4.6 Article

Impairment of odor hedonics in men with schizophrenia

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 160, 期 10, 页码 1784-1789

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PRESS, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.160.10.1784

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Olfactory deficits in patients with schizophrenia, including those of odor identification, detection threshold sensitivity, discrimination, and memory, have been well described. Deficits in emotional perception, processing, and experience have also been reported, with anhedonia being one of the core features. While anatomical connections testify to the relationship between olfaction and emotion, there has been little investigation of the hedonic properties of odors in schizophrenia. This study examined intensity and hedonic judgments in patients with schizophrenia to determine whether these functions were differentially impaired. Method: Suprathreshold scaling of odor intensity and pleasantness was acquired by using the Suprathreshold Amyl Acetate Odor Intensity and Odor Pleasantness Rating Test given to 30 patients (15 men and 15 women) with a DSM-IV diagnosis of schizophrenia and 30 age- and sex-matched healthy comparison subjects. Results: Despite virtually identical ratings of odor intensity, male patients were impaired in the assignment of odor pleasantness to amyl acetate. This gender-specific diagnostic group difference was not explained by variability in symptom severity or negative/positive symptoms. The impact of smoking status and general cognitive impairment on this deficit was also insignificant. Conclusions: Findings reveal a gender-specific disruption in the ability to attribute appropriate hedonic valence to odors in male patients with schizophrenia. This difficulty in identifying the hedonic valence of odors, despite intact intensity ratings, is consistent with clinical observations of anhedonia and points to a neural substrate that might contribute to the emotional disturbances seen in patients with schizophrenia.

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

4.6
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