Lorig T S, Matia D C, Peszka J, Bryant D N
Department of Psychology, Washington and Lee University, Lexington, VA 24450, USA.
Int J Psychophysiol. 1996 Oct;23(3):199-205. doi: 10.1016/s0167-8760(96)00061-x.
During normal olfaction, stimulation is dependent upon nasal inhalation. When collecting chemosensory event-related potentials (CSERPs), inhalations may produce artifacts such as respiration-related brain potentials that confound interpretation of the data. To avoid this type of artifact, CSERPs have often been collected using stimulation that is independent of respiratory cycle. It is possible, however, that inspirations prime the olfactory tract for odor input, and traditional CSERP data acquisition techniques, obscure this neural preparation. To investigate this question, twelve subjects were tested using two different approaches to stimulation. Odorants (butanol 2% and 4%) were introduced into a warmed and humidified air stream and delivered to one nostril through a cannula. In one condition, subjects mouth-breathed and stimuli occurred asynchronously with respiratory cycle (passive). In the other condition, subjects inhaled through the nose and stimuli were delivered synchronously with nasal inhalations (active). CSERP data were collected from thirty scalp sites for 3 s following stimulation. Data were corrected for eye movements, smoothed, and averaged. Maximal amplitudes for an early negativity (N1) and later positivity (P2) were determined and submitted to separate analyses of variance. These analyses indicated that administration technique interacted with both odor concentration and recording site. Additionally, amplitude of P2 was greater in the passive condition. Such results suggest that the two administration techniques produce different neural processing of olfactory stimuli and that the passive technique may be better suited for determination of the integrity of the olfactory tract for single subjects because of its greater amplitude.
在正常嗅觉过程中,刺激依赖于鼻腔吸入。在收集化学感应事件相关电位(CSERP)时,吸入可能会产生伪迹,如与呼吸相关的脑电位,这会混淆数据的解释。为避免此类伪迹,通常采用与呼吸周期无关的刺激来收集CSERP。然而,吸气可能会使嗅神经通路为气味输入做好准备,而传统的CSERP数据采集技术会掩盖这种神经准备状态。为研究这个问题,使用两种不同的刺激方法对12名受试者进行了测试。将气味剂(2%和4%的丁醇)引入温热且湿润的气流中,并通过插管输送到一个鼻孔。在一种情况下,受试者通过口腔呼吸,刺激与呼吸周期异步发生(被动方式)。在另一种情况下,受试者通过鼻子吸气,刺激与鼻腔吸入同步进行(主动方式)。刺激后3秒,从30个头皮部位收集CSERP数据。对数据进行眼动校正、平滑处理并求平均值。确定早期负波(N1)和晚期正波(P2)的最大振幅,并分别进行方差分析。这些分析表明给药技术与气味浓度和记录部位均存在交互作用。此外,被动方式下P2的振幅更大。这些结果表明,两种给药技术对嗅觉刺激产生不同的神经处理方式,并且被动技术可能因其更大的振幅而更适合用于确定单个受试者嗅神经通路的完整性。