FAIR and interactive data graphics from a scientific knowledge graph

Medicine: Neurology Start‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Neuroscience Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does anyone know the mechanism of how we smell ozone? JWSchmidt 05:52, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I had never heard of Zwaademaker conjugates, so I looked the term on Google and found only a few hits (some from an Annals of Improbable Research article), all referring to one researcher, Ron Blue, who had published an article in an extremely obscure journal, "The Noetic Journal." Hoping to find some more reputable information, I did a PubMed search for "Zwaademaker" or "Zwaadermaker" and found no hits. So, I'm removing the section on these compounds in the article until I see more convincing documentation. Sayeth 18:09, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)

try 'Zwaardemaker'. --Marcello74 12:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I wish this entry included information on the sensitivity of human smell. I realize this is not a simple question, but complicated material is not rare in Wikipedia.

• Publunch would like to know a little bit about artificial olfaction, i.e. robots that can smell. Any good leads? Thanks --Publunch 16:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see section "odour in the news" at the end of this talk page. Mayurvg (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish this entry would include information on smell desensitization. This came up in the CSB investigation of the "Slim Jim" factory explosion. It is also a common everyday occurrence, e.g., your favorite restaurant smells like food when you first walk in, but later you are unaware of the smell.Firebird (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i'm aware, Keller and Voshall's brief communications in Nat Neuro was the first, and only, independent test of any of the predictions made in Luca's origional Chemical Senses paper. They were not able to replicate his key predictaions about human psychophysics (importantly, using non-experts; I wonder what their results would be like if they contracted perfumers?), however he makes many predictions about receptor pharmacology that have not been tested (to my knowledge). As this is my understanding of the status of this debate, I have taken out the reference to supporting evidence for Luca's theory.

Please cite publications that state otherwise as they emerge. mattv 19:30, 28 April, 2006 (UTC)

I'm listening to the radio and there is a scientist on who reakons females smell about 5x better than boys. Anyone know anything about this? They just mentioned this site The bellman 14:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the appropriate descriptive term, or series of words that identifies one's loss of the capacity to "recognize" smells or fragrances with the passage of time in contuous exposure. An example might be useful.

Imagine arriving at a social gathering and immediately being impressed with the very noticeable fragrance represented by the perfume of a female participant in that gathering. However, as time passes you note that while the fragrance is still available, since the woman wearing it is still in the room, it does not dominate your senses. You can recall it into prominence but if you don't do that, it simply does not have the compelling impact that it did when you entered the room.

What is that loss of awareness called?

Sign your name: Dr. Ronald G. Fountain

What you are referring to is called "habituation". In mice, habituation to an odor is observed on a time scale of many minutes, and the neural mechanism underlying this loss of sensitivity seems to be due to synaptic mechanisms in the olfactory cortex (see work published by Don Wilson if you interested in details). Sensory adaptation also occurs in the olfactory receptor neurons that decrease their sensitivity to odor over a scale of seconds to minutes (similar to light and dark adaptation that occurs in the retina - like when adapting to a dark movie theater). This is probably a less likely explanation for what you percieve since it occurs typically on a smaller time scale. Mattv 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone was screwing around with the article and put up that joke about Jews' noses. lol it's funny and all but someone remove it...

the image isn't displaying properly, and I don't know how to fix it :( Mike.lifeguard 01:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be working fine. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review me 20:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we have 5, or 9, or 23 senses depending on who you ask and their definition, why are not all 23 listed? I think it might be useful to have the senses organized in models. ie. the traditional 5 sense model, and list them. then the updated 9-sense model, and list them. then the fancy 23 sense model and list them. After that, describe them all. Anyone up for it?? ITs certainly not helpful to have a statement that there may be as many as 23 senses in humans, but only see 9 of them listed. Mike.lifeguard 03:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph of this article is out of place. There are several different points, only loosely connected, and not all relevant to the topic "How olfaction works." I would suggest beginning the article with the 2nd paragraph, which immediately and specifically addresses the topic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.173.53.6 (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not necessarily disputing the statement that "Bloodhounds, which have the keenest sense of smell of any dogs, have noses ten to a hundred million times more sensitive than a human's.", but it does seem to be a fairly extraordinary claim that should be supported by an appropriate citation. Far Canal (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

should link to odour pollution today just as real as any other pollution. There is a news blog about odours odours effect on the environment and humans

{{editsemiprotected}} The 3rd paragraph of this page starts with ' Each olfactory receptor neuron expresses only one functional odor receptor.'

This is only true in mammals, and can be verified in

Pinel, John P.J. (2006) Biopsychology. Pearson Education Inc. ISBN 0-205-42651-4

page 178 - In mammals, each olfactory receptor cell contains one type of receptor protein molecule.

Emalsa (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Leujohn ^(talk) 10:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps these should be contrasted, even a brief mention of the crucial differences would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.195.144.32 (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The Scent of Your Thoughts; Although we are usually unaware of it, we communicate through chemical signals just as much as birds and bees do by Deborah Blum in October 10, 2011 issue of Scientific American. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another * The Hedonic Nose: Pleasure May Organize Your Sense of Smell; The nose really might "know" good from bad, even before the brain does by Sarah Fecht in September 26, 2011 issue of Scientific American. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]