4.7 Article

Deviant olfactory experiences, magical ideation, and olfactory sensitivity:: a study with healthy German and Japanese subjects

期刊

PSYCHIATRY RESEARCH
卷 111, 期 1, 页码 21-33

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0165-1781(02)00132-4

关键词

olfactory thresholds; olfactory hallucinations; psychosis; schizotypy; schizophrenia; cultural differences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Little is known about the relationship between olfactory hallucinations and olfactory sensitivity in psychiatric populations. However, in healthy subjects, a 'psychotic-like' feature, namely magical ideation, has been linked to deviant olfactory experiences. We thus assessed olfactory sensitivity, magical ideation and deviant olfactory experiences in 42 healthy subjects (21 Germans and 21 age- and gender-matched Japanese). The results show that: (1) Germans had significantly higher magical ideation scores and a higher frequency of deviant olfactory experiences than Japanese, and more Germans than Japanese reported having had deviant olfactory experiences at least once in their lives; (2) in Germans, the occurrence of deviant olfactory experiences was correlated with higher magical ideation scores; and (3) there was no relationship between olfactory sensitivity (olfactory thresholds) and either deviant olfactory experiences or magical ideation, respectively. We conclude that: (1) the lack of deviant olfactory experiences in Japanese may best be explained by cultural differences in the response attitude towards questionnaires requiring self-disclosure; (2) the positive relationship between magical ideation and deviant olfactory experiences strengthens the supposed link between 'psychotic-like' features in healthy populations and real hallucinations of psychiatric patients; and (3) the absence of a relationship between olfactory sensitivity and deviant olfactory experiences suggests that their anatomical-functional correlates within temporo-limbic regions may differ. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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