Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are there sex-related differences in responses to repetitive olfactory/trigeminal stimuli?

  • Miscellaneous
  • Published:
European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Sex differences in olfactory sensitivity have been reported since the late 1800’s with women typically outperforming men on tests of odor detection, discrimination or identification. It is not known whether women adapt differently than men to olfactory and trigeminal stimuli. Seventeen healthy volunteers participated (9 female, 8 male, mean age 22 years) in the study. As established by an odor identification test (UPSIT, score ≥38) all subjects had normal olfactory function. Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded in response to olfactory (25% v/v phenyl ethyl alcohol) and trigeminal (44% v/v CO2) stimuli using a computer controlled olfactometer (flow 8 L/min; stimulus duration 200 ms). Stimuli were applied at four intervals (5, 10, 20, and 60 s). Amplitudes and latencies of ERP peaks P1, N1, and P2 were measured. Stimulus intensity also rated using visual analogue scales subjects. When compared to phenyl ethyl alcohol, the slightly more intense CO2 produced larger amplitudes and shorter latencies. Both, ratings and ERP amplitudes P2 decreased with decreasing interval between stimuli. Responses to the trigeminal and olfactory stimuli changed similarly in relation to repetitive stimulation. Women had larger ERP amplitudes P2. No sex-related difference for ratings and ERP in relation to repeated stimulation amplitudes was observed. Although women exhibit larger ERP amplitudes to chemosensory stimuli compared to men, the present data indicate on both psychophysical and electrophysiological levels that there is no major difference between young, healthy men and women in relation to short-term adaptation to suprathreshold chemosensory stimulation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bailey E, Powell E (1884) Preliminary notes on the delicacy of special senses. NY Med 40:325

    Google Scholar 

  2. Becker E, Hummel T, Piel E, Pauli E, Kobal G, Hautzinger M (1993) Olfactory event-related potentials in psychosis-prone subjects. Int J Psychol 15:51–58

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cain WS (1977) Bilateral interaction in olfaction. Nature 268:50–53. doi:10.1038/268050a0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cain WS, Stevens JC, Nickou CM, Giles A, Johnston I, Garcia-Medina MR (1995) Life-span development of odor identification, learning, and olfactory sensitivity. Perception 24:1457–1472. doi:10.1068/p241457

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dalton P, Dilks D, Hummel T (2006) Effects of long-term exposure to volatile irritants on sensory thresholds, negative mucosal potentials, and event-related potentials. Behav Neurosci 120:180–187. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.120.1.180

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dalton P, Hummel T (2000) Chemosensory function and response in idiopathic environmental intolerance. Occup Med 15:539–556

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Doty RL, Shaman P, Dann M (1984) Development of the University of Pennsylvania smell identification test: a standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol Behav 32:489–502. doi:10.1016/0031-9384(84)90269-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Elsberg CS, Brewer ED, Levy I (1935) The sense of smell. IV. Concerning conditions which may temporarily alter normal olfactory acuity. Bull Neurol Inst NY 4:31–34

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hummel T, Gruber M, Pauli E, Kobal G (1994) Event-related potentials in response to repetitive painful stimulation. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol 92:426–432. doi:10.1016/0168-5597(94)90020-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hummel T, Knecht M, Kobal G (1996) Peripherally obtained electrophysiological responses to olfactory stimulation in man: electro-olfactograms exhibit a smaller degree of desensitization compared with subjective intensity estimates. Brain Res 717:160–164. doi:10.1016/0006-8993(96)00094-7

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hummel T, Kobal G (1999) Chemosensory event-related potentials to trigeminal stimuli change in relation to the interval between repetitive stimulation of the nasal mucosa. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 256:16–21. doi:10.1007/s004050050115

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hummel T, Kobal G (2001) Olfactory event-related potentials. In: Simon SA, Nicolelis MAL (eds) Methods and frontiers in chemosensory research. CRC press, Boca Raton, pp 429–464

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hummel T, von Mering R, Huch R, Kolble N (2002) Olfactory modulation of nausea during early pregnancy? BJOG 109:1394–1397. doi:10.1046/j.1471-0528.2002.02287.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kobal G (1981) Elektrophysiologische Untersuchungen des menschlichen Geruchssinns. Thieme Verlag, Stuttgart

    Google Scholar 

  15. Kobal G, Klimek L, Wolfensberger M, Gudziol H, Temmel A, Owen CM, Seeber H, Pauli E, Hummel T (2000) Multicenter investigation of 1,036 subjects using a standardized method for the assessment of olfactory function combining tests of odor identification, odor discrimination, and olfactory thresholds. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 257:205–211. doi:10.1007/s004050050223

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koelega HS, Köster EP (1974) Some experiments on sex differences in odor perception. Ann N Y Acad Sci 237:234–246. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1974.tb49859.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Köster EP (1965) Adaptation, recovery and specificity of olfactory receptors. Rev Laryngol Otol Rhinol (Bord) 86:880–894

    Google Scholar 

  18. Köster EP, de Wijk RA (1991) Olfactory adaptation. In: Laing DG, Doty RL, Breipohl W (eds) The human sense of smell. Springer, Berlin, pp 199–215

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Lundstrom JN, Frasnelli J, Larsson M, Hummel T (2005) Sex differentiated responses to intranasal trigeminal stimuli. Int J Psychophysiol 57:181–186. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2005.01.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pierce JDJ, Wysocki CJ, Aronov EV, Webb JB, Boden RM (1996) The role of perceptual and structural similarity in cross-adaptation. Chem Senses 21:223–237. doi:10.1093/chemse/21.2.223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Poellinger A, Thomas R, Lio P, Lee A, Makris N, Rosen BR, Kwong KK (2001) Activation and habituation in olfaction—an fMRI study. Neuroimage 13:547–560. doi:10.1006/nimg.2000.0713

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schneider RA, Wolf S (1955) Olfactory perception thresholds for citral utilizing a new type olfactorium. J Appl Physiol 8:337–342

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Soiffer A, Doty RL, Hummel T (1998) Lateralized vs. bilateral measurement of olfactory thresholds: comparison of two methods. Chem Senses 22:799

    Google Scholar 

  24. Stuck BA, Frey S, Freiburg C, Hörmann K, Zahnert T, Hummel T (2006) Chemosensory event-related potentials in relation to side of stimulation, age, sex, and stimulus concentration. Clin Neurophysiol 117:1367–1375. doi:10.1016/j.clinph.2006.03.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wysocki CJ, Gilbert AN (1989) National Geographic Smell Survey: effects of age are heterogenous. Ann N Y Acad Sci 561:12–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Yousem DM, Maldjian J, Siddiqi F, Hummel T, Alsop D, Geckle RJ, Bilker WB, Doty RL (1998) Gender-effects on odor-stimulated functional magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Res 818:480–487. doi:10.1016/S0006-8993(98)01276-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Richard L. Doty for helpful discussion during initiation of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Otorhinolaryngology, Smell and Taste Clinic, University of Dresden Medical School, Fetscherstrasse 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany

    M. Scheibe, O. Opatz & T. Hummel

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Trauma Clinic, Berlin, Germany

    O. Opatz

Authors
  1. M. Scheibe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. O. Opatz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. T. Hummel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Hummel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scheibe, M., Opatz, O. & Hummel, T. Are there sex-related differences in responses to repetitive olfactory/trigeminal stimuli?. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 266, 1323–1326 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0860-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-008-0860-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation