Abstract:Background: There are major challenges in olfactory measurements in clinical practice; therefore, a handheld digital scent device (DSD; Noar MultiScent 20) was developed as a tablet with an integrated storage system for odors. The DSD is a self-administered, handheld device that controls the duration of odor release to the nasal cavity through a touchscreen digital interface with automatic database generation. In this study we aimed to determine the feasibility of this DSD as an olfactory assessment test.
Meth… Show more
“…Moreover, it underscores the importance of re ning the items of the Multiscent-20 to better represent the latent trait of olfaction. Furthermore, the test-retest reliability coe cient (0.82) obtained in the proof-of-concept study with 40 odours 5 needs to be con rmed in this version of the test.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiscent-20 is a dedicated tablet featuring a 7-inch touchscreen speci cally designed for use in the cosmetics industry to present perfume fragrances to customers (Fig. 5) 5 .…”
Although validated and reliable psychophysical tests of olfactory function are available, an easy-to-use and feasible test has yet to be developed. This study aimed to design a digital odour identification test, evaluate its validity, establish a normative curve, and explore the impact of demographic factors. The odour identification test was presented with the Multiscent-20, a hand-held, tablet-like digital scent device that features an integrated odour digital delivery system. The identification performance on the 20 odours was assessed using item response theory (IRT). The normative curve was established by administering the test to a large sample of participants (n = 1,299). The mean identification score was 17.5 (SD = 2.1). The two-parameter logistic IRT model provided the best fit, revealing variation in item discrimination and difficulty parameters. Educational attainment influenced performance, with primary education associated with lower scores. Sex was marginally associated with performance, suggesting that men scored slightly lower than women. This study provides initial evidence supporting the validity of use of the Multiscent-20 as a digital odour identification test. The test's automation and portability enable the standardized delivery of olfactory stimuli and efficient automatic recording and scoring of responses.
“…Moreover, it underscores the importance of re ning the items of the Multiscent-20 to better represent the latent trait of olfaction. Furthermore, the test-retest reliability coe cient (0.82) obtained in the proof-of-concept study with 40 odours 5 needs to be con rmed in this version of the test.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Multiscent-20 is a dedicated tablet featuring a 7-inch touchscreen speci cally designed for use in the cosmetics industry to present perfume fragrances to customers (Fig. 5) 5 .…”
Although validated and reliable psychophysical tests of olfactory function are available, an easy-to-use and feasible test has yet to be developed. This study aimed to design a digital odour identification test, evaluate its validity, establish a normative curve, and explore the impact of demographic factors. The odour identification test was presented with the Multiscent-20, a hand-held, tablet-like digital scent device that features an integrated odour digital delivery system. The identification performance on the 20 odours was assessed using item response theory (IRT). The normative curve was established by administering the test to a large sample of participants (n = 1,299). The mean identification score was 17.5 (SD = 2.1). The two-parameter logistic IRT model provided the best fit, revealing variation in item discrimination and difficulty parameters. Educational attainment influenced performance, with primary education associated with lower scores. Sex was marginally associated with performance, suggesting that men scored slightly lower than women. This study provides initial evidence supporting the validity of use of the Multiscent-20 as a digital odour identification test. The test's automation and portability enable the standardized delivery of olfactory stimuli and efficient automatic recording and scoring of responses.
“…For example, the ‘‘Filemaker’’ based software ‘‘OLAF’’ guides the patient through any user-defined arrangement of the various portions of the test battery [ 30 ]. Other automated test systems have also been proposed [ 14 , 22 , 31 , 32 ]. Moreover, the test cohort used the shorter versions of Discrimination and Threshold tests to save testing time and prevent subjects getting tired.…”
Background
A precise and reliable test of the olfactory function is indispensable for the diagnosis of the olfactory disorder (OD). Despite of this, in a clinical context, often there is no place in daily routine for time-consuming procedures. This study aimed to examine if the assessment of olfactory function using the “Sniffin’ Sticks” is suitable for self-assessment.
Methods
Participants comprised 84 healthy control subjects (HC) and 37 OD patients. The “Sniffin’ Sticks” test battery consisting of odor threshold (T), discrimination (D) and identification (I) tests was used for self- and assisted assessments. To save time, we applied the 8-item wide step version of the T test and the 8-item D test, whereas the I task remained the same as the original version. The whole test included two sessions, with each session comprising a self-assessment part performed by the participants themselves, and an assisted-assessment part performed by the examiner.
Results
Sniffin’ Sticks self-assessment was efficient in distinguishing between self-reported HC subjects and OD patients (p’s < 0.01), and the scores did not differ significantly from the assisted-assessment (p’s > 0.05). In the self-administered I and TDI tests, there was a moderate to excellent test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.51–0.93, p’s < 0.01), and a strong to excellent correlation with the assisted assessment (r = 0.71–0.92, p’s < 0.01). However, the self-administered T and D tests only exhibited low to moderate test–retest reliability (ICC = 0.30–0.72, p’s < 0.05) and correlations with the assisted test (r = 0.31–0.62, p’s < 0.05).
Conclusions
The Identification self-test is appropriate to be solely applied, and is therefore an easy-to-use alternative for olfactory screening in a larger segment of patients. The whole “Sniffin’ Sticks” self-test also shows good measurement properties and is therefore a suitable backup in clinical practice, but improvement is needed due to the simplified D and T self-test.
“…The software application presents, controls, and records responses in an automated manner. 153 Figure 3 (A) Front view of the Noar MultiScent-20® digital device. It is a 7-inch touchscreen tablet used to digitally demonstrate aromas.…”
Section: Multiscent-20 Digital Odor Identification Testmentioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
