This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on ISI (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Olfaction and Taste Disorders  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert A. Frank, PhD; Robert C. Gesteland, PhD; Jason Bailie, BS; Konstantin Rybalsky, BS; Allen Seiden, MD; Mario F. Dulay, PhD

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2006;132:532-536.

Objective  To evaluate the potential utility of the Sniff Magnitude Test (SMT) as a clinical measure of olfactory function.

Design  Between-subject designs were used to compare the SMT and University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT) in study participants from a broad range of ages.

Subjects  A total of 361 individuals from retirement communities and an urban university and patients from an otolaryngology clinic.

Intervention  Study participants completed the SMT and UPSIT using standard procedures.

Main Outcome Measures  The UPSIT was scored using standard procedures to calculate the number of correctly identified odors; a score that can range from 0 to 40 correct. The measure of olfactory function generated by the SMT is the "sniff magnitude ratio," defined as the mean sniff magnitude generated by the odor stimuli divided by the mean sniff magnitude to nonodorized air blanks.

Results  The SMT generally showed good agreement with UPSIT diagnostic categories, although SMT scores were only modestly elevated in the mild and modest hyposmia range of the UPSIT. Age-related decline in olfactory ability was evident on the UPSIT at younger ages than that seen with the SMT. As predicted, otolaryngology patients with olfactory complaints were found to be impaired on both the UPSIT and SMT.

Conclusions  The SMT provides a novel method for evaluating the sense of smell that shows good general agreement with the UPSIT. Its minimal dependence on language and cognitive abilities provides some advantages over odor identification tests. There is some indication that the UPSIT may be more sensitive to olfactory (and/or nonolfactory) deficits. We conclude that sniffing behavior can be exploited for the clinical evaluation of olfaction. A comparison of performance on odor identification and sniffing tests may provide novel insight into the nature of olfactory problems in a variety of patient populations.

Author Affiliations: CompuSniff, LLC (Drs Frank and Gesteland), and Departments of Psychology (Drs Frank and Dulay and Messrs Bailie and Rybalsky), Cell Biology (Dr Gesteland), and Otolaryngology (Dr Seiden), University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Sniff Magnitude Test: Relationship to Odor Identification, Detection, and Memory Tests in a Clinic Population
Tourbier and Doty
Chem Senses 2007;32:515-523.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT