Stevens D A, O'Connell R J
Frances L. Hiatt School of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA.
Physiol Behav. 1996 Jul;60(1):211-5. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(96)00019-4.
The validity of the odor quality reports given by naive human subjects is often questionable. On the one hand, social conventions can influence the labeling of odorants, especially those that have putrid or uncommon odor qualities, and on the other, semantic differences exist for odor descriptors among individuals. We are interested in the individual differences in the quality reports elicited by two nominally putrid odorants, androstenone (AND) and pemenone (PEM). Here we sought to establish empirical support for the individual differences previously obtained in studies of their odor quality, using a nonverbal, semantic-free method of classification. Undergraduate volunteers sniffed a moderate concentration (390 microM) of PEM, rated its intensity, and provided a verbal odor descriptor. The subjects were then classified as PEM osmic (n = 42) if the quality report was putrid (rancid, urinous, sweaty), allosmic (n = 23), if the quality was nonputrid, and anosmic (n = 39) if no odor was detected. The subjects then sorted 15 odorants matched for intensity, five selected from each of three nominal odor quality types, into as many odor groups as they wished, as long as each group contained all of the compounds with similar odors. The number of times each odorant was paired with another was used as data for an independent multidimensional scaling with ALSCAL, for each class of subject. Three-dimensional solutions showed that this nonverbal, semantic-free scaling method produced odor classifications consistent with those found when each class of subject reported odor qualities from a defined list of quality descriptors. Cluster analysis of the MDS coordinates revealed that these solutions also retained the individual odor quality differences thought to be characteristic of osmic, allosmic and anosmic subjects.
未经训练的人类受试者给出的气味质量报告的有效性常常存疑。一方面，社会习俗会影响气味剂的标记，尤其是那些具有腐臭或不寻常气味质量的气味剂，另一方面，个体之间对于气味描述词存在语义差异。我们对两种名义上具有腐臭气味的气味剂——雄甾烯酮（AND）和戊烯酮（PEM）所引发的质量报告中的个体差异感兴趣。在此，我们试图使用一种非语言、无语义的分类方法，为先前在它们气味质量研究中获得的个体差异建立实证支持。本科志愿者嗅闻中等浓度（390微摩尔）的PEM，对其强度进行评分，并提供一个语言气味描述词。如果质量报告是腐臭的（酸败的、尿味的、汗味的），则将受试者分类为PEM嗅觉正常者（n = 42）；如果质量是非腐臭的，则分类为嗅觉异常者（n = 23）；如果未检测到气味，则分类为嗅觉缺失者（n = 39）。然后，受试者将15种强度匹配的气味剂（从三种名义气味质量类型中各选五种）按照他们希望的数量分成尽可能多的气味组，只要每个组包含所有气味相似的化合物。每种气味剂与另一种气味剂配对的次数用作针对每类受试者使用ALSCAL进行独立多维标度分析的数据。三维解决方案表明，这种非语言、无语义的标度方法产生的气味分类与每类受试者从定义的质量描述词列表中报告气味质量时所发现的分类一致。对多维标度坐标的聚类分析表明，这些解决方案也保留了被认为是嗅觉正常、嗅觉异常和嗅觉缺失受试者特征的个体气味质量差异。
