Altered morphological traits along central olfactory centres in congenitally blind subjects.

It is well documented that early sensory loss typically alters brain morphology in the areas associated with the lost sense. However, much less is known about the impact of early sensory loss on the remainder of the sensory regions. Therefore, we investigated whether congenitally blind (CB) individuals show brain alterations in the olfactory system by comparing cortical morphology and olfactory bulb (OB) volume between 16 congenitally blind individuals and 16 sighted matched controls. Our results showed that not only CB blind individuals exhibited smaller OB but also alterations of cortical density in some higher olfactory processing centres, but unchanged cortical thickness. Our current findings suggest that a lifelong absence of visual input leads to morphological alterations in olfactory processing areas.

Enhanced Odorant Localization Abilities in Congenitally Blind but not in Late-Blind Individuals.

Although often considered a nondominant sense for spatial perception, chemosensory perception can be used to localize the source of an event and potentially help us navigate through our environment. Would blind people who lack the dominant spatial sense-vision-develop enhanced spatial chemosensation or suffer from the lack of visual calibration on spatial chemosensory perception? To investigate this question, we tested odorant localization abilities across nostrils in blind people compared to sighted controls and if the time of vision loss onset modulates those abilities. We observed that congenitally blind individuals (10 subjects) outperformed sighted (20 subjects) and late-blind subjects (10 subjects) in a birhinal localization task using mixed olfactory-trigeminal stimuli. This advantage in congenitally blind people was selective to olfactory localization but not observed for odorant detection or identification. We, therefore, showed that congenital blindness but not blindness acquired late in life is linked to enhanced localization of chemosensory stimuli across nostrils, most probably of the trigeminal component. In addition to previous studies highlighting enhanced localization abilities in auditory and tactile modalities, our current results extend such enhanced abilities to chemosensory localization.

Early-blind Individuals Show Impaired Performance in Wine Odor Categorization.

Blind individuals display superior sensory abilities in other modalities, yet results remain contradictory regarding their performance on olfactory tasks. Using complex ecological olfactory tasks, we evaluated the impact of blindness on olfactory performance. We tested 12 early-blind individuals (M = 49, SD = 13.09) and 12 sighted controls (M = 49, SD = 14.31) who were all blindfolded. Based solely on the wine odors, participants evaluated 24 pairs of wine and determined if both samples belonged to the same category (red wine, white wine, or rosé wine) or not (odor categorization), and if so, whether they were identical or not (odor differentiation). Then, they had to classify 15 different wines (5 red, 5 white and 5 rosé) into red, white, and rosé wines (odor classification). Blind individuals (d': M = 1.3, SD = 1.2) presented lower scores compared to sighted controls (M = 2.2 SD = 0.8; p < .05) in the odor categorization task, but no group difference was observed for the other tasks. For all participants, red wine odors were the easiest to classify (1.8 ±â€¯1.0), followed by white wine odors (0.5 ±â€¯0.6) and finally rosé wine odors (blind and sighted; F[2; 44] = 11.9, p < .001). In summary, early-blind individuals had a harder time to categorize wine odors. This could be explained by a different construction of internal reference categories for wine in early-blind individuals. Finally, this research is in line with the notion of the absence of higher olfactory sensitivity in blind individuals.

Nostril Advantage in Trigeminal/Olfactory Perception and Its Relation to Handedness.

Introduction Few studies investigated nostril-advantage in chemosensory perception, particularly, in relation to handedness. The aim of the present article was therefore to assess whether trigeminal/olfactory perception is altered by handedness. Methods We tested 50 (all right-handed) and 43 (22 left-handed) participants in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. We used binary mixtures of cinnamaldehyde and eucalyptol, in different proportions presented as physical mixtures (the same exact mixture presented birhinally to each nostril) or as a dichorhinic mixtures (different mixtures presented to each nostril). Presenting dichorhinic mixtures allowed us to assess nostril dominance based on participants' report on whether the mixture smelled more like cinnamon or eucalyptus. Participants also evaluated whether the stimuli were "painful," "warm," "cold," and "intense" on visual scales. Results In Study 1, we find that in right handers, stimuli presented to the right nostril dominated over those presented to the left nostril. These stimuli were also rated as more "painful" and "intense." In Study 2, we could not corroborate the findings in the right-handed individuals, and we found limited support for a nostril advantage left-handed individuals. Conclusion Although our data points toward a certain nostril advantage in chemosensory perception, the finding is not systematic, we discuss possible underlying factors.

Now you like me, now you don't: impact of labels on odor perception.

Past research has shown that odor perception can be affected by how we label odors. The aim of this study was to expand on previous work by investigating the impact of labels on edibility, pleasantness, and intensity ratings as well as on reaction times when detecting labeled odors. We tested 50 subjects. Five odorants were administered, each with a positive and a negative label. Participants had to detect odors as fast as possible and then rate their edibility, pleasantness, and intensity. Because of a lack of fit, only 4 of the initial 5 odorants were analyzed. All odorants presented with positive labels were rated as being more edible than when they were presented with negative labels. Specifically, the effect was also seen for the 2 nonfood odorants suggesting an unbiased effect. All odorants presented with positive labels were rated as being more pleasant than when they were presented with negative labels. Labels also modulated intensity ratings and reaction times for some odors. In summary, odor labels affect pleasantness ratings and edibility perception. Although labels appear to also influence intensity ratings and reaction times, this seems to be a more complex relationship that could be modulated by additional factors such as odor valence, label fit, and possibly the edibility attributed to an odor or a label.