• DOI:10.1093/CHEMSE/25.4.429
• Corpus ID: 19747238

Quantification of odor quality.

@article{Wise2000QuantificationOO,
  title={Quantification of odor quality.},
  author={Paul M. Wise and Mats J. Olsson and William S. Cain},
  journal={Chemical senses},
  year={2000},
  volume={25 4},
  pages={
          429-43
        }
}

• P. Wise, M. Olsson, W. Cain
• Published 1 August 2000
• Biology
• Chemical senses

The relationship between odor quality and molecular properties is arguably the most important issue in olfaction. Despite sophistication in the chemical characterization of molecules, accompanying perceptual characterization has had little quantitative usefulness, relying mostly on enumerative description. As a result of weak interest in the topic outside industry and little agreement regarding how to measure quality, the field of olfactory psychophysics has failed to develop a substantial database for odor quality and has offered little help to other researchers, e.g. neurobiologists, in choice of stimuli, interpretation of outcome or testable hypotheses. This review scrutinizes how psychophysicists and others have measured quality and offers criteria for useful techniques. Most measures have had a subjective component that makes them anachronistic with modern methodology in experimental behavioral science, indeterminate regarding the extent of individual differences, unusable with infrahumans and of unproved ability to discern small differences. Techniques based upon performance, rather than on the more common reporting of mental content, offer firmer possibilities for growth. These techniques inevitably tap the discriminative basis of perception. The nonsubjective techniques have high sensitivity, can have counterparts in infrahuman research, are suitable to examine individual differences and yield non-negotiable answers with potential archival value. Discriminative techniques have their limitations, too-principally excess sensitivity that abridges their use to comparisons between similar-smelling stimuli. Research has begun to extend that range and may overcome the limitation. Application of discriminative methods may have the side-effect of shifting focus in structure-activity research from searches for molecular least common denominators that underlie often vague similarity to the search for molecular properties of importance in discrimination of small differences.