Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T05:33:36.403Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Twin Study of Odor Identification and Olfactory Sensitivity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

N.L. Segal ,
K.W. Brown  and
T.D. Topolski
N.L. Segal*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Twin Studies Center, California State University, Fullerton, California, USA
K.W. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Twin Studies Center, California State University, Fullerton, California, USA
T.D. Topolski
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology and Twin Studies Center, California State University, Fullerton, California, USA
*
California State University, Fullerton, Department of Psychology, Fullerton, CA 92634

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Interindividual variation in odor identification and olfactory sensitivity has been explained primarily with reference to age, sex and/or experiential factors. A twin study of olfaction can, therefore, substantially contribute to current research in this area. Thirty-nine monozygotic and twenty dizygotic twin pairs have completed the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT), an olfactory preference questionnaire, and two odor detection threshold tests (phenyl ethyl alcohol and butanol). A genetic influence on odor identification, as assessed by the UPSIT, has been demonstrated. Future plans and directions for this research program are discussed.

Keywords

Olfactory sensitivityOdor detection threshold test
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 41 , Issue 2-3 , July 1992 , pp. 113 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1992

References

REFERENCES

1. Aldous, P (1992): The promises and pitfalls of molecular genetics. Science 257: 164–156.Google Scholar
2. Beecher, MD (1982): Signature systems and kin recognition. Am Zool 22: 477–490.Google Scholar
3. Bouchard, TJ Jr, Lykken, DT, McGue, M, Segal, NL, Tellegen, A (1990): Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. Science 250: 223–228.Google Scholar
4. Bouchard, TJ Jr, Lykken, DT, Segal, NL, Wilcox, KJ (1986): Development in twins reared apart: A test of the chronogenetic hypothesis. In Demirjian, A (ed): Human Growth: A Multidisciplinary Review. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
5. Buck, L, Axel, R (1991): A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: A molecular basis for odor recognition. Cell 65: 175–187.Google Scholar
6. Cain, WS, Gent, JF, Catalanotto, FA, Goodspeed, RB (1983): Clinical evaluation of olfaction. Am J Otolaryngol 4: 252–256.Google Scholar
7. Cain, WS, Gent, JF, Goodspeed, RB, Leonard, G (1988): Evolution of olfactory dysfunction in the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center. Laryngoscope 98: 83–88.Google Scholar
8. Corey, LA, Nance, WE (1978): The MZ Half-Sibling Model: A tool for epidemiological research. In Nance, WE, Allen, G, Parisi, P (eds): Progress in Clinical and Biological Research 24A. New York: Alan R. Liss Inc. Google Scholar
9. Davis, RG, Panghorn, RM (1985): Odor pleasantness judgments compared among samples from 20 nations using microfragrances. Chem Senses 10: 413.Google Scholar
10. Doty, RL (1983): The Smell Identification Test Administration Manual. Haddon Heights: Sensonics Inc. Google Scholar
11. Doty, RL, Frye, R, Agrawal, U (1989): Evaluation of the internal consistency reliability of the fractionated and whole University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test. Percept Psychophys 45: 381–384.Google Scholar
12. Doty, RL, Shaman, P, Applebaum, SL, Giberson, R, Silorski, L, Rosenberg, L (1984): Smell identification ability: Changes with age. Science 226: 1441–1443.Google Scholar
13. Doty, RL, Shaman, P, Dann, MS (1984): Development of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: A standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol Behav 32: 489–502.Google Scholar
14. Doty, RL, Shaman, P, Kimmelman, CP, Dann, MS (1984): University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: A rapid quantitative olfactory function test for the clinic. Laryngoscope 94: 176–178.Google Scholar
15. Engen, T (1974): Method and theory in the study of odor preferences. In Turk, A, Johnston, JW Jr, Moulton, DG (eds): Human Responses to Environmental Odors. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
16. Farber, SL (1981): Identical Twins Reared Apart: A Reanalysis. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
17. Filsinger, EE, Fabes, RA, Hughston, G (1987): Introversion-extraversion and dimensions of olfactory perception. Percept Mot Skills 64: 695–699.Google Scholar
18. Gilbert, AV, Greenberg, MS, Beauchamp, GK (1989): Sex, handedness and side of nose modulate human odor perception. Neuropsychologia 27: 505–511.Google Scholar
19. Gottesman, II, Bertelsen, A (1989): Confirming unexpressed genotypes for schizophrenia. Arch Gen Psychiatry 46: 867–872.Google Scholar
20. Hepper, PG (1988): The discrimination of human odour by the dog. Perception 17: 549–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Hubert, HB, Fabsitz, RR, Feinleib, M, Brown, KS (1981): Olfactory sensitivity in humans: Genetic versus environmental controls. Science 208: 607–609.Google Scholar
22. Hubert, HB, Fabsitz, RR, Brown, KS, Feinleib, M (1981): Olfactory sensitivity in twins. In Gedda, L, Parisi, P, Nance, WE (eds): Twin Research 3: Epidemiological and Clinical Studies. New York: Alan R. Liss Inc. Google Scholar
23. Kalmus, H (1955): The discrimination by the nose of the dog of individual human odours and in particular the odours of twins. Anim Behav 3: 25–31.Google Scholar
24. McGue, M, Bouchard, TJ Jr (1984): Adjustment of twin data for the effects of age and sex. Behav Genet 14: 325–343.Google Scholar
25. Montcrieff, RW (1970): Odours. London: William Heineman Medical Books Ltd. Google Scholar
26. Nichols, RC, Bilbro, WC Jr (1966): The diagnosis of twin zygosity. Acta Genet Stat Med 16: 265–275.Google ScholarPubMed
27. Plomin, R (1990): The role of inheritance in behavior. Science 248: 183–188.Google Scholar
28. Porter, RH (1987): Kin Recognition: Functions and Mediating Mechanisms. In Crawford, C, Smith, M, Krebs, D (eds): Sociobiology and Psychology: Ideas, Issues and Applications. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Google Scholar
29. Porter, RH, Balogh, RD, Cernoch, JM, Franchi, C (1986): Recognition of kin through characteristic body odors. Chem Senses 11: 389–395.Google Scholar
30. Porter, RH, Moore, JD (1981): Human kin recognition by olfactory cues. Physiol Behav 27: 493–495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Porter, RH, Levy, F, Poindron, P, Litterio, M, Schaal, B, Beyer, C (1991): Individual olfactory signatures as major determinants of early maternal discrimination in sheep. Dev Psychobiol 24: 151–158.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Schleidt, M, Neumann, P, and Morishita, H (1988): Pleasure and disgust, memories and associations of pleasant and unpleasant odours in Germany and Japan. Chem Senes 13: 279–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Segal, NL (1992): Twin, sibling and adoption methods: Tests of evolutionary hypotheses (submitted).Google Scholar
34. Segal, NL, Topolski, TD (1992): The genetics of olfactory perception. To appear in Doty, R L (ed): Handbook of Clinical Olfaction and Gustation. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc. Google Scholar
35. Shields, J (1962): Monozygotic Twins: Brought Up Apart and Together. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
36. Stevens, JC, Cain, WS, Burke, RJ (1988): Variability of olfactory thresholds. Chem Senses 13: 643–653.Google Scholar
37. Wallace, P (1977): Individual discrimination of humans by odor. Physiol Behav 19: 577–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Wells, P (1987): Kin recognition in humans. In Fletcher, DJC, Michener, CD (eds): Kin recognition in animals. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
39. Wysocki, CJ, Beauchamp, GK (1984): Ability to smell androstenone is genetically determined. Proe Nat Acad Sci 81: 4899–4902.Google Scholar
40. Wysocki, CJ, Beauchamp, GK (1991): Individual differences in human olfaction. In Wysocki, CJ, Kare, MR (eds): Chemical Senses 3: Genetics of Perception and Communications. New York: Marcel Dekker Inc. Google Scholar
41. Wysocki, CJ, Gilbert, AN (1989): National Geographic Smell Survey. In Murphy, C, Cain, WS, Hegsted, DM (eds): Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 561: Nutrition and the Chemical Senses in Aging: Recent Advances and Current Research Needs. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar