Cometto-Muñiz J E, Cain W S
Department of Surgery, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla 92093-0957, USA.
Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 1998 Mar;71(2):105-10. doi: 10.1007/s004200050256.
The principal objective was to chart sensitivity for human nasal irritation by alternative psychophysical methods, namely, a common detection procedure versus a nasal lateralization procedure that required the subject to indicate whether a vapor had stimulated the left or right nostril. This objective relates to the broader issues as to (a) whether subjects with normal olfaction (normosmics) can yield, through novel methodology, an index of sensitivity to nasal irritation comparable with that obtained from subjects without olfaction (anosmics) and (b) whether both types of subjects have similar irritation sensitivity in general. This study sought to gauge interconvertability both between types of subjects and between modes of stimulus presentation for irritative and, where appropriate, olfactory stimulation.
Static dilution series of four n-aliphatic alcohols, chosen to represent volatile organic compounds (VOCs), provided the source of calibrated olfactory and irritative vapors emitted from their squeezable containers into the nose or eye either by a mechanical device or by hand. Standard psychophysical methodology (forced-choice; ascending strength of stimulation) served to chart detection thresholds for irritation and odor and an analogous procedure served to chart the threshold for localization of stimulation.
Within the limits of resolution, detection thresholds and nasal localization thresholds yielded comparable indices of the potency of the VOCs to evoke nasal irritation. The thresholds agreed well with those for detection of eye irritation, though only the eyes proved to be capable of detecting irritation from l-octanol. The method of emitting the stimulus had little material effect on measures of either irritative or olfactory detection.
The threshold for nasal localization offers a suitable way to measure nasal irritation in normosmic persons. Olfactory stimulation does not interfere with the measure since subjects cannot localize on that basis. Anosmic and normosmic persons have comparable sensitivity to nasal and ocular irritation. If anosmic persons have any lower sensitivity, as sometimes claimed, it would seem to have only trivial consequences for estimates of the irritative potency of VOCs.
主要目的是通过替代心理物理学方法绘制人类鼻腔刺激敏感性，即一种常见的检测程序与一种鼻腔定位程序，后者要求受试者指出一种蒸汽刺激的是左鼻孔还是右鼻孔。该目的涉及更广泛的问题，即(a)嗅觉正常的受试者（嗅觉正常者）是否能够通过新颖的方法得出与无嗅觉受试者（嗅觉缺失者）获得的鼻腔刺激敏感性指数相当的指数，以及(b)这两种类型的受试者总体上是否具有相似的刺激敏感性。本研究旨在衡量不同类型受试者之间以及刺激性刺激（适当时还有嗅觉刺激）的刺激呈现模式之间的相互转换能力。
选择四种正脂肪醇的静态稀释系列来代表挥发性有机化合物(VOCs)，这些化合物从其可挤压容器中通过机械设备或手动方式释放出校准后的嗅觉和刺激性蒸汽进入鼻子或眼睛。标准心理物理学方法（强制选择；刺激强度递增）用于绘制刺激和气味的检测阈值，类似程序用于绘制刺激定位阈值。
在分辨率范围内，检测阈值和鼻腔定位阈值得出了VOCs诱发鼻腔刺激效力的可比指数。这些阈值与眼睛刺激检测阈值吻合良好，不过只有眼睛能够检测到正辛醇引起的刺激。刺激释放方法对刺激性或嗅觉检测指标几乎没有实质性影响。
鼻腔定位阈值为测量嗅觉正常者的鼻腔刺激提供了一种合适的方法。嗅觉刺激不会干扰该测量，因为受试者无法基于此进行定位。嗅觉缺失者和嗅觉正常者对鼻腔和眼部刺激具有可比的敏感性。如果嗅觉缺失者的敏感性如有时所声称的那样较低，那么对于VOCs刺激效力的估计似乎只会产生微不足道的影响。
