Differences in olfactory abilities in men and women (2024)

Differences in olfactory abilities in men and women (1)By Bhavana KunkalikarReviewed by Lily Ramsey, LLMJun 6 2023

In a recent study published in the Scientific Reports Journal, researchers compared the responses of men and women to various olfactory stimulations.

Differences in olfactory abilities in men and women (3)Study:Comparable responses to a wide range of olfactory stimulation in women and men. Image Credit:Microgen/Shutterstock.com

Background

Recent research supports that females have a better sense of smell than males. Studies have shown that women excel in absolute detection, discrimination, and identification tasks compared to men.

One theory suggests that possessing a keen sense of smell may offer evolutionary benefits specific to the gender. The embryo protection hypothesis suggests that a woman's sense of smell and taste plays a crucial role in protecting the embryo during pregnancy, leading to healthier offspring.

The existence of gender-related differences in olfactory ability is still an open field of research with varying and sometimes opposed empirical findings and theoretical explanations.

About the study

In the present study, researchers examined the reactions and performance of women and men to a broader range of odor exposure outcomes.

Through public advertisem*nt, the team recruited adult participants, including 37 women and 39 men. The study established non-parametric estimates of olfactory sensitivity (A) as well as a criterion (ln(b)) through a constant stimulus procedure.

The experiment involved using dilutions of the odorant n-butanol as stimuli, while pure tap water was used as a blank stimulus. The study employed an exposure chamber to evaluate responses to prolonged exposure to odors.

The intensity, valence, and effect on the concentration of n-butanol exposure were evaluated by participants using a Borg CR-100 scale. The category rating scale includes numerical values and verbal descriptors: 0-nothing, 1.5- minimum, 2.5- extremely weak, 6- very weak, 12- weak, 25- moderate, 45- strong, 70- very strong, 90- extremely strong, and 100- near maximal.

Related Stories

  • Adverse pregnancy outcomes may increase cardiovascular risk in postmenopausal women
  • Research shows brain synchronization between humans and dogs
  • Smoking during pregnancy affects children’s academic achievement

The top ten symptoms experienced by individuals with chemical/odor intolerance were evaluated with the Borg CR-100 scale. They included nasal mucosal irritation, eye irritation, throat irritation, skin irritation, breathlessness, difficulty concentrating, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, and headache.

The study utilized a Stroop task to assess inhibition and interference as a general estimate. In contrast, a three-back job evaluated the participant's working memory capacity and updating ability.

A BIOPAC MP100 system was also employed to record electrocardiograms (ECG) and electrodermal activity (EDA). The Chemical Sensitivity Scale was utilized to evaluate the emotional and behavioral outcomes of routine chemical exposure as reported by the individual.

The participants' sense of smell and decision-making abilities were determined on the first day. The participants completed a Stroop and three-back task as their first set of functions. On the second analysis day, participants repeated the Stroop and three-back tasks before being fitted with electrodes and placed in the exposure chamber.

The properties of the odor were rated multiple times throughout the experiment, including before chamber door closure, thrice during blank, thrice during rising, and seven times during plateau exposure. Participants rated symptoms before, during, and twice during plateau exposure.

Additionally, the team performed Stroop and three-back tasks at the beginning and end of exposure while collecting autonomic measures repeatedly. Questionnaires were completed by participants following the exposure session.

Results

The sensitivity measure analysis strongly supported the null hypothesis (H0). The study conducted for the criterion showed results in favor of H0, with comparable scores for both men and women. According to the findings, there were no significant differences between men and women regarding sensory acuity or sensory decision rule. Both sexes were found to be similar in these aspects.

No differences were noted between the sexes in assessing perceptual and symptom ratings across the period of extended odor exposure. The study found a significant difference in intensity ratings between sexes, with an estimated difference of -1.35.

However, there was strong evidence suggesting that the effect of sex should not be included in the analysis. The difference remained consistent across all time points, and significant evidence suggested no interaction between sex and time.

Also, valence ratings showed no significant difference between men and women, indicating that the effect of sex was not an important factor.

Both men and women showed a similar ability to concentrate, with a slight difference of 0.78, with strong evidence against considering the effect of sex. No sex differences were found in the analysis of cognitive task scores during extended odor exposure.

The Stroop task showed a sex difference of 0.38, with anecdotal evidence suggesting that the effect of sex should not be included. Both men and women had similar scores on the three-back tasks, and there was strong evidence against involving the impact of sex.

Conclusion

The study examined the differences and similarities in odor reactions and basic olfactory functions between men and women through various tests. The constant stimulus procedure was used to measure olfactory acuity and determine decision-making in the presence of sensory uncertainty.

The present study reported no differences in basic olfactory functioning between men and women, indicating that they are more similar than different.

Journal reference:

Differences in olfactory abilities in men and women (2024)
Top Articles
W3Schools.com
The crypto ‘contagion’ that helped bring down SVB
Woodward Avenue (M-1) - Automotive Heritage Trail - National Scenic Byway Foundation
Netr Aerial Viewer
Tlc Africa Deaths 2021
Ets Lake Fork Fishing Report
Ghosted Imdb Parents Guide
What are Dietary Reference Intakes?
Falgout Funeral Home Obituaries Houma
Devotion Showtimes Near Mjr Universal Grand Cinema 16
World History Kazwire
Job Shop Hearthside Schedule
Jc Post News
Illinois Gun Shows 2022
Sonic Fan Games Hq
iZurvive DayZ & ARMA Map
Jbf Wichita Falls
Petco Vet Clinic Appointment
Mybiglots Net Associates
How Long After Dayquil Can I Take Benadryl
All Obituaries | Verkuilen-Van Deurzen Family Funeral Home | Little Chute WI funeral home and cremation
The Creator Showtimes Near R/C Gateway Theater 8
Powerschool Mcvsd
Craigslist Rome Ny
Masterbuilt Gravity Fan Not Working
Hwy 57 Nursery Michie Tn
APUSH Unit 6 Practice DBQ Prompt Answers & Feedback | AP US History Class Notes | Fiveable
Flixtor Nu Not Working
Www.craigslist.com Syracuse Ny
Nicole Wallace Mother Of Pearl Necklace
Devotion Showtimes Near Mjr Universal Grand Cinema 16
Personalised Handmade 50th, 60th, 70th, 80th Birthday Card, Sister, Mum, Friend | eBay
Restored Republic December 9 2022
Admissions - New York Conservatory for Dramatic Arts
Vision Source: Premier Network of Independent Optometrists
Oxford House Peoria Il
Weather Underground Cedar Rapids
Bekkenpijn: oorzaken en symptomen van pijn in het bekken
Advance Auto.parts Near Me
Az Unblocked Games: Complete with ease | airSlate SignNow
Csgold Uva
Yourcuteelena
Brother Bear Tattoo Ideas
Crystal Glassware Ebay
Paperlessemployee/Dollartree
Keci News
Server Jobs Near
SF bay area cars & trucks "chevrolet 50" - craigslist
O'reilly's On Marbach
Turning Obsidian into My Perfect Writing App – The Sweet Setup
E. 81 St. Deli Menu
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Greg O'Connell

Last Updated:

Views: 5837

Rating: 4.1 / 5 (62 voted)

Reviews: 93% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Greg O'Connell

Birthday: 1992-01-10

Address: Suite 517 2436 Jefferey Pass, Shanitaside, UT 27519

Phone: +2614651609714

Job: Education Developer

Hobby: Cooking, Gambling, Pottery, Shooting, Baseball, Singing, Snowboarding

Introduction: My name is Greg O'Connell, I am a delightful, colorful, talented, kind, lively, modern, tender person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.