Advertisement

Chemosensory Perception

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 183–191 | Cite as

Iran Smell Identification Test (Iran-SIT): a Modified Version of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) for Iranian Population

  • Safa TaherkhaniEmail author
  • Fathollah Moztarzadeh
  • Jalal Mehdizadeh Seraj
  • Seyed Saeed Hashemi NazariEmail author
  • Farzad Taherkhani
  • Jaber Gharehdaghi
  • Arash Okazi
  • Sevda Pouraghaei
Article

Abstract

Introduction

Based on cultural adaption, various types of olfactory tests have been designed in different countries. The aim of this study was to develop a standardized smell identification test to evaluate the olfactory function of Iranian population.

Methods

For designing Iran smell identification test (Iran-SIT), we selected the most familiar odors for Iranians, and prepared a 24-item smell identification test in four-alternative forced-choice paradigm. We tested 577 healthy subjects aged 6 to 68 years by Iran-SIT. In order to assess the reliability and stability of Iran-SIT over time, 96 subjects participated in the retest study after 5 months.

Results

All odors of Iran-SIT were identified by more than 70 % of subjects. Identification scores were significantly changed by age. Children and elderly subjects represented significantly lower identification scores than adult aged 20–50 years. There were no significant differences between adult aged 20–50 years. Test-retest study revealed that Iran-SIT is a highly reliable and valid test (Pearson’s correlation coefficient between test-retest identification scores: r = 0.93). In order to classify adult patients into four olfactory disorder levels, we determined diagnostic criterion of olfactory disorder using Iran-SIT based on the identification score obtained from subjects aged 20–50 years.

Conclusions

Iran-SIT with high reliability and validity has adequacy to distinguish among normosmia, mild microsmia, severe microsmia, and anosmia.

Keywords

Smell identification test (SIT) Iranian population Chemical sense Olfactory function Anosmia Age 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was carried out with financial support from the Iran National Science Foundation (INSF). The authors wish to thank the Iranian Legal Medicine Research Center for supporting us to conduct the study on detecting malingering. We are very grateful to Dr. Saloumeh Salarian, Dr. Ebrahim Razmpa, Dr. Amin Amali, Dr. Shahin Bastaninejad, Dr. Masoud Mozafari, and Dr. Maryam Ghaffari for their valuable guidance. Special thanks are owed to all who participated in our study with great patience and kindness.

Compliance with Ethics Requirements

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2013. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for being included in this study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Asia-Pacific Population Journal, United Nations (2006) A New Direction in Population Policy and Family Planning in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Retrieved 04–14Google Scholar
  2. Cain WS, Cometto-Muniz JE, De Wijk RA (1992) Techniques in the quantitative study of human olfaction. In: Serby MJ, Chobor KL (eds) Science of olfaction. Springer, New York, pp 279–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cardesín A, Alobid I, Benítez P et al (2006) Barcelona Smell Test—24 (BAST-24): validation and smell characteristics in the healthy Spanish population. Rhinology 44:83–89Google Scholar
  4. Castro JB, Ramanathan A, Chennubhotla CS (2013) Categorical dimensions of human odor descriptor space revealed by non-negative matrix factorization. PLoS ONE 8:1Google Scholar
  5. CĂtanĂ I, NegoiaȘ S, Maniu A, Porojan M, Cosgarea M (2012) A Modified version of “SNIFFIN’ STICKS” odor identification test: the Romanian cultural adaption. Clujul Med 85:218–223Google Scholar
  6. Cho JH, Jeong YS, Lee YJ, Hong SC, Yoon JH, Kim JK (2009) The Korean version of the Sniffin’ stick (KVSS) test and its validity in comparison with the cross-cultural smell identification test (CC-SIT). Auris Nasus Larynx 36:280–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Jong N, Mulder I, de Graaf C, van Staveren WA (1999) Impaired sensory functioning in elders: the relation with its potential determinants and nutritional intake. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 54:324–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deems DA, Doty RL, Settle RG et al (1991) Smell and taste disorders: a study of 750 patients from the University of Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 117:519–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Doty RL (1995) The smell identification test, administration manual, 3rd edn. Sensonics, Inc., Haddon HeightsGoogle Scholar
  10. Doty RL (2001) Olfaction. Annu Rev Psychol 52:423–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Doty RL, Shaman P, Applebaum SL et al (1984a) Smell identification ability: changes with age. Science 226:1441–1443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doty RL, Shaman P, Dann MS (1984b) Development of the University of Pensilvania Smell Identification Test: a standardized microcapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol Behav 32:489–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doty RL, Newhouse MG, Azzalina JF (1985) Internal consistency and short term test-retest reliability of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. Chem Senses 10:297–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doty RL, Marcus A, Lee WW (1996) Development of the 12-item cross-cultural smell identification test (CC-SIT). Laryngoscope 106:353–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eibenstein A, Fioretti AB, Lena C, Rosati N, Amabile G, Fusetti M (2005) Modern psychophysical tests to assess olfactory function. Neurol Sci 26:147–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frye RE, Schwartz BS, Doty RL (1990) Dose-related effects of cigarette smoking on olfactory function. JAMA 263:1233–1236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harper R, Bate Smith EC, Land DG (1968) Odour description and odour classification. American Elseivier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Henkin RI (1994) Drug-induced taste and smell disorders. Drug Saf 11:318–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf S, Pauli E, Kobal G (1997) “Sniffin’ Sticks”: olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem Senses 22:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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 140:273–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ishimaru T, Fujii M (2007) Effects of smoking on odour identification in Japanese subjects. Rhinology 45:224–228Google Scholar
  22. Kobal G, Hummel TH, Sekinger B, Barz S, Roscher S, Wolf S (1996) “Sniffin ‘sticks”: screening of olfactory performance. Rhinology 34:222–226Google Scholar
  23. Landis BN, Hummel T, Lacroix JS (2005) Basic and clinical aspects of olfaction. In Adv Standards Neurosur 30:75–77Google Scholar
  24. Mair RG, Harrison LM (1991) Influence of drugs on smell function. In: Laing DG, Doty RL, Breipohl W (eds) The human sense of smell. Springer, Berline, pp 335–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Murphy C (1985) Cognitive and chemosensory influences on age related changes in the ability to identify blended foods. J Gerontol 40:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Murphy C, Schubert CR, Cruickshanks KJ, Klein BE, Klein R, Nondahl DM (2002) Prevalence of olfactory impairment in older adults. JAMA 288:2307–2312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nordin S, Nyroos M, Maunuksela E, Niskanen T, Tuorila H (2002) Applicability of the Scandinavian odor-identification test: a Finnish-Swedish comparison. Acta Otolaryngol (Stockh) 122:294–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Oniz A, Erdogan I, Ikiz AO, Evirgen N, Ozgoren M (2013) The modified Sniffin’ sticks test in Turkish population based on odor familiarity survey. J Neurol Sci 30:270–280Google Scholar
  29. Saito S, Ayabe-Kanamura S, Takashima Y et al (2006) Development of a smell identification test using a novel stick-type odor presentation kit. Chem Senses 31:379–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ship JA, Weiffenbach JM (1993) Age, gender, medical treatment, and medication effects on smell identification. J Gerontol Med Sci 48:26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Silveira-Moriyama L, Azevedo AM, Ranvaud R, Barbosa ER, Doty RL, Lees AJ (2010) Applying a new version of the Brazilian-Portuguese UPSIT smell test in Brazil. Arq Neuropsiquiatr 68:700–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Snow JB, Doty RL, Bartoshuk LM (1991) Clinical evaluation of olfactory and gustatory disorders. In: Getchell TV, Doty RL, Bartoshuk LM, Snow JB (eds) Smell and taste in health and disease. Raven, New York, pp 463–467Google Scholar
  33. Thomas-Danguin T, Rouby C, Sicard G et al (2003) Development of the ETOC: a European test of olfactory capabilities. Rhinology 41:142–151Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biomedical Engineering (Center of Excellence)Amirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran
  2. 2.Department of OtolaryngologyTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  3. 3.Safety Promotion and Injury Prevention Research CenterShahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  4. 4.Department of Epidemiology, School of Public HealthShahid Beheshti University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  5. 5.Department of Mechanical EngineeringTehran UniversityTehranIran
  6. 6.Department of Legal Medicine Research CenterTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran
  7. 7.Forensic Medicine DepartmentTehran University of Medical SciencesTehranIran

Personalised recommendations