Emmanuelle Courtiol, Laura Lefèvre, Samuel Garcia, Marc Thévenet, Belkacem Messaoudi, Nathalie Buonviso
Abstract
A growing body of evidence suggests that sniffing is not only the mode of delivery for odorant molecules but also contributes to olfactory perception. However, the precise role of sniffing variations remains unknown. The zonation hypothesis suggests that animals use sniffing variations to optimize the deposition of odorant molecules on the most receptive areas of the olfactory epithelium (OE). Sniffing would thus depend on the physicochemical properties of odorants, particularly their sorption. Rojas-Líbano and Kay (2012) tested this hypothesis and showed that rats used different sniff strategies when they had to target a high-sorption (HS) molecule or a low-sorption (LS) molecule in a binary mixture. Which sniffing strategy is used by rats when they are confronted to discrimination between two similarly sorbent odorants remains unanswered. Particularly, is sniffing adjusted independently for each odorant according to its sorption properties (analytical processing), or is sniffing adjusted based on the pairing context (synthetic processing)? We tested these hypotheses on rats performing a two-alternative choice discrimination of odorants with similar sorption properties. We recorded sniffing in a non-invasive manner using whole-body plethysmography during the behavioral task. We found that sniffing variations were not only a matter of odorant sorption properties and that the same odorant was sniffed differently depending on the odor pair in which it was presented. These results suggest that rather than being adjusted analytically, sniffing is instead adjusted synthetically and depends on the pair of odorants presented during the discrimination task. Our results show that sniffing is a specific sensorimotor act that depends on complex synthetic processes.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 May 2014.
All research outputs
#18,372,841
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,591
of 3,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,180
of 227,399 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#68
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,158 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,399 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
