PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Joel D Mainland

Publications and source records attributed to Joel D Mainland.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Olfactory impairments in patients with unilateral cerebellar lesions are selective to inputs from the contralesional nostril.

Functional imaging studies of olfaction have consistently reported odorant-induced activation of the cerebellum. However, the cerebellar role in olfaction remains unknown. We examined the olfactory and olfactomotor abilities of patients with unilateral cerebellar lesions, comparing performance within subjects across nostrils, as well as between subjects with age-matched and young controls. Regarding olfactory performance, initial testing revealed that patients had a contralesional impairment in olfactory identification but not olfactory detection threshold. However, when tested under conditions that prevented compensatory sniffing strategies, the patients also exhibited a contralesional olfactory detection impairment. Regarding olfactomotor function, a healthy olfactomotor system generates sniffs that are (1) sufficiently vigorous and (2) inversely proportional to odorant concentration in sniff mean airflow velocity, maximum airflow velocity, volume, and duration. Patients' sniffs were lower in overall airflow velocity and volume in comparison with control participants. Furthermore, reduced sniff velocity predicted poorer detection thresholds in patients. Finally, whereas young controls used concentration-dependent sniffs, there was a trend in that direction only for age-matched controls. Patients used sniffs that were concentration invariant. In conclusion, cerebellar lesions impacted olfactory and olfactomotor performance. These findings strongly implicate an olfactocerebellar pathway prominent in odor identification and detection that functionally connects each nostril primarily to the contralateral cerebellum.

Acoustic Stimulation↗
PubMed2003

Rapid olfactory processing implicates subcortical control of an olfactomotor system.

Sniffs are modulated in response to odor content. Higher concentrations of odor induce lesser-volume sniffs. This phenomenon implicates a neural feedback mechanism that measures sensory input (odor concentration) and modulates motor output (sniffing) accordingly. Here we used air-dilution olfactometry to probe the time course of this olfactomotor mechanism. A stainless-steel computer-controlled olfactometer, equipped with mass flow controllers, temperature and humidity control, and on-line photo-ionization detection, was coupled to a highly sensitive pneumatotachograph that measured nasal flow. The olfactometer was used to generate four ascending concentrations of the odorants propionic acid and phenethyl alcohol. Sniff volume was inversely related to odor concentration (P > 0.0001). Sniffs were uniform and concentration independent for the initial 150 ms but acquired a concentration-dependent flowrate as early as 160 ms following sniff onset for propionic acid (P > 0.05) and 260 ms for phenethyl alcohol (P > 0.05). Considering that odorant transduction takes around 150 ms and odorant-induced cortical evoked potentials have latencies of around 300 ms, the rapid motor adjustments measured here suggest that olfactomotor sniff feedback control is subcortical and may rely on neural mechanisms similar to those that modulate eye movements to accommodate vision and ear movements to accommodate audition.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

The prevalence of androstenone anosmia.

It has been estimated that approximately 30% of the population is unable to detect the odor of androstenone. These estimates, however, were made using tests and criteria optimized for identifying detection. Such criteria favor Type II over Type I errors--that is, they are excellent at identifying true detectors at the cost of erroneously labeling some detectors as non-detectors. Because these criteria were used to identify non-detectors, it is possible that the rate of non-detection may have been overestimated. To test this we screened 55 subjects for non-detection employing previously used methods. This screen yielded nine putative non-detectors, a 16.3% putative non-detection rate. We then retested these putative non-detectors using a forced choice (yes-no) paradigm to obtain a precise measure of their sensitivity. We found that this group of putative non-detectors was significantly above chance at detecting androstenone (P < 0.001), despite very low self-confidence in their performance. Based on the results of the signal detection analysis in this sample, we estimate the rate of actual androstenone non-detection in young healthy adults is between 1.8 and 5.96%, which is significantly lower than previously estimated. This finding is significant considering the implications of specific anosmias on the understanding of odor discrimination.

Adolescent↗