell, taste and mouthfeel of wines in different situations, and were asked to rate the vividness of the imagined experience as well as describe it with words. The results show that experts differ from novices on a number of linguistic measures when describing wine, including the number of words used, the type of words used, the concreteness of those words, and the adjective to noun ratio. Similarly, imagery for wine was more vivid in wine experts compared to novices in the modalities of smell, taste, and mouthfeel, in alignment with previous work. Surprisingly, we found that no single linguistic variable significantly predicted the reported vividness of wine imagery, neither in experts nor in novices. However, the linguistic model predicted imagery vividness better using data from experts compared to novices. Taken together, these findings underscore that imagery and language are different facets of wine cognition.

Proof-of-concept: SCENTinel 1.1 rapidly discriminates COVID-19-related olfactory disorders.

It is estimated that 20%-67% of those with COVID-19 develop olfactory disorders, depending on the SARS-CoV-2 variant. However, there is an absence of quick, population-wide olfactory tests to screen for olfactory disorders. The purpose of this study was to provide a proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid, inexpensive, population-wide olfactory test, can discriminate between anosmia (total smell loss), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), parosmia (distorted odor perception), and phantosmia (odor sensation without a source). Participants were mailed a SCENTinel 1.1 test, which measures odor detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness, using one of 4 possible odors. Those who completed the test (N = 287) were divided into groups based on their self-reported olfactory function: quantitative olfactory disorder only (anosmia or hyposmia, N = 135), qualitative olfactory disorder only (parosmia and/or phantosmia; N = 86), and normosmia (normal sense of smell; N = 66). SCENTinel 1.1 accurately discriminates quantitative olfactory disorders, qualitative olfactory disorders, and normosmia groups. When olfactory disorders were assessed individually, SCENTinel 1.1 discriminates between hyposmia, parosmia, and anosmia. Participants with parosmia rated common odors less pleasant than those without parosmia. We provide proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid smell test, can discriminate quantitative and qualitative olfactory disorders, and is the only direct test to rapidly discriminate parosmia.

Assortative mate preferences for height across short-term and long-term relationship contexts in a cross-cultural sample.

Height preferences reflecting positive assortative mating for height-wherein an individual's own height positively predicts the preferred height of their mate-have been observed in several distinct human populations and are thought to increase reproductive fitness. However, the extent to which assortative preferences for height differ strategically for short-term versus long-term relationship partners, as they do for numerous other indices of mate quality, remains unclear. We explore this possibility in a large representative sample of over 500 men and women aged 15-77 from Canada, Cuba, Norway and the United States. Participants' own heights were measured, and they indicated their height preferences for a long-term and short-term mate using graphic stimuli containing metric indices. Replicating the "male-taller norm," participants on average preferred taller-than-average male mates, and shorter-than-average female mates. Positive assortative preferences for height were observed across sexes and samples, however the strength of these height preferences varied with relationship context for men, and not for women. Taller men preferred relatively shorter women for short-term relationships than for long-term relationships, indicating stronger assortative preferences for height in a long-term context. These results provide preliminary evidence that, in addition to mate preferences for other physical traits related to mate quality such as masculinity in the body, face, and voice, assortative preferences for height do vary as a function of expected relationship length, but this was surprisingly only observed in preferences for female height.

Functional Connectivity of the Chemosenses: A Review.

Functional connectivity approaches have long been used in cognitive neuroscience to establish pathways of communication between and among brain regions. However, the use of these analyses to better understand how the brain processes chemosensory information remains nascent. In this review, we conduct a literature search of all functional connectivity papers of olfaction, gustation, and chemesthesis, with 103 articles discovered in total. These publications largely use approaches of seed-based functional connectivity and psychophysiological interactions, as well as effective connectivity approaches such as Granger Causality, Dynamic Causal Modeling, and Structural Equation Modeling. Regardless of modality, studies largely focus on elucidating neural correlates of stimulus qualities such as identity, pleasantness, and intensity, with task-based paradigms most frequently implemented. We call for further "model free" or data-driven approaches in predictive modeling to craft brain-behavior relationships that are free from a priori hypotheses and not solely based on potentially irreproducible literature. Moreover, we note a relative dearth of resting-state literature, which could be used to better understand chemosensory networks with less influence from motion artifacts induced via gustatory or olfactory paradigms. Finally, we note a lack of genomics data, which could clarify individual and heritable differences in chemosensory perception.

Future Directions for Chemosensory Connectomes: Best Practices and Specific Challenges.

Ecological chemosensory stimuli almost always evoke responses in more than one sensory system. Moreover, any sensory processing takes place along a hierarchy of brain regions. So far, the field of chemosensory neuroimaging is dominated by studies that examine the role of brain regions in isolation. However, to completely understand neural processing of chemosensation, we must also examine interactions between regions. In general, the use of connectivity methods has increased in the neuroimaging field, providing important insights to physical sensory processing, such as vision, audition, and touch. A similar trend has been observed in chemosensory neuroimaging, however, these established techniques have largely not been rigorously applied to imaging studies on the chemical senses, leaving network insights overlooked. In this article, we first highlight some recent work in chemosensory connectomics and we summarize different connectomics techniques. Then, we outline specific challenges for chemosensory connectome neuroimaging studies. Finally, we review best practices from the general connectomics and neuroimaging fields. We recommend future studies to develop or use the following methods we perceive as key to improve chemosensory connectomics: (1) optimized study designs, (2) reporting guidelines, (3) consensus on brain parcellations, (4) consortium research, and (5) data sharing.

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Olfaction.

BACKGROUND: The literature regarding clinical olfaction, olfactory loss, and olfactory dysfunction has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, with an exponential rise in the past year. There is substantial variability in the quality of this literature and a need to consolidate and critically review the evidence. It is with that aim that we have gathered experts from around the world to produce this International Consensus on Allergy and Rhinology: Olfaction (ICAR:O). METHODS: Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to olfaction. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review, or evidence-based review with recommendations format as dictated by available evidence and scope within the ICAR:O document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:O document was integrated and reviewed by all authors for final consensus. RESULTS: The ICAR:O document reviews nearly 100 separate topics within the realm of olfaction, including diagnosis, epidemiology, disease burden, diagnosis, testing, etiology, treatment, and associated pathologies. CONCLUSION: This critical review of the existing clinical olfaction literature provides much needed insight and clarity into the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of patients with olfactory dysfunction, while also clearly delineating gaps in our knowledge and evidence base that we should investigate further.

Emerging Pattern of Post-COVID-19 Parosmia and Its Effect on Food Perception.

Olfactory dysfunction is amongst the many symptoms of Long COVID. Whilst most people that experience smell loss post COVID-19 recover their sense of smell and taste within a few weeks, about 10% of cases experience long-term problems, and their smell recovery journey often begins a few months later when everyday items start to smell distorted. This is known as parosmia. The aim of this study was to identify the key food triggers of parosmic distortions and investigate the relationship between distortion and disgust in order to establish the impact of parosmia on diet and quality of life. In this cross-sectional study (n = 727), respondents experiencing smell distortions completed a questionnaire covering aspects of smell loss, parosmia and the associated change in valence of everyday items. There was a significant correlation between strength and disgust (p < 0.0001), and when the selected items were reported as distorted, they were described as either unpleasant or gag-inducing 84% of the time. This change in valence associated with loss of expected pleasure and the presence of strange tastes and burning sensations must certainly lead to changes in eating behaviours and serious longer-term consequences for mental health and quality of life.

Proof-of-concept: SCENTinel 1.1 rapidly discriminates COVID-19 related olfactory disorders.

It is estimated that 20-67% of those with COVID-19 develop olfactory disorders, depending on the SARS-CoV-2 variant. However, there is an absence of quick, population-wide olfactory tests to screen for olfactory disorders. The purpose of this study was to provide a proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid, inexpensive, population-wide olfactory test, can discriminate between anosmia (total smell loss), hyposmia (reduced sense of smell), parosmia (distorted odor perception), and phantosmia (odor sensation without a source). Participants were mailed a SCENTinel 1.1 test, which measures odor detection, intensity, identification, and pleasantness, using one of four possible odors. Those who completed the test (N = 381) were divided into groups based on their self-reported olfactory function: quantitative olfactory disorder (anosmia or hyposmia, N = 135), qualitative olfactory disorder (parosmia and/or phantosmia; N = 86), and normosmia (normal sense of smell; N = 66). SCENTinel 1.1 accurately discriminates quantitative olfactory disorders, qualitative olfactory disorders, and normosmia groups. When olfactory disorders were assessed individually, SCENTinel 1.1 discriminates between hyposmia, parosmia and anosmia. Participants with parosmia rated common odors less pleasant than those without parosmia. We provide proof-of-concept that SCENTinel 1.1, a rapid smell test, can discriminate quantitative and qualitative olfactory disorders, and is the only direct test to rapidly discriminate parosmia.

Prevalence and correlates of parosmia and phantosmia among smell disorders.

Among those many individuals who experience a reduced odor sensitivity (hyposmia/anosmia), some individuals also have disorders that lead to odor distortion, such as parosmia (i.e. distorted odor with a known source), or odor phantoms (i.e. odor sensation without an odor source). We surveyed a large population with at least one olfactory disorder (N = 2031) and found that odor distortions were common (46%), with respondents reporting either parosmia (19%), phantosmia (11%), or both (16%). In comparison to respondents with hyposmia or anosmia, respondents with parosmia were more likely to be female, young, and suffering from post-viral olfactory loss (P < 0.001), while respondents with phantosmia were more likely to be middle-aged (P < 0.01) and experiencing symptoms caused by head trauma (P < 0.01). In addition, parosmia, compared to phantosmia or anosmia/hyposmia, was most prevalent 3 months to a year after olfactory symptom onset (P < 0.001), which coincides with the timeline of physiological recovery. Finally, we observed that the frequency and duration of distortions negatively affects the quality of life, with parosmia showing a higher range of severity than phantosmia (P < 0.001). Previous research often grouped these distortions together, but our results show that they have distinct patterns of demographics, medical history, and loss in quality of life.

Duality of Smell: Route-Dependent Effects on Olfactory Perception and Language.

Olfactory research in humans has largely focused on odors perceived via sniffing, orthonasal olfaction, whereas odors perceived from the mouth, retronasal olfaction, are less well understood. Prior work on retronasally presented odors involves animal models and focus mainly on odor sensitivity, but little is known about retronasal olfactory perception and cognition in humans. In this study, we compared orthonasal and retronasal odor presentation routes to investigate differences in odor descriptions and evaluations. Thirty-six individuals participated in a within-subjects study using twelve odors (varying in pleasantness and edibility) in perceptual and semantic tasks. Orthonasal presentation was associated with a better ability to identify odors, and with more concrete (and source-based) language. Exploratory analyses revealed that whereas orthonasal odors were described with words that had visual associations, retronasal odors were described with words that had interoceptive associations. Interestingly, these route-dependent differences in descriptor usage were not explained by differences in sensitivity and intensity, suggesting instead a cognitive and linguistic processing difference between odors presented orthonasally and retronasally. Our results indicate that olfaction is, in fact, a dual sense, in which the routes change the perception of an odor.

Consequences of gaining olfactory function after lifelong anosmia.

We present a rare case in which a patient has gained her smell after lifelong anosmia. The patient was objectively tested and diagnosed with functional anosmia at age 13 and reported they were experiencing a new sensation of smell at age 22. Our results show an electrophysiological signal for two unimodal odorants. The patient had a retronasal score in the hyposmic range and self-reported the ability to smell non-trigeminal odors, but reported being disturbed by the presence of the new sense and co-occurrence of phantosmia. We discuss our case in routes of neurogenesis and non-forming memory association with odors.

SCENTinel 1.0: Development of a Rapid Test to Screen for Smell Loss.

Commercially available smell tests are primarily used in research or in-depth clinical evaluations and are too costly and time-consuming for population surveillance in health emergencies like COVID-19. To address this need, we developed the SCENTinel 1.0 test, which rapidly evaluates 3 olfactory functions: detection, intensity, and identification. We tested whether self-administering the SCENTinel 1.0 test discriminates between individuals with self-reported smell loss and those with average smell ability (normosmic individuals) and provides performance comparable to the validated and standardized NIH Toolbox Odor Identification Test in normosmic individuals. Using Bayesian linear models and prognostic classification algorithms, we compared the SCENTinel 1.0 performance of a group of self-reported anosmic individuals (N = 111, 47 ± 13 years old, F = 71%) and normosmic individuals (N = 154, 47 ± 14 years old, F = 74%) as well as individuals reporting other smell disorders (such as hyposmia or parosmia; N = 42, 55 ± 10 years old, F = 67%). Ninety-four percent of normosmic individuals met our SCENTinel 1.0 accuracy criteria compared with only 10% of anosmic individuals and 64% of individuals with other smell disorders. Overall performance on SCENTinel 1.0 predicted belonging to the normosmic group better than identification or detection alone (vs. anosmic: AUC = 0.95, specificity = 0.94). Odor intensity provided the best single-feature predictor to classify normosmic individuals. Among normosmic individuals, 92% met the accuracy criteria at both SCENTinel 1.0 and the NIH Toolbox Odor Identification Test. SCENTinel 1.0 is a practical test able to discriminate individuals with smell loss and will likely be useful in many clinical situations, including COVID-19 symptom screening.

Post-traumatic olfactory loss and brain response beyond olfactory cortex.

Olfactory impairment after a traumatic impact to the head is associated with changes in olfactory cortex, including decreased gray matter density and decreased BOLD response to odors. Much less is known about the role of other cortical areas in olfactory impairment. We used fMRI in a sample of 63 participants, consisting of 25 with post-traumatic functional anosmia, 16 with post-traumatic hyposmia, and 22 healthy controls with normosmia to investigate whole brain response to odors. Similar neural responses were observed across the groups to odor versus odorless stimuli in the primary olfactory areas in piriform cortex, whereas response in the frontal operculum and anterior insula (fO/aI) increased with olfactory function (normosmia > hyposmia > functional anosmia). Unexpectedly, a negative association was observed between response and olfactory perceptual function in the mediodorsal thalamus (mdT), ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and posterior cingulate cortex (pCC). Finally, connectivity within a network consisting of vmPFC, fO, and pCC could be used to successfully classify participants as having functional anosmia or normosmia. We conclude that, at the neural level, olfactory impairment due to head trauma is best characterized by heightened responses and differential connectivity in higher-order areas beyond olfactory cortex.

Validation study of a novel approach for assessment of retronasal olfactory function with combination of odor thresholds and identification.

PURPOSE: The present study aimed to establish a test battery for the clinical assessment of retronasal odor thresholds and retronasal odor identification. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective case-control series. METHODS: Sixty participants (36 women, 24 men, mean age 37.6 ± 19.4 years) were enrolled in this study; 36 were healthy controls and 24 were patients with olfactory dysfunction. Orthonasal olfactory function was assessed with the "Sniffin' Sticks" test battery. Retronasal olfaction was assessed with oral odorant delivery using special containers for threshold function, and with oral tasteless powders for odor identification. RESULTS: Retronasal and orthonasal olfaction were significantly correlated for threshold scores, identification score, and the sum of threshold and identification score (TI score). Validity analyses showed that the retronasal TI score was able to discriminate between healthy controls and patients with olfactory dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: Normosmic participants can be distinctly differentiated from patients with olfactory dysfunction using a valid test battery comprised of retronasal threshold and identification tests. Based on the current findings, we advocate a TI score of 16 as a cut-off between patients and controls. Therefore, TI scores of 17 and above would indicate retronasal normosmia.

Discrimination of Complex Odor Mixtures: A Study Using Wine Aroma Models.

There are key unanswered questions when it comes to multicomponent odor discrimination. This study was designed to assess discrimination of odorant mixtures that elicit a singular percept. We collected data to address the following two questions: (1) What odor features do humans notice when attempting to discriminate between subtly different odor mixtures? (2) Are odor mixtures easier to discriminate when an odorant is added, compared with when a component is removed? Using modern aroma chemistry techniques, an odor mixture resembling a generic white wine was constructed. This wine odor mixture was modified using a series of three esters which are commonly found in white wines that vary in chain length and branching. Participants performed a sequence of discrimination tasks for the addition/subtraction of modifiers to the base wine at different concentrations. Only one of the esters (ethyl propanoate) led to a discriminable odor mixture. As concentration of the modifying odorant was increased, discrimination of odor mixtures was first reported because of changes in odor mixture familiarity and then intensity. We found similar sensitivity to changes in odor mixtures regardless whether the modifying compound was added or subtracted, suggesting that perceptual stability of odor mixtures is equally dependent on both imputing missing information (pattern completion) and disregarding extraneous information.

Recent Smell Loss Is the Best Predictor of COVID-19 Among Individuals With Recent Respiratory Symptoms.

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19-; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: -82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19-: -59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

SCENTinel 1.0 : development of a rapid test to screen for smell loss.

BACKGROUND: Commercially available smell tests are primarily used in research or in-depth clinical evaluations, but are too costly and lengthy for population surveillance in health emergencies like COVID-19. We developed the SCENTinel 1 . 0 test which rapidly evaluates three olfactory functions (detection, intensity, and identification). We tested whether self-administering the SCENTinel 1 . 0 test discriminates between individuals with smell loss or average smell ability (normosmics), and provides comparable performance as the validated and standardized NIH Toolbox ® Odor Identification Test in normosmics. METHODS: Using Bayesian linear models and prognostic classification algorithms, we compared the SCENTinel 1 . 0 performance of a group of self-reported anosmics (N=111, 47±13yo, F=71%,) and normosmics (N=154, 47±14yo, F=74%), as well as individuals reporting other smell disorders (e.g., hyposmia, parosmia; N=42, 55±10yo, F=67%). RESULTS: Ninety-four percent of normosmics met our SCENTinel 1 . 0 accuracy criteria, while only 10% of anosmics and 64% of individuals with other smell disorders did. Overall performance on SCENTinel 1 . 0 predicted belonging to the normosmic group better than identification or detection alone (vs. anosmic: AUC=0.95, Sensitivity=0.72, Specificity=0.94). Odor intensity provided the best single-feature predictor to classify normosmics. Among normosmics, 92% met the accuracy criteria at both SCENTinel 1 . 0 and the NIH Toolbox ® Odor Identification Test. CONCLUSIONS: SCENTinel 1 . 0 is a practical test able to discriminate individuals with smell loss and is likely to be useful in many clinical situations, including COVID-19 symptom screening.

Global study of variability in olfactory sensitivity.

Variability in human olfactory sensitivity has been attributed to individual-level factors such as genetics, age, sex, medical history of infections and trauma, neurogenerative diseases, and emotional disorders. Scarce evidence exists on the cross-cultural variation in olfactory sensitivity. Hence, we performed 2 studies to estimate the variability in olfactory threshold as a function of location and environment. Study 1 involved 11 laboratories from 4 continents (N = 802). In each location, in a designated laboratory, approximately 80 subjects underwent olfactory sensitivity testing with custom-made tests with eucalyptol and phenylethanol (PEA) odors. Tests were based on the Threshold subtest of the Sniffin' Sticks battery. In Study 2, we compared olfactory sensitivity and suprathreshold perception of PEA and eucalyptol in 2 Chinese (N = 160) and 2 Indian (N = 92) populations-one based in their native country and the other in Germany. Both studies present large-scale evidence that olfactory sensitivity varies as a function of geographical location and suggest that environmental factors play an important role in shaping olfactory sensitivity and suprathreshold olfactory perception. We delineate further steps necessary to identify specific factors underlying uncovered variability and the relationship between olfactory sensitivity and suprathreshold odor perception. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Improvements and Degradation to Spatial Tactile Acuity Among Blind and Deaf Individuals.

Cross-modal reorganization takes place for sensory cortices when there is no more primary input. For instance, the visual cortex in blind individuals which receives no visual input starts responding to auditory and tactile stimuli. Reorganization may improve or degrade processing of other modality inputs, via bottom-up compensational processes and top-down updating. In two experiments, we measured the spatial tactile response in a large sample of early- (N = 49) and late-blind (N = 51) individuals with varying levels of Braille proficiencies, and early-deaf (N = 69) with varying levels of hearing devices against separate hearing and sighted controls. Spatial tactile responses were measured using a standard gradient orientation task on two locations, the finger and tongue. Experiments show limited to no advantage in passive tactile response for blind individuals and degradation for deaf individuals at the finger. However, the use of hearing devices decreased the tactile impairment in early-deaf individuals. Also, no differences in age-related decline in both sensory-impaired groups were shown. Results show less tactile acuity differences between blind and sighted than previously reported, but supports recent reports of tactile impairment among the early-deaf.

The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19. METHODS: This preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. RESULTS: Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing no significant model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset. CONCLUSIONS: As smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (10