4.6 Article

Olfactory training in 8-year-old increases odour identification ability: a preliminary study

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
Volume 180, Issue 7, Pages 2049-2053

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00431-021-03970-y

Keywords

Olfactory training; Children; Smell; Odour recognition; Olfactory function

Categories

Funding

  1. PolishMinistry of Science and Higher Education [626/STYP/12/2017]
  2. National Science Center Poland OPUS grant [2020/37/B/HS6/00288]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Olfactory training for 6 weeks can enhance olfactory identification ability in 8-year-old children, with a significant increase in scores observed. However, there was no improvement in olfactory threshold ability.
Olfactory training (OT), smelling odours, twice per day for an extended period, can improve the olfactory function in adults. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether OT can improve the olfactory function of children aged 8 years old. Odour thresholds and odour identification ability were compared between two groups across three separate testing sessions (baseline, 6-week post-baseline, 12-week post-baseline). After the baseline test, the control group (n = 21) completed 6 weeks of bi-daily OT with odourless stimuli, whereas the experiment group (n = 20) completed 6 weeks of bi-daily OT, smelling four different odours (eucalyptus, lemon, clove, rose). A repeated measure analysis of variance was used to test for group differences across the three testing sessions. Six weeks after OT had been completed, participants in the experiment group demonstrated a significant increase in odour identification scores (9.95 to 11.20), compared to the control group who demonstrated no increase (10.48 to 10.48). No group differences in odour threshold ability were found. Conclusion: Six weeks of OT enhances odour identification ability, but not odour thresholds, in 8-year-old children.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available