Kathrin Kollndorfer, Ksenia Kowalczyk, Stefanie Nell, Jacqueline Krajnik, Christian A. Mueller, Veronika Schöpf
Abstract
To rate one's individual olfactory performance is difficult and in many cases differs clearly from validated objective olfactory performance measures. This study aimed to investigate the basis for this measurement drift between objective and subjective olfactory performance evaluation. In absence of an actual odor, one may imagine an olfactory stimulus to evaluate his subjective olfactory performance. Therefore, the impact of the vividness of mental images on self-evaluation of smell performance in patients with mild to severe olfactory dysfunction and healthy controls was investigated. Fifty-nine patients with peripheral olfactory dysfunction ranging from reduced olfactory function (hyposmia) to complete loss of olfactory perception (anosmia) and 16 healthy controls were included. Olfactory performance was assessed using the Sniffin' Sticks battery, the vividness of olfactory mental images was evaluated using the vividness of olfactory imagery questionnaire (VOIQ). Decreased vividness of odor images was obtained for anosmic patients, and a trend of poorer odor imagery was determined in hyposmic patients. Multiple regression analyses revealed the VOIQ score as significant predictor for olfactory self-evaluation for hyposmic patients and healthy controls. In contrast, for anosmic patients, the only significant predictor for self-rating of olfactory performance was the threshold-detection-identification (TDI) score, measuring overall olfactory performance. The results of this study indicate that sensory perception and mental images are closely related to each other. Furthermore, subjects who were able to perceive odors, even to a smaller extent, rely on the vividness of their mental odor images to evaluate their olfactory performance. In contrast, anosmic patients rather trust in their knowledge that they are not able to perceive odors. We are therefore able to subjectively rate our olfactory performance levels, if we are not able to perceive odors, but not if we are able to perceive olfactory input.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 20 February 2019.
All research outputs
#5,483,496
of 26,538,386 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#8,829
of 35,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,460
of 280,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#162
of 511 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,538,386 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
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 280,219 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 511 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
