what can causes sudden over sensitivity to smells

• Journal List
• HHS Writer Manuscripts
• PMC6437019

CNS Spectr. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 Feb 1.

Published in concluding edited form as:

PMCID: PMC6437019

NIHMSID: NIHMS981012

Odor sensitivity impairment: a behavioral marker of psychological distress?

David C. Houghton

¹Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical Academy of Due south Carolina, Charleston, SC, Us

²Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, Higher Station, TX USA

Samuel Howard

¹Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical Academy of Due south Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

Thomas W. Uhde

¹Section of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of Due south Carolina, Charleston, SC, Us

Caitlin Paquet

¹Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical University of S Carolina, Charleston, SC, USA

Rodney J. Schlosser

³Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Medical University of S Carolina, Charleston, SC, The states

Bernadette M. Cortese

¹Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Medical Academy of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United states

Abstract

Objective

Enhanced smell sensitivity, particularly toward threat-related cues, may be adaptive during periods of danger. Enquiry too suggests that chronic psychological distress may atomic number 82 to functional changes in the olfactory system that cause heightened sensitivity to odors. Notwithstanding, the association betwixt cocky-reported odor sensitivity, objective scent detection, and affective psychopathology is currently unclear, and research suggests that persons with affective problems may simply be sensitive to specific, threat-related odors.

Methods

The current study compared adults with self-reported odor sensitivity that was described as functionally impairing (OSI; n = 32) to those who reported scent sensitivity that was non-impairing (Os; n = 17) on melancholia variables as well as quantitative odor detection.

Results

Increased anxiety sensitivity, trait anxiety, depression, and life stress, even while controlling for comorbid anxiety and depressive disorders, was institute for OSI compared to Os. While OSI, compared to OS, demonstrated simply a trend increase in objective odor detection of a smoke-like, only not rose-like, scent, farther analysis revealed that increased detection of that smoke-like odor was positively correlated with anxiety sensitivity.

Conclusion

These findings suggest that persons with various forms of psychological distress may find themselves significantly impaired by an intolerance of odors, but that self-reported odor sensitivity does non necessarily relate to enhanced odour detection power. Even so, increased sensitivity to a smoke-like scent appears to be associated with sensitivity to aversive anxiogenic stimuli. Implications for the pathophysiology of fear- and feet-related disorders are discussed.

Keywords: Odor Sensitivity, Anxiety Sensitivity, Somatization, Anxiety, Stress

Despite the popular misconceptions that humans have poor olfactory power and do non rely on smell for navigating the environs, olfaction is an ancient chemical sense that provides important sensory information across many different contexts.¹ In fact, olfaction plays a role in number of everyday, routine processes such equally eating, social communication, and attaching emotional attributes to autobiographical memories.ⁱⁱ Smell also has a primary role for survival in the detection of environmental threats and signaling of potential danger (e.g. identifying spoiled/rotten food, an unseen fire, or nearby chemic spill or gas leak). Thus, enhanced olfactory role during periods when increased threat detection is required, or when perceived life threat or emotional stress is high, would likely aid in survival past alerting 1 to the presence of danger and facilitating avoidance behaviors.

Evidence from animate being studies suggests that scent sensitivity is heightened during periods when increased threat detection is required, such as in the vicinity of a predator^three or in response to immobilization stress⁴. Moreover, structural changes inside the olfactory system of rodents in response to fear/threat support those changes in role.^{5, 6} The information in humans are less clear still, with some studies reporting fear/threat-related enhanced odor detection,^six–11 and others demonstrating dumb function.^{12, 13} Odor detection/sensitivity across stress, anxiety, and other fearfulness-related disorders is as mixed.^14–19 Taken together, these findings propose that additional variables may moderate the relationship between fear/threat and enhanced olfactory property detection/sensitivity in humans. For instance, our inquiry suggests that situations of real, life-threatening danger may shift olfactory system functions toward the more sensitive detection of specific, threat-related, odor cues, including called-for odors.^xx Accordingly, sensitivity to certain odors, peculiarly those linked to real danger, may exist associated with anxiety proneness and/or history of negative melancholia experiences. Another possible explanation for mixed evidence in the anxiety-odor sensitivity human relationship may be due to differences betwixt those with and without clinically pregnant smell sensitivity. It may be that persons who are impaired by their odor sensitivity (e.g. endorse unpleasant physical/emotional reactions to sure odors) are indeed highly anxious, but that no relationship exists betwixt smell sensitivity and anxiety in persons that are not dumb by their olfactory property sensitivity (e.yard. endorse a keen, only non-problematic, sense of aroma).

In fact, the proposed linkage between odor sensitivity impairment and psychological distress has particular relevance to individuals who draw themselves equally "chemically sensitive," or having an enhanced power to detect and feel distress from noxious smells, especially harsh chemicals and environmental pollutants. Studies have constitute that between eleven–33% of individuals in the general population consider themselves "chemically sensitive"^{21, 22} and between 1–vi% are impaired by the status²³. Dumb individuals endorse the ability to detect very faint concentrations of certain smells (i.e., much lower than harmful levels), and that the presence of such odors causes intense irritation and symptoms akin to panic attacks (east.m., lightheadedness, fatigue, difficulty breathing, headaches, concentration difficulties).^24–26 However, it is currently unclear whether individuals who describe themselves equally existence chemically sensitive accept physiological differences in olfactory function or if their sensitivity is more reflective of fear-based psychopathology. Preliminary objective testing has revealed mixed results regarding whether true differences in odor detection exist in persons with chemical sensitivity,^{27, 28} whereas data consistently suggest that persons who endorse chemic sensitivity have increased feet, depression, and psychological distress.^29–31 Still, while this evidence provides useful data on those who endorse "chemical sensitivity," information technology is unclear whether these findings would as well hold true for those who consider themselves to be "odor sensitive," which reflects a more than full general sensitivity to odors, rather than specific sensitivity to harsh chemicals. It stands to reason that persons with greater fear-based psychopathology may exist particularly vigilant of harsh chemicals and environmental pollutants that could potentially be harmful if inhaled in large volumes. Yet, the extent to which the purported effects of stress and anxiety on olfaction would acquaintance to greater perceptual sensitivity to both potentially unsafe and neutral odors is currently unknown.

To more clearly elucidate the relationship between odor sensitivity and psychiatric symptoms, we recruited a sample of adults who endorsed increased sensitivity to odors. To extend previous findings, we sought to determine the relationship between scent sensitivity and various indices of stress, anxiety, and depression in those impaired and not dumb by their olfactory property sensitivity. Nosotros as well sought to examine whether self-reported scent sensitivity impairment would correspond to an objective measure of olfactory property detection, including increased differential detection of an odor potentially related to danger (smoke-like) compared to an odor typically not associated with danger (rose-similar). Finally, in guild to link affective variables to possible physiological differences in olfactory property detection, we explored whether diverse indices of stress, feet, and depression were associated with objective measures of odor detection.

METHODS

Participants

Participants were recruited over a vi-calendar month time period from the Medical Academy of South Carolina campus and the greater Charleston, Due south Carolina community through advertisement seeking "adults who are sensitive to odors". At screening, cocky-reported aroma sensitivity was confirmed by affirmative answers to the questions, "are y'all sensitive to odors?" and "practise you smell things other people do not or prior to other people?". Next, damage due to odor sensitivity was probed past the questions, "are you bothered by odors?", including "do you have unpleasant physical/emotional reactions to odors and do you avert odors?". Participants were required to endorse "yep" to all questions to be categorized as being impaired by their odour sensitivity "OSI". All others served as odour sensitive (OS) controls, as they self-reported odor sensitivity (corking sense of aroma), but were not impaired past it. Nosotros chose this recruitment methodology based on our chief hypotheses, that damage from odor sensitivity, not scent sensitivity per se, is the disquisitional cistron regarding psychological distress. Exclusion criteria were express and included (a) history of head trauma/concussion, (b) heavy smoking, and (iii) problems with nose/sense of olfactory property (due east.g. upper respiratory infection, chronic rhinosinusitis, polyps, etc.). All participants signed written informed consent canonical by the Institutional Review Lath (IRB) at the Medical University of South Carolina prior to participation.

Materials and Methods

Olfactory property Detection

Objective aroma detection was measured through administration of two versions of the Snap and Sniff ^® Threshold Exam (SSTT)³²: the first containing phenyl-ethyl booze (PEA), a "rose-similar" scent, and the second containing guaiacol (GUA), a "smoke-like" scent. Administration procedures were the same, regardless of odorant. The SSTT required the systematic presentation of a ready of wands containing a serial dilution (one-half-log concentration steps ranging from the most intense, 10⁻² to the least intense, 10⁻⁹) of odorant. In a single staircase method with forced choice regarding which wand smelled more strongly of the odorant, a wand containing a given concentration of odorant was presented nether the nose in rapid succession with an odorless wand. Subsequent presentation of a college or lower concentration of odorant was dependent on a correct or incorrect response from the previous trial. This method was repeated until 7 reversals (upward and down the staircase) were fabricated. Odor detection threshold score was determined by the average of the concluding iv reversals.

Psychological Measures

The Anxiety Sensitivity Index-3 (ASI-iii) is an eighteen-item, cocky-report measure of anxiety sensitivity, or the fear of experiencing feet and its related cerebral, physiological, and social consequences.³³ Using a 5-indicate rating scale that ranged from 0 (very footling) to iv (very much), items were rated co-ordinate to how much the respondent agreed to each statement. Total ASI-3 scores were calculated by the sum of all items and could range from 0 to 72, with college scores indicating greater anxiety sensitivity. Iii lower-order factors of anxiety sensitivity (i.east. cognitive, physical, and social) were comprised of 6 items each, allowing subscale scores to range from 0–24. The cognitive concerns subscale measured fearfulness of the mental consequences of anxiety such every bit worry of "going crazy" or being "mentally sick". The physical concerns subscale measured fear of anxiety-related physiological arousal including worry of a "centre attack" or "choking to death". And finally, the social concerns subscale measured fright of the social aspects of feet such as worry of being evaluated negatively by others for blushing, sweating, or fainting. The psychometric backdrop of the ASI-iii are adequate to good on indices of reliability and validity.^{33, 34} Evidence indicates that a cut-off score of ≥ 17 reflects moderate-to-severe feet sensitivity versus balmy-to-negligible anxiety sensitivity.^{35, 36}

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)³⁷ is a 40-detail, self-study measure of two types of anxiety: land anxiety and trait anxiety.³⁸ State anxiety is conceptualized as a transitory emotional state, whereas trait feet is thought to be an enduring personality dimension. Each type of anxiety is measured via 20 distinct items. On the STAI, participants are asked to charge per unit a series of statements regarding how much the argument applies to them on a 4-signal rating scale ranging from i ("Not at all") to 4 ("Very much then"). Total scores for the state subscale (STAI-South) and trait subscale (STAI-T) are formed by summing all items, resulting in subscale scores ranging from 20–80. Studies have shown that the STAI has adept reliability and validity.^39–43 Cutting-off scores for normative versus clinically pregnant symptoms on the STAI scales take been defined as twoscore for the State scale⁴⁴ and 46 for the Trait scale⁴⁵.

The Holmes-Rahe Social Readjustment Scale (HRSS)⁴⁶ is a 43-item, self-report measure of recent individual experiences of stressful life events. Participants are asked to betoken whether a series of stressful life events (e.g., death of a spouse, modify in living conditions, vacation) have occurred to them in the by year. Each life event is assigned an empirically derived betoken value (or "Life Change Units") ranging from xi–100,⁴⁷ with greater values indicating greater stress impact. The total number of Life Change Units are added together from all items endorsed by the participant, resulting in a full score that reflects ane'southward risk for illness or maladjustment as a result of life stress. Scores are interpreted equally follows: scores < 150 reflect reduced risk of illness, scores between 150–299 reverberate moderate hazard of illness, and scores ≥ 300 reverberate loftier chance of illness. Evidence suggests that the HRSS has good benchmark validity.⁴⁸

Similarly, the Life Events Checklist (LEC)⁴⁹ is a 17-item, self-report measure of exposure to potentially traumatizing events. The measure lists 16 potentially traumatizing events, and participants are asked to rate whether (a) the event happened to them, (b) they witnessed the outcome, (c) they learned about the outcome, (d) the result happened as function of their task, (e) they are not sure, or (f) the upshot did not happen to them. In add-on, an additional item allows respondents to enter whatever other boggling stressful life result. A total score is derived past adding upwards the number of instances and/or contexts in which someone has endorsed that they experienced a traumatic event. The LEC has adequate test-retest reliability and adept convergent validity.⁴⁹

The Penn Country Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ)⁵⁰ is a sixteen-item, self-report mensurate of chronic and persistent worrying. Participants rate how a serial of statements utilise to them on a five-betoken rating scale ranging from 1 ("Not at all typical of me") to 5 ("Very typical of me"), and the total score consists of a sum of all item scores ranging from 16–fourscore. Higher scores bespeak greater trait worrying. Show indicates that the PSWQ possesses skilful reliability and excellent validity.⁵¹

The Patient Health Questionnaire – depression scale (PHQ-ix)⁵² is a 9-detail, cocky-study measure out of the nine diagnostic criteria for major low from DSM-IV. Respondents rate the frequency each of the diagnostic criteria on a 4-point rating scale ranging from 0 ("Not at all") to 3 ("Nearly every twenty-four hour period"), resulting in total scores ranging from 0–27. A cutoff score of ≥10 is generally employed to find significant depressive symptoms.⁵³ Prove mostly supports the construct validity of the PHQ-9.⁵⁴

The Pittsburg Slumber Quality Index (PSQI)⁵⁵ is a nineteen-item, cocky-report measure designed to measure slumber quality in persons over a 1-month interval. Particular content covers seven content areas: subjective sleep quality, sleep latency, sleep duration, habitual sleep efficiency, sleep disturbances, use of sleeping medication, and daytime dysfunction. Items are rated on a 4-indicate rating scale ranging from 0 ("Non during the past calendar month") to 3 ("Three or more times a week"). The total score is computed by summing all items, which can range from 0–57. Evidence indicates that the PSQI possesses adequate reliability and skilful validity.^{55, 56}

Process

Interested participants who responded to study advertisements and met the study criteria were mailed a comprehensive packet of questionnaires related to stress, feet, and mood and scheduled for a 30-infinitesimal study visit. At the visit, informed consent procedures were conducted, followed by the collection of the participants' completed bundle of questionnaires, determination of whether participants were functionally impaired past their scent sensitivity, and finally by objective scent detection testing (SSTT for PEA and GUA).

RESULTS

Participant characteristics

Participants in the overall sample (Due north = 49) were mostly centre-aged (M = 37.43, SD = thirteen.20, Range = 20–68) and predominantly white (73.5%), female (89.eight%), and higher-educated (73.5%). While all participants endorsed scent sensitivity, further probing revealed that 32 of the 49 participants (65.3%) reported that their odour sensitivity was impairing (OSI) and that 17 of the 49 participants (34.7%) were non impaired by their odor sensitivity (OS).

Independent t-test and chi-square analyses revealed significant differences in demographic and clinical characteristics betwixt the OSI and Os groups (see Table ane). Almost notably, persons in the OSI group were significantly more likely to be females than males. This result is likely based on the findings that only 10% of those who answered the report advertising were male, and that only ane (20%) of the males in the study were included in the OSI grouping, while 31 (seventy%) of the females in the sample were included in the OSI group. Additionally, the OSI participants were significantly more probable to endorse a previous diagnosis and/or treatment for feet or depression. In fact, of the xvi participants who endorsed a diagnosis, 15 of them were in the OSI group, meaning that of the 17 participants in the OS group, just i endorsed being previously treated for depression.

Table 1

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics

Measure	OSI	OS	t or χ 2	p -value	OR/ g
	( northward =32)	( n =17)
Age in years – Hateful (SD)	37.00 (13.79)	38.24 (12.37)	0.31	0.76	0.09
Sex activity - Northward (%) male	i (3.1)	four (23.5)	v.04	0.025	−6.91
Race - N (%) minority	seven (21.ix)	six (35.3)	one.03	0.31	2.10
Education – N (%) college caste	24 (82.8)	12 (70.half dozen)	0.93	0.33	1.89
Mood/Anxiety Diagnosis - N (%) endorsed	15 (46.9)	1 (5.9)	8.48	0.004	14.04
Psychotropic Medication - Due north (%) endorsed	7 (21.9)	1 (five.9)	2.08	0.15	4.49

Influence of Odor Sensitivity Impairment on Low, Feet, and Stress

Given the high charge per unit of mood and feet disorders in the OSI group, ANCOVA with history of diagnosis/treatment added as a chiselled covariate was used to make up one's mind the influence of olfactory property sensitivity impairment on the severity of psychiatric symptoms and life stress (meet Tabular array two). Consistent with our hypotheses, the OSI group had significantly greater overall AS, as well as greater scores on the physical, cognitive, and social ASI-three subscales. Additionally, the OSI group reported significantly greater symptoms of low, greater frequencies of stressful life events on the HRSS, higher trait anxiety, simply state anxiety was not elevated. Marginally higher frequencies of traumatic life events and worry severity were reported by the OSI group compared to the Bone grouping. However, impairment from smell sensitivity did not affect sleep quality, as at that place were no significant differences between groups on the PSQI.

Table ii

Differences Between Odor Sensitive Groups on Self-Report Measures

Measure	OSI	OS	F	p -value	η p ii
	Hateful (SD)	Hateful (SD)
ASI-Total	23.69 (14.25)	half dozen.76 (four.71)	12.95	.001	.22
ASI-Concrete	7.63 (5.46)	1.94 (ii.11)	10.xiv	.003	.eighteen
ASI-Cognitive	v.06 (5.17)	0.82 (1.33)	4.22	.046	.08
ASI-Social	11.00 (vi.12)	iv.00 (3.35)	12.38	.001	.21
STAI-State	38.38 (12.48)	31.65 (8.28)	1.76	.19	.04
STAI-Trait	42.78 (eleven.17)	31.76 (viii.85)	iv.93	.031	.10
HRSS	175.72 (99.55)	100.24 (101.93)	iv.42	.041	.09
LEC	xi.25 (v.76)	8.24 (6.08)	3.44	.070	.07
PSWQ	51.81 (17.l)	38.13 (15.32)	iii.42	.071	.07
PHQ-9	six.06 (iv.55)	ane.88 (2.00)	7.59	.008	.xiv
PSQI	6.78 (4.07)	4.53 (3.06)	2.00	.16	.04

We besides examined whether persons who were impaired by their aroma sensitivity would be more probable to be classified every bit having clinically pregnant symptoms of depression, trait feet, life stress, and anxiety sensitivity, as evidenced past scores greater than the cut-offs on the PHQ-ix, STAI Trait Scale, HRSS, and the full score of the ASI. Results of chi-square analyses revealed that the OSI group was significantly more likely to written report clinically significant symptoms of depression on the PHQ-ix (χ² [1, 49] = 6.07, p = .014, OR = 313.99). Indeed, while nine (29.0%) of the OSI group scored 10 or college on the PHQ-9, none of the Os group scored at or above that cutting-off. The aforementioned pattern of results was axiomatic on the ASI, wherein the OSI group was more likely to written report clinically significant symptoms of Every bit with scores greater than or equal to 17 (χ^two [1, 49] = 19.52, p < .001, OR = 4630.67). While 21 (65.6%) of the OSI group scored in the clinically significant range for AS, none of the Os group did. Even so, individuals in the OSI group were only marginally more likely to score higher up the clinical cut-off on the STAI Trait Feet Scale (χ² [1, 49] = three.60, p = .058, OR = v.89), and were not more likely to score in a higher place the clinical cut-off for life stress on the HRSS (χⁱⁱ [1, 49] = 1.92, p = .17, OR = 2.40).

Influence of Odor Sensitivity Impairment on Objectively-measured Olfactory property Detection

A 2 × 2 (group x odor) mixed ANOVA was used to test objectively-measured olfactory property detection of GUA and PEA between the OSI and Os groups. There was a meaning principal outcome of olfactory property (F[one, 47] = 7.34, p = .009, η _p ^two = .14), revealing that, for the unabridged sample, mean aroma detection threshold was lower (enhanced detection) for GUA (M = −6.34, SD = 0.94, range = −2 to −viii.125) than for PEA (1000 = −5.60, SD = one.seventy, range = −2 to −8.5). While the group past aroma interaction was non-significant (F[ane, 47] = .003, p = .95), paired samples t-tests revealed that the main outcome of odor was mainly driven past the OSI group, who demonstrated significantly enhanced detection of GUA (Yard = −6.52, SD = 0.60, range = −iv.75 to −eight.125) compared to PEA (M = −5.80, SD = one.57, range = −2.375 to −8.5; t(31) = ii.53, p = .02; d = .45). In contrast, the OS grouping did not bear witness differential detection of GUA (K = −five.98, SD = 1.33, range = −2 to −7.375) compared to PEA (M = −five.23, SD = 1.91, range = −2 to −8.25; t(16) = i.45, p = .17, d = .35). Independent samples t-tests showed that GUA threshold trended lower (enhanced detection) in the OSI group compared to the Os group (t(47) = 1.96, p = .057, g = .59), while detection thresholds for PEA did not differ between groups (t(47) = 1.12, p = .27, g = .34) (See Figure 1).

Odour threshold scores for guaiacol (GUA), a smoke-like odorant, and phenyl ethyl alcohol (PEA), a rose-similar odorant, in adults impaired and not dumb by their odour sensitivity (OSI and Bone, respectively). Odour detection was determined with the Snap and Sniff ^® Threshold Test (SSTT), wherein a lower number (more negative) indicated a lower concentration of odorant and enhanced detection. Overall, the entire sample showed enhanced detection of GUA compared to PEA. This outcome was driven mainly past the OSI group who demonstrated significantly enhanced detection for GUA compared PEA. * = p < .05.

Influence of Psychological Variables on Objectively-measured Smell Detection

Pearson bivariate correlations were used to decide potential associations between odor threshold scores and clinical variables in the overall sample of odor sensitive adults. A meaning relationship between As and enhanced aroma detection of GUA, simply not PEA (r = − .33, p < .05, r = .05, p =.74, respectively) was found. Thus, detection for the smoke-like odor was best in those with the highest level of AS (see Effigy 2a). Participants were then grouped past those with clinically significant symptoms of Every bit (ASI-3 total score ≥ 17; n = 21) and those without clinically significant Every bit (ASI-3 full score < 17; n = 28). Mixed ANOVA revealed a main issue of odour (F[1, 47] = 9.37, p = .004, η _p ² = .17) and a tendency-level group past odor interaction (F[i, 47] = two.01, p = .sixteen, η _p ² = .04). T-tests showed that the high Every bit group was significantly more sensitive to but GUA, detecting it at lower concentrations than PEA (t(20) = 3.56, p = .002, d = .77), as well every bit GUA in the depression As group (t(47) = 2.40, p = .02, g = .69) (see Effigy 2b). No other meaning relationships between odor detection thresholds and psychological variables were noted.

Odor threshold scores for guaiacol (GUA), a fume-like odorant, and phenyl ethyl alcohol (PEA), a rose-similar odorant, as a part of anxiety sensitivity (AS). Odour detection was determined with the Snap and Sniff ^® Threshold Exam (SSTT), wherein a lower number (more negative) indicated a lower concentration of odorant and enhanced detection. 2a. Total AS was significantly correlated with enhanced odor detection of GUA (r = −.33, p < .05), but not PEA (r = .05, p > .1). 2b. Participants who scored to a higher place the cutoff for clinically significant Equally (ASI score ≥ 17; n = 21) detected GUA at lower concentrations (enhanced detection) than PEA and also compared to detection of GUA in those who scored below the clinical cutoff (ASI score < 17; n = 28). * = p < .05.

DISCUSSION

Results of the current report were consistent with our predictions. We showed that self-reported olfactory property sensitivity damage was associated with increased anxiety, low, and life stress, as well equally with objectively-measured enhanced detection for GUA, the smoke-like, but not PEA, the rose-similar, odorant. These findings suggest that self-reported impairing aroma sensitivity and objective detection of an odorant related to potential danger are linked and both chronicle to anxiety and psychological distress.

Cocky-reported odor sensitivity impairment was related to a host of negative affective experiences, even when controlling for history of anxiety or low, which was more prominent in that group. In fact, persons impaired by their scent sensitivity reported significantly increased trait anxiety, life stress, and low, as well every bit a marginally greater full number of traumatic life events and marginally increased worry. Previous research has shown that broken-hearted individuals are more perceptive of threatening stimuli than non-anxious individuals.⁵⁷ Indeed, persons with loftier social anxiety are more reactive to emotional facial expressions in others,⁵⁸ and victims of sexual assault can experience chronic aversion to concrete contact.⁵⁹ Together with the nowadays findings, these results suggest that chronic fright and psychological distress may be associated with increased attention to, and intolerance of, potential danger cues across different sensory modalities, including olfaction.

Odour sensitivity harm related to objectively-measured odor detection likewise, as only those that were dumb by their odor sensitivity demonstrated significantly better detection of GUA than PEA. Moreover, there was a trend for better detection of GUA in the dumb, compared to non-impaired, olfactory property sensitive group. These results provide back up for our hypothesis that persons with odor sensitivity impairment would be more perceptive of an odor potentially related to danger, but not more perceptive of a neutral scent. Boosted findings showing that enhanced detection of GUA, only non PEA, was linked to elevated anxiety sensitivity, as well equally the potent association betwixt feet sensitivity and scent sensitivity impairment, suggest that possibly anxiety sensitivity is the mechanism through which persons who are impaired by odor sensitivity are more perceptive of odors potentially related to danger. Indeed, theoretical distinctions between anxiety and anxiety sensitivity⁶⁰ advise that scent sensitivity, regardless of impairment, may be more closely associated with fear of aversive feet-related sensations rather than fear of aversive stimuli, per say. Peradventure a disposition of hyper-vigilance to aversive sensations could reverberate increased sensitivity to aversive/noxious odors, leading such individuals to report harm due to their olfactory property sensitivity.

There is support for the notion that odor sensitivity impairment and feet sensitivity are associated with intolerance of aversive odors when considering differences in the neurophysiology of sensory processing between different types of odorants. The aesthetic properties of odors are processed in the primary olfactory (piriform) cortex, which is closely intertwined with the neural structures supporting emotion in the limbic cortex (i.due east., the amygdala, hippocampus and surrounding cortex, inductive insula, and orbitofrontal cortices).^{61, 62} This suggests that persons with affective psychopathology, who often demonstrate limbic hyperactivity,⁶³ may often adhere strong emotional valence to odors and thus perceive odors as more than intense due to affective conflation. Some research supports this notion, as odors have a remarkable ability to arm-twist emotionally-charged, distant memories,^{64, 65} and individuals with PTSD often study that sure odors trigger re-experiencing of traumatic events.⁶⁶ In contrast, the nociceptive properties (i.e., burning, tingling) of odors are processed via the intranasal trigeminal system,⁶⁷ thereby conveying information most potentially unsafe odorant chemicals. The degree to which odorants are processed more than so through the trigeminal pathway than through the primary olfactory pathway varies depending on the odorant.⁶⁷ Although PEA has some trigeminal properties, GUA and many other odors potentially related to danger accept significant trigeminal properties. Indeed, GUA is still recognized as an intense odor in persons with anosmia, who cannot recognize many odors due to damage or dysfunction specific to the olfactory excursion.⁶⁸ Our laboratory has previously suggested that chronic fearfulness may lead to a shift in cardinal processing of odorants, from olfactory to trigeminal, such that affected individuals lose sensitivity to the hedonic qualities and mayhap intensity of many odorants, while at the aforementioned time becoming more sensitive to the danger-related aspects of odorants that possess greater trigeminal properties.²⁰ In fact, we recently reported that combat veterans with chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) demonstrated decreased olfactory property detection for PEA, merely increased odor intensity ratings and encephalon activation in somatosensory, but not olfactory, cortex in response to a burning-like scent cue.¹⁷ Results of the current study are consequent with those findings; chronic sensitivity to feared stimuli (i.e., anxiety sensitivity) may outcome in functional changes to both the olfactory and intranasal trigeminal systems, leading to odor-specific sensitivities.

Conclusion

Findings from the electric current study offer insights into how aroma sensitivity and smell sensitivity impairment, defined subjectively or objectively, may exist a mark of certain types of feet and psychological distress. However, these results should exist viewed as preliminary given certain limitations to the study pattern. Certainly, the sample size between groups was relatively minor, and information technology could be argued that a separate group of adults with average odour ability may show differences from the electric current groups of odor sensitive adults. The report was too constrained past the use of just two odorants that were not specifically tested for trigeminal activation. It would be beneficial for future studies to test a diverseness of pleasant and unpleasant odors that range on their power to activate the intranasal trigeminal system. Regardless of these limitations, the present study adds to the growing literature regarding anxiety-related changes in odor processing. Taken together with previous work in this area, the nowadays results advise that cocky-reported odour sensitivity impairment and considerately-measured enhanced detection of potentially unsafe odors may help identify clinically-relevant levels of anxiety and psychological distress in the general population.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided by NIMH Grant K01 MH090548 (BMC).

Footnotes

Disclosure information:

David Houghton, Samuel Howard, Thomas Uhde, Caitlin Paquet, Rodney Schlosser and Bernadette Cortese have the following disclosure: NIMH Grant K01 MH090548 (BMC).

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

ii. Sarafoleanu C, Mella C, Georgescu M, et al. The importance of the olfactory sense in the human behavior and evolution. Journal of Medicine and Life. 2009;2(2):196–198. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

three. Lukowiak M, Martens K, Rosenegger D, et al. The perception of stress alters adaptive behaviors in Lymnaea stagnalis. J Exp Biol. 2008;211:1747–1756. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

4. Sung KK, Jang DP, Lee S, et al. Neural responses in rat encephalon during astute immobilization stress: A [F-xviii]FDG micro PET imaging study. Neuroimage. 2009;44(three):1074–1080. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

5. Jones SV, Choi DC, Davis 1000, et al. Learning-dependent structural plasticity in the adult olfactory pathway. J Neurosci. 2008;28(49):13106–13111. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

6. Kass MD, Rosenthal MC, Pottackal J, et al. Fear learning enhances neural responses to threat-predictive sensory stimuli. Science. 2013;342(6164):1389–1392. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Ahs F, Miller SS, Gordon AR, et al. Aversive learning increases sensory detection sensitivity. Biol Psychology. 2013;92(2):135–141. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Hoenen M, Wolf OT, Pause BM. The impact of stress on odor perception. Perception. 2017;46(3–4):366–376. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Krusemark EA, Li W. Enhanced olfactory sensory perception of threat in anxiety: An result-related fMRI study. Chemosensory Perception. 2012;five(one):37–45. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. La Buissonnière-Ariza 5, Lepore F, Kojok KM, et al. Increased odour detection speed in highly anxious healthy adults. Chem Senses. 2013;38(seven):577–584. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Pacharra M, Schäper M, Kleinbeck S, et al. Olfactory vigil and automatic associations to olfactory property words modulate agin furnishings of ammonia. Chemosensory Perception. 2016;9(1):27–36. [Google Scholar]

12. Jovanovic H, Perski A, Berglund H, et al. Chronic stress is linked to 5-HT_1A receptor changes and functional disintegration of the limbic networks. Neuroumage. 2011;55(3):1178–1188. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Takahashi T, Itoh H, Nishikawa Y, et al. Possible relation between olfaction and anxiety in healthy subjects. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2015;69(7):431–438. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

fourteen. Berlin HA, Stern ER, Ng J, et al. Altered olfactory processing and increased insula activity in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder: An fMRI study. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging. 2017;262:15–24. [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Burón E, Bulbena A, Bulbena-Cabré A. Olfactory functioning in panic disorder. J Impact Disord. 2015;175:292–298. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Clepce M, Reich K, Gossler A, et al. Olfactory abnormalities in anxiety disorders. Neurosci Lett. 2012;511(1):43–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Cortese BM, Schumann AY, Howell AN, et al. Preliminary show for differential olfactory and trigeminal processing in gainsay veterans with and without PTSD. NeuroImage: Clinical. 2017;17:378–387. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Pause BM, Adolph D, Prehn-Kristensen A, et al. Startle response potentiation to chemosensory anxiety signals in socially anxious individuals. Int J Psychophysiol. 2009;74(2):88–92. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Segalàs C, Labad J, Alonso P, et al. Olfactory identification and bigotry in obsessive-compulsive disorder. Depress Feet. 2011;28(10):932–940. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

20. Cortese BM, Leslie K, Uhde TW. Differential odor sensitivity in PTSD: Implications for treatment and future research. J Bear upon Disord. 2015;179:23–30. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

21. Kreutzer R, Neutra RR, Lashuay N. Prevalence of people reporting sensitivities to chemicals in a population based survey. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1999;150(ane):i–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

22. Meggs WJ, Dunn KA, Dunn KA, et al. Prevalence and nature of allergy and chemical sensitivity in a general population. Arch Environ Health. 1996;51(4):275–282. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Bailer J, Witthöft M, Rist F. The Chemical Aroma Sensitivity Calibration: Reliability and validity of a screening instrument for idiopathic ecology intolerance. J Psychosom Res. 2006;61(1):71–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

24. Cullen MR. The worker with multiple chemical sensitivities: An overview. Occup Med. 1987;2:655–661. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Miller CA. Toxicant-induced loss of tolerance-an emerging theory of disease? Environ Health Perspect. 1997;105(2):445–453. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Sparks PJ, Daniell W, Blackness DW, et al. Multiple chemic sensitivity syndrome: A clinical perspective. I. Case definition, theories of pathogenesis, and research needs. Journal of Occupational Medicine. 1994;36(7):718–730. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Doty RL, Deems DA, Frye RE, et al. Olfactory sensitivity, nasal resistance, and autonomic function in patients with multiple chemical sensitivities. JAMA Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. 1988;114(12):1422–1427. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

28. Kärnekull SC, Jönsson FU, Larsson M, et al. Affected past smells? Environmental chemical responsivity predicts odor perception. Chem Senses. 2011;36:641–648. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

29. Bell IR, Miller CS, Schwartz GE, et al. Neuropsychiatric and somatic characteristics of young adults with and without self-reported chemical odor intolerance and chemic sensitivity. Arch Environ Health. 1996;51(1):9–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

30. Bong IR, Peterson JM, Schwartz GE, et al. Cocky-reported illness from chemical odors in young adults without clinical syndromes or occupational exposures. Arch Environ Health. 1994;48(1):six–xiii. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

31. Devriese South, Winters W, Stegen K, et al. Generalization of acquired somatic symptoms in response to odors: A pavlovian perspective on multiple chemic sensitivity. Psychosom Med. 2000;62(6):751–759. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

32. Doty RL. The Snap & Sniff® Threshold Test Administration Transmission. Haddon Hts., NJ: Sensonics, Inc; 2015. [Google Scholar]

33. Taylor S, Koch WJ, McNally RJ, et al. Conceptualizations of feet sensitivity. Psychological Cess. 1992;4(2):245–250. [Google Scholar]

34. Osman A, Gutierrez PM, Smith Chiliad, et al. The Feet Sensitivity Index-3: Analyses of dimensions, reliability estimates, and correlates in nonclinical samples. J Pers Assess. 2010;92(1):45–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

35. Allan NP, Korte KJ, Capron DW, et al. Gene mixture modeling of feet sensitivity: A three-class structure. Psychological Cess. 2014;26(iv):1184–1195. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

36. Allan NP, Raines AM, Capron DW, et al. Identification of feet sensitivity classes and clinical cutting-scores in a sample of adult smokers: Results from a factor mixture model. J Anx Disord. 2014;28(7):696–703. [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

37. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, et al. Transmission for the Land-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1983. [Google Scholar]

38. Kendall PC, Finch AJ, Auerbach SM, et al. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: A systematic evaluation. J Consul Clin Psychol. 1976;44(3):406–412. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Barnes LLB, Harp D, Jung WS. Reliability generalization of scores on the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2002;62(four):603–618. [Google Scholar]

40. Hishinuma ES, Miyamoto RH, Nishimura ST, et al. Prediction of anxiety disorders using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory for multiethnic adolescents. J Anx Disord. 2001;15(6):511–533. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

41. Kabakoff RI, Segal DL, Hersen M, et al. Psychometric properties and diagnostic utility of the Brook Anxiety Inventory and the state-trait anxiety inventory with older adult psychiatric inpatients. J Anx Disord. 1997;11(1):33–47. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

42. Spielberger CD. Country-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Bibiography. 2. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press; 1989. [Google Scholar]

43. Vautier S. A longitudinal SEM model arroyo to STAI information: Two comprehensive multitrait-multistate models. J Pers Assess. 2004;83(2):167–179. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

44. Dennis CL, Coghlan M, Vigod Due south. Can we place mothers at-take chances for postpartum feet in the immediate postpartum period using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory? J Affect Disord. 2013;150(3):1217–1220. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

45. Fisher PL, Durham RC. Recovery rates in generalized anxiety disorder post-obit psychological therapy: An assay of clinically meaning change in the STAI-T beyond outcome studies since 1990. Psychol Med. 1999;29(6):1425–1434. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

46. Holmes TH, Rahe RH. The social readjustment rating scale. J Psychosom Res. 1967;eleven(2):213–218. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

47. Masuda M, Holmes TH. Magnitude estimations of social readjustments. J Psychosom Res. 1967;11(2):219–225. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

48. Scully JA, Tosi H, Banning K. Life Events Checklists: Revisiting the Social Readjustment Rating Scale after 30 years. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2000;60(half-dozen):864–876. [Google Scholar]

49. Gray MJ, Litz BT, Hsu JL, et al. Psychometric properties of the Life Events Checklist. Assessment. 2004;11(4):330–341. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

fifty. Meyer TJ, Miller ML, Metzger RL, et al. Development and validation of the Penn State Worry Questionnaire. Behav Res Ther. 1990;28(6):487–495. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

51. Brownish TA, Antony MM, Barlow DH. Psychometric properties of the Penn Country Worry Questionnaire in a clinical anxiety disorders sample. Behav Res Ther. 1992;30(1):33–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

52. Kroenke One thousand, Spitzer RL. The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatric Register. 2002;32(ix):509–515. [Google Scholar]

53. Manea L, Gilbody Due south, McMillan D. Optimal cut-off score for diagnosing depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-ix): A meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2012;184(three):191–196. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

54. Martin A, Rief Westward, Klaiberg A, et al. Validity of the brief Patient Health Questionnaire mood scale (PHQ-nine) in the full general population. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2006;28(i):71–77. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

55. Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF, Monk Th, et al. The Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index: A new instrument for psychiatric exercise and research. Psychiatry Res. 1989;28(2):193–213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Carpentera JS, Andrykowskia MA. Psychometric evaluation of the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index. J Psychosom Res. 1998;45(one):v–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

57. Frenkel TI, Lamy D, Algom D, et al. Individual differences in perceptual sensitivity and response bias in anxiety: Evidence from emotional faces. Cognition and Emotion. 2009;23(iv):688–700. [Google Scholar]

58. Gentili C, Cristea IA, Angstadt M, et al. Across emotions: A meta-analysis of neural response within face processing system in social feet. Exp Biol Med. 2016;241(3):225–237. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

59. Maltz W. Treating the sexual intimacy concerns of sexual abuse survivors. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 2002;17(iv):321–327. [Google Scholar]

60. McNally RJ. Is anxiety sensitivity distinguishable from trait anxiety? Reply to Lilienfeld, Jacob, and Turner (1989) J Abnorm Psychol. 1989;98(2):193–194. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

62. Price JL. Olfactory system. In: Paxinos G, editor. The Human Nervous Arrangement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]

63. Etkin A, Wager TD. Functional neuroimaging of feet: A meta-analysis of emotional processing in PTSD, social anxiety disorder, and specific phobia. Am J Psychiatry. 2007;160(10):1476–1488. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

64. Chu S, Downes JJ. Proust olfactory organ best: Odors are meliorate cues of autobiographical memories. Memory & Cognition. 2002;xxx(4):511–518. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

65. Nickell PV, Uhde TW. Dose-response furnishings of intravenous caffeine in normal volunteers. Anxiety. 1994;one(four):161–168. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

66. Daniels JK, Vermetten E. Olfactory property-induced recall of emotional memories in PTSD-Review and new epitome for enquiry. Exp Neurol. 2016;284:168–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. Doty RL, Cometto-Muniz JE. Trigeminal Chemosensation. In: Doty RL, editor. Handbook of Olfaction and Gustation. 2. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker; 2003. pp. 981–1000. [Google Scholar]

68. Doty RL, Brugger Nosotros, Jurs PC, et al. Intranasal trigeminal stimulation from odorous volatiles: Psychometric responses from anosmic and normal humans. Physiol Behav. 1978;20:175–185. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

wagnerrailiciere.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6437019/

Share this post