Research report
The clinical significance of electrophysiological measures of olfactory function

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2006.02.013Get rights and content

Abstract

Aim

To establish the detectability of olfactory event-related potentials (OERP) in relation to the results from psychophysical tests of olfactory function.

Methods

Fifty-nine men and 64 women (aged 19–89 years) participated all of whom presented themselves to a specialized “Smell and Taste Clinic” because of chemosensory complaints. Their olfactory function was assessed by means of psychophysical tests, e.g., assessment of odor threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification, which were combined in a composite “Threshold Discrimination Identification” score (“TDI score”). OERP were obtained in response to the olfactory stimulant phenyl ethyl alcohol; their presence/absence was judged by a trained observer. Using logistic regression the TDI score was calculated in relation to the subjects’ olfactory function at which the probability of the presence of OERP became greater than chance.

Results

Based on psychophysical tests, 40 subjects were diagnosed with functional anosmia, 40 with hyposmia, and 43 subjects scored within the normal range. Causes of hyposmia and anosmia included congenital anosmia, Parkinson's disease, head trauma, infections of the upper respiratory tract, and sinunasal disease. A TDI score of 22.6 equivalent to “pronounced hyposmia” was identified as the turning point at which the probability of detection of OERP was higher than 50%. Its 95% confidence interval of 16.1–27.8 well reflected the range of hyposmia, i.e., was above significant loss of olfactory function (functional anosmia, TDI score < 15.5) and below normal olfactory function (TDI score > 30.5).

Conclusion

The present results indicate that the probability to detect an OERP becomes greater than 50% within a range of olfactory function that separates functional anosmia from normosmia. Presence of OERP clearly signifies presence of olfactory function while this is not always the other way around with absence of OERP.

Introduction

By using psychophysical tests and electroencephalographic measures, olfactory function has been shown to deteriorate in several neuropsychiatric disorders. Olfactory event-related potentials (OERP) have been used to investigate the olfactory deficit in idiopathic Parkinson's disease (PD) [1], [2]. Other than psychophysical tests [3], electrophysiological measures can be used as an indicator of the progression of PD [4], [5], [6] suggesting that OERP might be a more sensitive measure of olfactory dysfunction than, for example, odor identification tests. OERP have also been used to investigate the processing of odorous information in Alzheimer's disease [7], [8]. Other studies focused on the olfactory deficit in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) [4], [5] where 25% of the 45 MS patients exhibited delayed OERP, while only 15% of MS patients exhibited a decreased ability to identify odors. Similar to the findings reported in PD this may also indicate that OERP are more sensitive to certain olfactory deficits than psychophysical measures. Research in patients with lateralized temporal lobe epilepsy [9] revealed right-sided olfactory stimulation latencies were prolonged in patients with right-sided epilepsy, and left-sided olfactory stimulation latencies were prolonged in patients with left-sided epilepsy, suggesting that the neocortical processing of olfactory information is affected by functional lesions of the temporal lobe. In addition, apart from clinical and experimental studies into the mechanisms of olfaction and neuropsychiatric disease, OERP are regarded to provide significant information especially in the evaluation of medico-legal cases. Indeed, no OERP are present in patients with complete anosmia [10]—which is different from states of functional anosmia where remnant olfactory function is possible (see below).

Thus, for the clinical diagnosis of olfactory deficits OERP are regarded as a useful addition [11], [12] to psychophysical tests of olfactory function, e.g., assessment of odor threshold, odor discrimination, and odor identification [13], [14]. OERP are: (1) direct correlates of neuronal activation, unlike the signals that are seen, for example, in functional MR imaging, (2) have an extremely high temporal resolution in the range of micro-seconds, (3) allow the investigation of the sequential processing of olfactory information, (4) can be obtained independently of the subject's response bias, i.e., they allow the investigation of subjects who have difficulties to respond properly (e.g., children and aphasic patients) [15], (5) are largely independent from the subjects’ cooperation, and (6) produce results which are independent from the person performing the measurements. Weaknesses of the technique relate to: (1) its vulnerability to artifacts, e.g., blinking, movements, and muscular activity, (2) the necessity of repeated stimulation at relatively long interstimulus intervals of 30–40 s which, in turn, requires to stabilize the subjects’ vigilance in order to have stable conditions throughout the recording period, and (3) the fact that the responses have to be extracted from a potentially noisy background EEG which may contain slow waves (e.g., θ- or α-activity) which are in the frequency range of the waves comprising the olfactory ERP.

Within this context the question arose at which degree of olfactory function OERP become detectable [8] (compare also [4], [5]). Therefore, the present investigation was performed to establish the significance of the presence of OERP in relation to the outcome of psychophysical tests of olfactory function.

Section snippets

Participants

Fifty-nine men and 64 women, aged 19–89 years (mean ± standard deviation = 50.2 ± 16.4 years), participated in this study. All participants came for clinical evaluation at the Smell and Taste Clinic of the University of Dresden Medical School because of chemosensory complaints. Investigations were performed according to the Declaration of Helsinki on Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects and the protocol was approved by the University of Dresden Medical Faculty Ethics Review Board and subjects

Results

Forty subjects were diagnosed with functional anosmia, 40 with hyposmia, and 43 subjects scored within the normal range. Causes of hyposmia and anosmia included congenital anosmia (n = 6), Parkinson's disease (n = 1), head trauma (n = 10), infections of the upper respiratory tract (n = 30), and sinunasal disease (n = 17). There were also 16 subjects with unexplained olfactory loss. This sample reflected the clinical sample typically seen in centers specialised for dysfunction of smell or taste [30], [31]

Discussion

The present study provided the following major results: (1) OERP are more likely to be recorded above a TDI score of 22.6 which represents a medium severity of hyposmia lying almost precisely between the criteria for functional anosmia (TDI < 15.5) and normosmia (TDI > 30.5). (2) The 95% confidence interval for detection of OERP lies within the clinical boundaries of hyposmia, namely between a TDI score of 16 and 28.

The turning point for the probability of an OERP exceeding 50% at a TDI score of

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG HU441/2-1) to TH. We would also like to thank Kati Rosenheim and Gundel Strehle for their help with data acquisition.

References (38)

  • C.H. Hawkes et al.

    Assessment of olfaction in multiple sclerosis: evidence of dysfunction by olfactory evoked response and identification tests

    Brain

    (1997)
  • T. Hummel

    Olfactory evoked potentials as a tool to measure progression of Parkinson's disease

  • C.H. Hawkes

    Olfaction in neurodegenerative disease

    Mov Disord

    (2003)
  • J.M. Peters et al.

    Olfactory function in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease: an investigation using psychophysical and electrophysiological techniques

    Am J Psychiatry

    (2003)
  • T. Hummel et al.

    Chemosensory event-related potentials in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy

    Epilepsia

    (1995)
  • G. Kobal et al.

    Olfactory and intranasal trigeminal event-related potentials in anosmic patients

    Laryngoscope

    (1998)
  • J. Evans et al.

    Suggestions for collection and reporting of chemosensory (olfactory) event-related potentials

    Chem Senses

    (1993)
  • T. Hummel et al.

    Chemosensory evoked potentials for clinical diagnosis of olfactory disorders

    Hno

    (2000)
  • R.L. Doty et al.

    University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a rapid quantitative olfactory function test for the clinic

    Laryngoscope

    (1984)
  • Cited by (93)

    • Olfactory disorders and consequences

      2022, Flavor: From Food to Behaviors, Wellbeing and Health, Second Edition
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text