NS201 – Perception Submitted to S.P.

Arun
Naresh Keerthi

Taste and smell – a tale of two senses

The importance of the olfactory sense in our well being isn’t appreciated; nor is
the seriousness of pathology in this modality considered, as much as it should
be. The inability to tell apart good food from spoilt, or to detect a leakage of
cooking gas or an electric fire can be serious hazards; as can be the general loss
in aesthetic perception and psychological wellbeing.

Loss of the sense of smell is also implicated in several ailments. More than 90%
of patients with idiopathic Parkinson's disease have demonstrable smell loss, yet
less than 15% are aware of their problem until tested objectively (Doty et al,
1988).

Olfaction and taste in Drosophila and mammals

Most elaborate studies in the physiology and neural circuitry of the olfactory
systems are from drosophila. This has been justified by studies that show a
common design for the mammalian and insect olfactory systems.(Hildebrand &
Shepherd 1997, Strausfeld & Hildebrand 1999, Vosshall et al. 2000)

Like in mammals, the olfactory apparatus in Drosophila are located in the head.
The arrangement of each olfactory receptor neuron in a sensillum that is
insulated form every other one. This makes drosophila an attractive model for
single-unit electrophysiology.

Although insects and mammals exhibit the same positive responses to sugars
and aversive responses to bitter compounds, the organization of the gustatory
system is completely different in these animals. Unlike vertebrate taste, which is
restricted to a single gustatory organ in the head, insects distribute taste organs
over their entire body surface.

Aim

To test for the importance of the olfactory and other senses in correct
identification of a food item.

It is suggested here that the identification of foodstuffs in humans, may be a

complex act of multiple-cue-processing; and that we not only use gustatory and
olfactory prompts, but also use the tactile clue from the texture of food in
identification.

This experiment is limited in having a small sample population of 10, spread

across age groups 10-75, with 6 women and 4 men. The test can only give us
qualitative data regarding the use of sensory modalities, and isn’t strictly a metric
assay.

Methods

Potatoes and apples from a single batch each, were chosen. Samples were
made into ½ cm 2 cubes. Also, homogenate of each was made, in a domestic
blender, and filtered and unfiltered homogenate were taken.

Ten subjects were made to taste, while blindfolded, samples of cubes,

homogenate and juice of apple and potato; with their noses blocked. A suitable
time interval, followed by rinsing the mouth out with water was used to prevent
the accumulation of bias.

The same was repeated with the noses unblocked, as a positive control; and
then by having the subjects smell a freshly peeled potato or apple while they
tasted the cube or homogenate or juice of the other foodstuff.

The subjects were blindfolded throughout the assay, to avoid visual clues from
confounding the results. Noses were blocked by pinching the nostrils during the
test.
Results are recorded as percentage identification. Here this refers to percentage
of the test population that correctly identified the foodstuff they were fed.

Results and discussion

Positive control – the subjects were made to taste all six samples with
unobstructed noses. There was 100% identification of the foodstuff by all ten.

Negative control – Nose blocked

Sample %age identification

Apple cube 60
Apple homogenate 70
Apple juice 90
Potato cube 80
Potato homogenate 80
Potato juice 100

Experiments –

Smell Taste %age identification

Apple Apple cube 100
Apple Potato cube 20
 Smell Taste %age identification
Apple Apple homogenate 100
Apple Potato homogenate 50

Smell Taste %age identification

Apple Apple juice 100
Apple Potato juice 50

Smell Taste %age identification

Potato Potato cube 100
Potato Apple cube 60

Smell Taste %age identification

Potato Potato juice 100
Potato Apple juice 80

Smell Taste %age identification

Potato Potato homogenate 100
Potato Apple homogenate 40

Discussions –

It appears that the greatest fidelity in identification seems to be for the filtered
extracts (juice), in the presence of confounding smells as well as when olfaction
was blocked. This could probably be because of the high concentration of the
sugars or starch in the juice, as compared to the cube, where it is masked by the
other matter, that is probably dispersing or diluting the taste.

The most derangement seems to be in the cases of the homogenate and the
pieces/cubes. The texture of the food could be a clue in correct identification, but
its effect is superseded by that of the olfactory clue.

References

Doty, Richard.L, 1997. Studies of Human Olfaction from the University of

Pennsylvania Smell and Taste Center. Chem. Senses 22:565-586, 1997.
Doty, R.L, Deems, D.A. and Stellar, S.1988. Olfactory dysfunction in parkinsonism: a
general deficit unrelated to neurologic signs, disease stage, or disease duration.
Neurology, 38, 1237-1244.

Hildebrand JG, Shepherd GM. 1997. Mechanisms of olfactory discrimination: converging

evidence for common principles across phyla. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 20:595–631

Vosshall LB,Wong AM, Axel R. 2000. An olfactory sensory map in the fly brain. Cell
102:147–59