Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (23)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cain, W. S.
Right arrow Articles by de Wijk, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cain, W. S.
Right arrow Articles by de Wijk, R. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Chemical Senses 20: 625-637,
© 1995

research-article

Comparison of Models of Odor Interaction

William S. Cain, Franc T. Schiet, Mats J. Olsson and René A. de Wijk

John B. Pierce Laboratory and Yale University New Haven, CT 06519, USA

Correspondence to be sent to: William S. Cain, Department of Surgery (Otolaryngology), University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, MC 0957, La Jolla, CA 92093-0957, USA

Subjects rated the overall perceived intensity of concentrations of the odorants cineole, geraniol, hexyl salicylate, and linalyl acetate smelled alone and in binary mixtures. The subjects also rated intensity of specified constituents (e.g. amount of cineole in cineole, and in mixtures of cineole and linalyl acetate). The intensity of the stronger component alone offered a close description of perceived intensity. In addition to the Stronger Component model, two other psychological models (Vector and U model) and two psychophysical models (UPL2 and Equiratio Mixture model) offered descriptions ranging from fair to very good. Psychological models gave better fits, but lack explanatory power. Some results indicated that weaker odors add more potently than stronger odors, an outcome incompatible with these models. The psychophysical models, based on the additivity of single components, generally overestimated perceived intensity. Judgments of individual qualities gave only slight encouragement to any expectation of differences in masking or maskability among odorants. The results highlight the need to test particular critical hypotheses regarding how people perceive mixtures. Chem. Senses 20: 625–637, 1995.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Chem SensesHome page
T. Miyazawa, M. Gallagher, G. Preti, and P. M. Wise
Synergistic Mixture Interactions in Detection of Perithreshold Odors by Humans
Chem Senses, April 1, 2008; 33(4): 363 - 369.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Neurophysiol.Home page
A. Koulakov, A. Gelperin, and D. Rinberg
Olfactory Coding With All-or-Nothing Glomeruli
J Neurophysiol, December 1, 2007; 98(6): 3134 - 3142.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Chem SensesHome page
P. M. Wise, T. Miyazawa, M. Gallagher, and G. Preti
Human Odor Detection of Homologous Carboxylic Acids and Their Binary Mixtures
Chem Senses, June 1, 2007; 32(5): 475 - 482.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Chem SensesHome page
C. Brossard, F. Rousseau, and J.-P. Dumont
Perceptual Interactions between Characteristic Notes Smelled above Aqueous Solutions of Odorant Mixtures
Chem Senses, May 1, 2007; 32(4): 319 - 327.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Chem SensesHome page
J. H.F. Bult, H. N.J. Schifferstein, J. P. Roozen, A. G.J. Voragen, and J. H.A. Kroeze
The Influence of Olfactory Concept on the Probability of Detecting Sub- and Peri-threshold Components in a Mixture of Odorants
Chem Senses, June 1, 2001; 26(5): 459 - 469.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Chem SensesHome page
M. J. Olsson and W. S. Cain
Psychometrics of Odor Quality Discrimination: Method for Threshold Determination
Chem Senses, October 1, 2000; 25(5): 493 - 499.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.