Title |
Characterization of a clinical olfactory test with an artificial nose
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Neuroengineering, January 2012
|
DOI | 10.3389/fneng.2012.00001 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
David J. Yáñez, Adolfo Toledano, Eduardo Serrano, Ana M. Martín de Rosales, Francisco B. Rodríguez, Pablo Varona |
Abstract |
Clinical olfactory tests are used to address hyposmia/anosmia levels in patients with different types of olfactory impairments. Typically, a given test is employed clinically and then replaced by a new one after a certain period of use which can range from days to several months. There is a need to assess control quality of these tests and also for a procedure to quantify their degradation over time. In this paper we propose a protocol to employ low-cost artificial noses for the quantitative characterization of olfactory tests used in clinical studies. In particular, we discuss a preliminary study on the Connecticut Chemosensorial Clinical Research Center Test kit which shows that some odorants, as sensed by an artificial nose, seem to degrade while others are potentiated as the test ages. We also discuss the need to establish a map of correspondence between human and machine olfaction when artificial noses are used to characterize or compare human smell performance in research and clinical studies. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 6% |
Spain | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 16 | 89% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Other | 2 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
Professor | 2 | 11% |
Researcher | 2 | 11% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
Other | 3 | 17% |
Unknown | 5 | 28% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Computer Science | 4 | 22% |
Engineering | 3 | 17% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 2 | 11% |
Chemical Engineering | 1 | 6% |
Arts and Humanities | 1 | 6% |
Other | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 6 | 33% |