These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Electrical responses to chemosensory stimulation recorded from the vomeronasal duct and the respiratory epithelium in humans.
    Author: Hummel T, Schultz S, Witt M, Hatt H.
    Journal: Int J Psychophysiol; 2011 Aug; 81(2):116-20. PubMed ID: 21619899.
    Abstract:
    The physiological significance of the human vomeronasal duct (VND) is still unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate the question whether mucosal responses obtained from the VND are different from those obtained from the respiratory epithelium. There were 15 healthy subjects (8 male, 7 female; age range 19-45 years; 14 normosmic subjects, 1 anosmic subject). All subjects participated in two sessions whereby the first session was used to acquaint them with the experimental conditions. For chemical stimulation, an olfactometer was used which delivered chemical stimulants without altering mechanical or thermal conditions at the stimulated nasal mucosa. For stimulation we used substances previously reported to produce vomeronasal activation ("estra"=estra-1,3,5(10),16-tetraen-3ol and "andro"=androsta-4,16-dien-3-on); in addition, gaseous CO(2) was used as a non-odorous, relatively specific stimulant of the trigeminal nerve. Placement of electrodes either in the VND or on the respiratory epithelium was performed under endoscopical guidance. Subjects rated the overall intensity of the stimuli, the strength of trigeminally mediated sensations, and the hedonic tone of the stimulants. Responses could not be recorded from all subjects. For the remaining 7 subjects, intensity was strongest for CO(2) stimuli (p<0.001), whereas no significant difference was observed between "andro" and "estra" (p=0.33). All three stimulants produced responses at the respiratory epithelium with largest responses obtained after stimulation with CO(2). Similar findings were made for recordings inside the VND. Due to the small sample size sexual dimorphisms could not be addressed. In summary, these results seem to indicate that the presently used stimulants produce similar responses at the respiratory epithelium and in the VND which argues against a specific responsiveness of the VND epithelium to chemosensory stimuli although it has to be kept in mind that the effective sample size was small.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]