The influence of cognitive bias on the perceived odor, irritation and health symptoms from chemical exposure

Dalton, Pamela; Wysocki, Charles J.; Brody, Michael J.; Lawley, Henry J.

doi:10.1007/s004200050168

Cited by 147 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our postchallenge quantitative measurement of olfactory thresholds did not reveal Scand J Work Environ Health 1998, "0124, no 5 any aberration in olfactory function that could explain the reaction differences. Thus our results are in accordance with the findings of both cacosmia and normal olfactory function after long-term exposure to solvents (5,26).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Special section

Ørbæk¹,

Österberg²,

Åkesson³

et al. 1998

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Special section

Ørbæk¹,

Österberg²,

Åkesson³

et al. 1998

Scand J Work Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Dalton and colleagues (Dalton 1999;Dalton et al 1997) demonstrated that inducing beliefs about harmful consequences of exposure to certain odorants resulted not only in increased intensity but also in irritancy of those odorants as well as enhanced frequency and intensity of symptom reports. These findings led Dalton to propose that changes in health effects and symptom reporting are modulated by changes in odor perception (Dalton 2002(Dalton , 2003.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Irritancy Expectancy Alters Odor Perception: Evidence From Olfactory Event-Related Potential Research

Bulsing

Smeets

Gemeinhardt³

et al. 2010

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bulsing PJ, Smeets MAM, Gemeinhardt C, Laverman M, Schuster B, Van den Hout MA, Hummel T. Irritancy expectancy alters odor perception: evidence from olfactory event-related potential research. J Neurophysiol 104: 2749 -2756, 2010. First published September 15, 2010 doi:10.1152/jn.00754.2009. The aim of the present research was to investigate the influences of cognition on temporal processing of olfactory information in a health-relevant context. We investigated whether expecting an odor to cause adverse health effects alters perception of that odor. An irritation-free odor (Study 1: H 2 S; Study 2: phenyl ethyl alcohol [PEA]) was presented after which participants expected to experience either adverse sensory irritation (caused by intranasal CO 2 presentation) in one condition or no adverse effects in another condition, depending on a previously presented visual cue. Olfactory event-related potentials (OERPs) were measured to assess effects of expectations on the temporal course of olfactory processing. When participants expected irritancy after perceiving the odor of H 2 S, N1 and P3 peak amplitude and N1 latency were increased and shortened, respectively, suggesting more intense and faster processing of the odor as well as effects on salience and anticipation of sensory irritation. When the odor was PEA, only the N1 amplitude was increased. These results, obtained with OERP, provide converging evidence for comparable conclusions regarding the influence of cognition on odor perception reached with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Furthermore, the results suggest that a priori hedonic valence of an odor affects how susceptible the olfactory percept is to modulation via expectations.

show abstract

“…Dalton and colleagues, for example, evaluated whether information about the health consequences of exposure to acetone would alter the ratings of odor and irritation during exposure and/or the frequency of reported health symptoms following exposure. 225 Ninety subjects were exposed for 20 minutes to 200 ppm of phenyl ethyl alcohol (PEA; a relatively nonirritating rose-like smelling agent) and to 800 ppm acetone, an agent with more irritating properties. Subjects were assigned to three groups: the positive bias group was told they would be exposed to natural extracts that were commonly used in aromatherapy and may have beneficial effects on mood and health; the negative bias group was told they would be exposed to industrial solvents that purportedly caused health effects and cognitive problems following long-term exposure; and the neutral bias group was told they would be exposed to standard odorants commonly used and approved for olfactory research.…”

Section: B Subject Characteristics I Smoking Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%