Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gender Differences in Nasal Chemesthesis: A Study of Detection and Perceived Intensity

  • Published:
Chemosensory Perception

Abstract

Women are generally more intolerant than men to ambient substances, for which sensory irritation plays an important role. The aim of the present study was to compare women and men with respect to response bias and sensitivity in irritation detection and to irritation intensity. Twelve women and 12 men were exposed to six concentrations of amyl acetate generated by a dynamic olfactometer. Each concentration was presented eight times in randomized order. Clean-air presentations were interrandomized among the series of amyl acetate stimuli to assess and control for response bias. Ratings of irritation intensity were performed with a Borg CR-100 scale. No gender difference in overall irritation detection sensitivity was found, but a significantly steeper psychometric detection function for women implies keener detectability at relatively high concentrations and poorer detectability at low concentrations. A higher false-alarm rate and higher intensity ratings for blank stimuli for women compared to men did almost reach statistical significance. The data showed no overall gender difference in irritation intensity, but a less steep power function for irritation intensity for women, with relatively weak concentrations being perceived as stronger by women than by men. The results suggest no overall gender difference in irritation detectability, but a larger increase in detectability among women across the stimulus span. The tendency of gender differences in response bias implies differences in strategies when detecting possible health hazards. These strategies together with weak concentrations being perceived as stronger may contribute to women being more intolerant than men to ambient substances.

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

  • Andersson L, Lundberg C, Åström J, Nordin S (2011) Chemosensory attention, habituation and detection in women and men. Int J Psychophysiol 79(2):316–322. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2110.11.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berglund B, Nordin S (1992) Utilizing a combined detection and magnitude-estimation method in scaling perceived intensity. Stockholm University, No, Reports from the Department of Psychology, 749

    Google Scholar 

  • Berglund B, Shams Esfandabad H (1993) Individual differences in odor and irritation detection for pyridine. Stockholm University, No, Reports from the Department of Psychology, 776

    Google Scholar 

  • Berglund B, Nordin S, Tesarz M (1992) Utilizing a combined detection and magnitude estimation method in assessing absolute odor thresholds. Stockholm University, No, Reports from the Department of Psychology, 747

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg G (1982) Ratings of perceived exertion and heart rates during short term cycle exercise and their use in a new cycling strength test. Int J Sports Med 3:153–158. doi:10.1055/s-2008-1026080

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borg E, Borg G (2002) A comparison of AME and CR 100 for perceived exertion. Acta Physiol 109:157–175. doi:10.1016/S0001-6918(01)00055-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand G, Millot JL (2001) Sex-differences in human olfaction: between evidence and enigma. Quart J Exp Psychol 54:259–270. doi:10.1080/713932757

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cain WS (1989) Testing olfaction in a clinical setting. Ear Nose Throat J 68:322–328

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain WS, Murphy C (1980) Interaction between chemoreceptive of odor and irritation. Nature 284:255–257. doi:10.1038/284255a0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson F, Karlson B, Orbaek P, Österberg K, Östergren PO (2005) Prevalence of annoyance attributed to electrical equipment and smells in a Swedish population, and relationship with subjective health and daily functioning. Public Health 119:568–577. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2004.07.011

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Mũniz JE, Cain WS (1994) Perception of odor and nasal pungency from homologous series of volatile organic compounds. Indoor Air 4:140–145. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0668.1994.t01-1-00002.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cometto-Mũniz JE, Noriega G (1985) Gender differences in the perception of pungency. Physiol Behav 34:385–389. doi:10.1016/0031-9384(85)90200-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doty RL, Cameron EL (2009) Sex differences and reproductive hormone influences on human odor perception. Physiol Behav 97:213–228. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.02.032

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Edvardsson B, Stenberg B, Bergdahl J, Eriksson N, Lindén G, Widman L (2008) Medical and social prognoses of non-specific building-related symptoms (Sick Building Syndrome): a follow-up study of patients previously referred to hospital. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 81:805–812. doi:10.1007/s00420-007-0267-z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eis D, Helm D, Mühlinghaus T, Birkner N, Dietel A, Eikmann T, Gieler U, Herr C (2008) The German Multicentre Study on Multiple Chemical Sensitivity (MCS). Int J Hyg Env Health 211:658–681. doi:10.1016/j.ijheh.2008.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engen T (1971) Psychophysics: I. Discrimination and detection. In: Kling JW, Riggs LA (eds) Woodworth & Schlosberg's Experimental psychology. Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp 11–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Engen T (1991) Odor sensation and memory. Prager Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gescheider G (1997) Psychophysics: the fundamentals. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel T, Barz S, Lötsch J, Roscher S, Kettenmann B, Kobal G (1996) Loss of olfactory function leads to a decrease of trigeminal sensitivity. Chem Senses 21:75–79. doi:10.1093/chemse/21.1.75

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hummel T, Futschik T, Frasnelli J, Huttenbrink KB (2003) Effects of olfactory function, age, and gender on trigeminally mediated sensations: a study based on the lateralization of chemosensory stimuli. Toxicol Lett 140–141:273–280. doi:10.1016/S0378-4274(03)00078-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson Å, Brämerson A, Millqvist E, Nordin S, Bende M (2005) Prevalence and risk factors for self-reported odour intolerance: the Skövde population-based study. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 78:559–564. doi:10.1007/s00420-005-0616-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Johansson A, Millqvist E, Nordin S, Bende M (2006) Relationship between self-reported odor intolerance and sensitivity to inhaled capsaicin: proposed definition of airway sensory hyperreactivity and estimation of its prevalence. Chest 129:1623–1628. doi:10.1378/chest.129.6.1623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendal-Reed M, Walker JC, Morgan WT (2000) Investigating sources of response variability and neural mediation in human nasal irritation. Indoor Air 11:185–191. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0668.2001.011003185.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundström JN, Hummel T (2006) Sex-specific hemispheric differences in cortical activation to a bimodal odor. Behav Brain Res 166:197–203. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2005.07.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundström 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  Google Scholar 

  • Mattes RD, DiMeglio D (2001) Ethanol perception and ingestion. Physiol Behav 72:217–229. doi:10.1016/S0031-9384(00)00397-8

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Niosh-method 1450. Issue 3 2003. Esters 1, n-Amylacetate. Niosh Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), 4th edition. Cincinnati, OH, USA, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

  • Nordin S, Martinkauppi M, Olofsson J, Hummel T, Millqvist E, Bende M (2005) Chemosensory perception and event-related potentials in self-reported chemical hypersensitivity. Int J Psychophys 55:243–255. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2004.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olofsson J, Nordin S (2004) Gender differences in chemosensory perception and event-related potentials. Chem Senses 29:629–637. doi:10.1093/chemse/bjh066

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royet JP, Plailly J, Delon-Martin C, Kareken DA, Segebarth C (2003) FMRI of emotional responses to odors:influence of hedonic valence and judgment, handedness, and gender. Neuroimage 20:713–728. doi:10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00388-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheibe M, Opatz O, Hummel T (2009) Are there sex-related differences in responses to repetitive olfactory/trigeminal stimuli? Europ Arch Oto-Rhino-Laryng 266:1323–1326. doi:10.1007/s00405-008-0860-0

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scroeder JA (2010) Sex and gender in sensation and perception. In Handbook of gender research in psychology: 235–257.

  • Shusterman D (2002) Individual factors in nasal chemesthesis. Chem Senses 27:551–564. doi:10.1093/chemse/27.6.551

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shusterman D, Balmes J (1997) Measurement of nasal irritant sensitivity to pulsed carbon dioxide: A pilot study. Arch Environ Health 52:334–340. doi:10.1080/0003989970960220

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shusterman D, Murphy MA, Balmes J (2001) The influence of sex, allergic rhinitis, and test system on nasal sensitivity to airborne irritants: a pilot study. Environ Health Perspect 109:15–19

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shusterman D, Murphy MA, Balmes J (2003) Differences in nasal irritant sensitivity by age, gender, and allergic rhinitis status. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 76:577–583. doi:10.1007/s00420-003-0459-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spence C, Kettenmann B, Kobal G, McGlone FP (2000) Selective attention to the chemosensory modality. Perc Psychophys 62:1265–1271

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stenberg B, Wall S (1995) Why do women report “sick building symptoms” more often than men? Soc Sci Med 40:491–502. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(94)E0104-Z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens SS (1975) Psychophysics. Introduction to its perceptual, neural and social prospects. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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  Google Scholar 

  • Tanner W, Swets JA (1954) A decision making theory of visual detection. Psychol Rev 61:401–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thuerauf N, Reulbach U, Lunkenheimer J, Lunkenheimer B, Spannenberger R, Gossler A, Maihöfner C, Bleich S, Kornhuber J, Markovic K (2009) Emotional reactivity to odors: olfactory sensitivity and the span of emotional evaluation separate the genders. Neurosci Lett 456:74–79. doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2009.03.096

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Velle W (1987) Sex differences in sensory functions. Persp Biol Med 30:490–523

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by grants from the European territorial cooperation program Botnia-Atlantica, the county of Västerbotten (Sweden), and the Regional Council of Ostrobothnia (Finland). We gratefully acknowledge Eva Bringlöv for excellent assistance and Annika Glader for supervising the KLUCK 2 project of which this work was part.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Umeå University, 90187, Umeå, Sweden

    Anna-Sara Claeson & Steven Nordin

Authors
  1. Anna-Sara Claeson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Steven Nordin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna-Sara Claeson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Claeson, AS., Nordin, S. Gender Differences in Nasal Chemesthesis: A Study of Detection and Perceived Intensity. Chem. Percept. 4, 25–31 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-011-9084-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12078-011-9084-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation