Variations in people's vulnerability to stressful life events may rise from a predated neural sensitivity as well as from differential neural modifications in response to the event. Because the occurrence of a stressful life event cannot be foreseen, characterizing the temporal trajectory of its neural manifestations in humans has been a real challenge. The current prospective study examined the emotional experience and brain responses of 50 a priori healthy new recruits to the Israeli Defense Forces at 2 time points: before they entered their mandatory military service and after their subsequent exposure to stressful events while deployed in combat units. Over time, soldiers reported on increase in stress symptoms that was correlated with greater amygdala and hippocampus responsiveness to stress-related content. However, these closely situated core limbic regions exhibited different temporal trajectories with regard to the stress effect; whereas amygdala's reactivity before stress predicted the increase in stress symptoms, the hippocampal change in activation over time correlated with the increase in such symptoms. Hippocampal plasticity was also reflected by a modification over time of its functional coupling with the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and this coupling magnitude was again predicted by predated amygdala reactivity. Together, these findings suggest that variations in human's likelihood to develop symptomatic phenomena following stressful life events may depend on a balanced interplay between their amygdala's predisposing reactivity and hippocampal posteriori intra-and interregional plasticity. Accordingly, an individually tailored therapeutic approach for trauma survivors should target these 2 neural probes while considering their unique temporal prints.individual differences ͉ prospective study ͉ fMRI ͉ trauma

Paradoxically, although humans have a superb sense of smell, they don’t trust their nose. Furthermore, although human odorant detection thresholds are very low, only unusually high odorant concentrations spontaneously shift our attention to olfaction. Here we suggest that this lack of olfactory awareness reflects the nature of olfactory attention that is shaped by the spatial and temporal envelopes of olfaction. Regarding the spatial envelope, selective attention is allocated in space. Humans direct an attentional spotlight within spatial coordinates in both vision and audition. Human olfactory spatial abilities are minimal. Thus, with no olfactory space, there is no arena for olfactory selective attention. Regarding the temporal envelope, whereas vision and audition consist of nearly continuous input, olfactory input is discreet, made of sniffs widely separated in time. If similar temporal breaks are artificially introduced to vision and audition, they induce “change blindness”, a loss of attentional capture that results in a lack of awareness to change. Whereas “change blindness” is an aberration of vision and audition, the long inter-sniff-interval renders “change anosmia” the norm in human olfaction. Therefore, attentional capture in olfaction is minimal, as is human olfactory awareness. All this, however, does not diminish the role of olfaction through sub-attentive mechanisms allowing subliminal smells a profound influence on human behavior and perception.

To assess the feasibility of using odors as a potential mechanism for treating sleep apnea, we set out to test the hypothesis that odorants delivered during sleep would modify respiratory patterns without inducing arousal or wake in healthy sleepers. We used 2 mildly trigeminal odorants: the pleasant lavender and unpleasant vetiver oil and 2 pure olfactory odorants: the pleasant vanillin and unpleasant ammonium sulfide. During sleep, an olfactometer delivered a transient odorant every 9, 12, or 15 min (randomized), providing 21-37 odorant presentations per night. Each of 36 participants was studied for 1 night and with 1 of the 4 different odorants tested. In addition to standard overnight polysomnography, we employed highly accurate measurements of nasal and oral respiration. Odorants did not increase the frequency of arousals or wake but did influence respiration. Specifically, all 4 odorants transiently decreased inhalation and increased exhalation for up to 6 breaths following odor onset. This effect persisted regardless of odorant valence or stage of sleep. These results suggest that the olfactory system may provide a path to manipulate respiration in sleep.

Most forms of suprathreshold sensory stimulation perturb sleep. In contrast, presentation of pure olfactory or mild trigeminal odorants does not lead to behavioral or physiological arousal. In fact, some odors promote objective and subjective measures of sleep quality in humans and rodents. The brain mechanisms underlying these sleep-protective properties of olfaction remain unclear. Slow oscillations in the electroencephalogram (EEG) are a marker of deep sleep, and K complexes (KCs) are an EEG marker of cortical response to sensory interference. We therefore hypothesized that odorants presented during sleep will increase power in slow EEG oscillations. Moreover, given that odorants do not drive sleep interruption, we hypothesized that unlike other sensory stimuli odorants would not drive KCs. To test these hypotheses we used polysomnography to measure sleep in 34 healthy subjects (19 women, 15 men; mean age 26.5 ± 2.5 yr) who were repeatedly presented with odor stimuli via a computer-controlled air-dilution olfactometer over the course of a single night. Each participant was exposed to one of four odorants, lavender oil (n = 13), vetiver oil (n = 5), vanillin (n = 12), or ammonium sulfide (n = 4), for durations of 5, 10, and 20 s every 9-15 min. Consistent with our hypotheses, we found that odor presentation during sleep enhanced the power of delta (0.5-4 Hz) and slow spindle (9-12 Hz) frequencies during non-rapid eye movement sleep. The increase was proportionate to odor duration. In addition, odor presentation did not modulate the occurrence of KCs. These findings imply a sleep-promoting olfactory mechanism that may deepen sleep through driving increased slow-frequency oscillations.

Social chemosignaling is a part of human behavior, but how chemosignals transfer from one individual to another is unknown. In turn, humans greet each other with handshakes, but the functional antecedents of this behavior remain unclear. To ask whether handshakes are used to sample conspecific social chemosignals, we covertly filmed 271 subjects within a structured greeting event either with or without a handshake. We found that humans often sniff their own hands, and selectively increase this behavior after handshake. After handshakes within gender, subjects increased sniffing of their own right shaking hand by more than 100%. In contrast, after handshakes across gender, subjects increased sniffing of their own left non-shaking hand by more than 100%. Tainting participants with unnoticed odors significantly altered the effects, thus verifying their olfactory nature. Thus, handshaking may functionally serve active yet subliminal social chemosignaling, which likely plays a large role in ongoing human behavior.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05154.001