Pleasantness of olfactory and trigeminal stimulants in different Italian regions

Abstract

Although individuals categorize odors according to their pleasantness, experience may also influence odor perception—a phenomenon that partially explains why different populations perceive odors differently. Italy, which comprises 20 regions, is characterized by very different cultures. In the present study, we investigated for the first time how Italian regional differences can affect odor perception. 254 healthy volunteers coming from northern, central, southern Italy, and Sicily, one of the two major Italian islands, were recruited in Padua, Rome, Naples, and Syracuse, respectively. Olfactory function was tested with Sniffin’ Sticks identification subtest. Subjects who had a score in the range within the mean identification value ± 1 SD, in accordance with the age classes identified in the literature, were asked to judge the odor pleasantness of 20 substances. The hedonic tone of the odorants was categorized as pleasant, neutral, unpleasant, and very unpleasant. Some odorants were appreciated more in northern Italy than in the other parts of the country, whereas others were appreciated more in the south and in Sicily than in the north. Unpleasant odorants were judged less unpleasant in central Italy. Some odorants such as strawberry and vanilla were perceived similarly in all the regional areas. Our study indicates that in Italy, hedonic perception of odorants differs probably in relation with genetic, cultural, and environmental factors. Further investigation is needed to delve deeper into the factors that influence the quality odor perception amongst humans.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Schab FR (1990) Odors and remembrance of things past. J Exp Pschol: Learn Mem Cognit 16:648–655

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Bensafi M, Rinck F, Schaal B, Rouby C (2007) Verbal cues modulate hedonic perception of odors in 5-year-old children as well as in adults. Chem Senses 32:855–862

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bensafi M, Rouby C, Farget V, Bertrand B, Vigouroux M, Holley A (2002) Autonomic nervous system responses to odours: the role of pleasantness and arousal. Chem Senses 27:703–709

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Croy I, Olgun S, Joraschky P (2011) Basic emotions elicited by odors and pictures. Emotion 11:1331–1335

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Ayabe-Kanamura S, Saito S, Distel H, Martínez-Gómez M, Hudson R (1998) Differences and similarities in the perception of everyday odors. A Japanese-German cross-cultural study. Ann NY Acad Sci 855:694–700

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Distel H, Ayabe-Kanamura S, Martınez-Gomez M, Schicker I, Kobayakawa T, Saito S, Hudson R (1999) Perception of everyday odors—correlation between intensity, familiarity and strength of hedonic judgement. Chem Senses 24:191–199

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Logan DW (2014) Do you smell what I smell? Genetic variation in olfactory perception. Biochem Soc Trans 42(4):861–865. doi:10.1042/BST20140052

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Capocasa M, Anagnostou P, Bachis V, Battaggia C, Bertoncini S, Biondi G, Boattini A, Boschi I, Brisighelli F, Caló CM et al (2014) Linguistic, geographic and genetic isolation: a collaborative study of Italian populations. J Anthropol Sci 92:201–231

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hummel T, Whitcroft KL, Andrews P, Altundag A, Cinghi C, Costanzo RM, Damm M, Frasnelli J, Gudziol H, Gupta N, et al (2017) Position paper on olfactory dysfunction. Rhinology (in press)

  10. 10.

    Vodicka J, Meloun M, Príhodová L (2010) Brief evaluation of pleasantness of olfactory and trigeminal stimulants. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 136:901–907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Dunn OJ (1964) Multiple comparison using rank sums. Technometrics 6:241–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hochberg Y (1988) A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple test of significance. Biometrika 75:800–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Keller A, Hempstead M, Gomez IA, Gilbert AN, Vosshall LB (2012) An olfactory demography of a diverse metropolitan population. BMC Neurosci 13:122

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Seo HS, Guarneros M, Hudson R, Distel H, Min BC, Kang JK, Croy I, Vodicka J, Hummel T (2011) Attitudes toward olfaction: a cross-regional study. Chem Senses 36:177–187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ferdenzi C, Roberts SC, Schirmer A, Delplanque S, Cekic S, Porcherot C, Cayeux I, Sander D, Grandjean D (2013) Variability of affective responses to odors: culture, gender, and olfactory knowledge. Chem Senses 38:175–186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Masaoka Y, Sugiyama H, Katayama A, Kashiwagi M, Homma I (2012) Slow breathing and emotions associated with odor-induced autobiographical memories. Chem Senses 37:379–388

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Mennella JA (2006) Development of food preferences: lessons learned from longitudinal and experimental studies. Food Qual Prefer 17(7–8):635–637

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Ceccanti M, Fiorentino D, Coriale G, Kalberg WO, Buckley D, Hoyme HE, Gossage JP, Robinson LK, Manning M, Romeo M et al (2014) Maternal risk factors for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in a province in Italy. Drug Alcohol Depend 145:201–208

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    La Vecchia C, Harris RE, Wynder EL (1988) Comparative epidemiology of cancer between the United States and Italy. Cancer Res 48(24 Pt 1):7285–7293

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Fidanza F (1980) Changing patterns of food consumption in Italy. J Am Diet Assoc 77:133–137

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Perrino C, Tofful L, Canepari S (2016) Chemical characterization of indoor and outdoor fine particulate matter in an occupied apartment in Rome, Italy. Indoor Air 26:558–570

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Mrs. Paola Merolla for correcting the English version of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giancarlo Ottaviano.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Internal Committees of the involved ENT Sections and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cantone, E., Ciofalo, A., Vodicka, J. et al. Pleasantness of olfactory and trigeminal stimulants in different Italian regions. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274, 3907–3913 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4722-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Smell
  • Hedonism
  • Italy
  • Regional areas
  • Odors