4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Induction of smell through transethmoid electrical stimulation of the olfactory bulb

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/alr.22237

关键词

olfactory perception; olfactory receptor neurons; humans; ethmoid bone; ethmoid sinus; endoscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Anosmia has an estimated prevalence of 5% of the general population. Outside of inflammatory causes, therapeutic options are limited despite research advances. Bypassing peripheral neuronal damage through central stimulation is a potential therapeutic option that has shown success in other sensory systems, most notably with hearing. We performed a pilot study to determine the feasibility of inducing smell through artificial electrical stimulation of the olfactory bulbs in humans. Methods Subjects with a history of sinus surgery, including total ethmoidectomy, with intact ability to smell were enrolled. The ability to smell was confirmed with a 40-item smell identification test. Awake subjects underwent nasal endoscopy and either a monopolar or bipolar electrode was positioned at 3 areas along the lateral lamella of the cribriform plate within the ethmoid sinus cavity. A graded stimulation current of 1-20 mA at 3.17 Hz was administered while cortical evoked potential (CEP) recordings were collected. Subjective responses of perceived smell along with reports of discomfort were recorded. Subjects with artificially induced smell underwent repeat stimulation after medically induced anosmia. Results Five subjects (age, 43-72 years) were enrolled. Three subjects reported smell perception smell with electrical stimulation. This was reproducible after inducing anosmia, but CEP recordings could not provide objective support. All subjects tolerated the study with minimal discomfort. Conclusion This is the first report of induced smell through transethmoid electrical stimulation of the olfactory bulb. These results provide a proof of concept for efforts in development of an olfactory implant system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据