4.7 Article

Identification of pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant odors in schizophrenia

Journal

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
Volume 187, Issue 1-2, Pages 30-35

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2010.12.011

Keywords

Olfaction; Olfactory; Hedonics; Anhedonia; Pleasantness

Categories

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [MH-63381, MH-59852]
  2. National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
  3. Hofmann Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent work on odor hedonics in schizophrenia has indicated that patients display abnormalities in hedonic judgments of odors in comparison to healthy comparison participants. In the current study, identification accuracy for pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant odors in individuals with schizophrenia and healthy controls was examined. Thirty-three schizophrenia patients (63% male) and thirty-one healthy volunteers (65% male) were recruited. The groups were well matched on age, sex, and smoking status. Participants were administered the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test, which was subsequently divided into 16 pleasant, 15 neutral, and 9 unpleasant items. Analysis of identification z-scores for pleasant, neutral, and unpleasant odors revealed a significant diagnosis by valence interaction. Post-hoc analysis revealed that schizophrenia participants made more identification errors on pleasant and neutral odors compared to healthy controls, with no differences observed for unpleasant odors. No effect was seen for sex. The findings from the current investigation suggest that odor identification accuracy in patients is influenced by odor valence. This pattern of results parallels a growing body of literature indicating that patients display aberrant pleasantness ratings for pleasant odors and highlights the need for additional research on the influence of odor valence on olfactory identification performance in individuals with schizophrenia. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available