UPSIT翻译(中英文对照)-Development of UPSIT(201405)

15

种刺激源中，

位于所有

50

同时几乎有一半刺激源位于强烈度得分的

最低四分位数范围内。

FIG. 4. Relation between the identifiability score obtained for the 50 odorants (Fig. 3)

and the mean familiarity rating given to the odorants(Fig. 2).

It

is

clear

from

Fig.

2

that

none

of

the

stimuli

could

be

eliminated

from

further

consideration on the basis of being too weak or too strong, although a number were

suspect, as indicated above, in terms of familiarity and identifiability. An examination

of the pleasantness ratings indicated that slightly over half of the Microfragrance TM

samples were rated on the pleasant side of the pleasantness/unpleasantness scale, and

that only a few were rated as markedly unpleasant--motor oil, gasoline, natural

gas,

onion,

paint

thinner,

garlic,

and

turpentine.

With

the

exception

of

a

few

stimuli

of

questionable identifiability (e.g., honey, tomato), odorants rated as pleasant were ones

associated with foodstuffs and flowers, whereas those rated as unpleasant were ones

associated with certain spices (e.g., black pepper) or non-food objects (e.g,, motor oil).

Irritation ratings greater than 5 were present for 19 of the stimuli, although none were

judged as being extremely irritating. In general, odors rated as unpleasant tended to

receive higher irritation ratings than those rated as pleasant. Most stimuli were rated

as neither warm nor cool, although the exceptions are noteworthy. Stimuli receiving

the largest cool ratings (e.g., mint, menthol) and warm ratings (e.g., cinnamon, clove,

gasoline,

motor

oil,

onion,

smoke)

are

ones

believed,

on

other

grounds,

to

produce

trigeminal stimulation [4,16].

由图

2

没有任何刺激源因为太弱或太强的原因而被排除出进一步考虑，

虽然上述获得的熟悉度和可识别性数据可疑。

对愉悦度得分的分 析表明，

超过一

半的

Microfra grance

TM

样品在愉悦

/

非愉悦范畴量表上位于愉悦一侧，

并且仅有几

种样品的得分为明显的非愉悦

——

机油、汽油、天然气、洋葱 、油漆稀释剂、大

蒜和松节油。除可识别性存疑的几种刺激源外（例如，蜂蜜，番茄）， 得分为愉

悦的气味剂都是与食物和花有关联的，

而得分为非愉悦 的气味剂都是与某种特定

香料有关（例如，黑胡椒）或非食物性的物质（例如，机油）。 刺激度得分超过

5

分的刺激源有

19< /p>

种，但并没有一个被判定为极其刺激。总体来看，相比于得分

为愉 悦的气味，

得分为非愉悦的气味更偏向于获得更高的刺激度得分。

大部分刺

激源被评分为既不暖也不冷，虽然也有明显的特例。获得最大冷得分（例如， 薄

荷，薄荷脑）和暖得分（如，肉桂，丁香，汽油，机油，洋葱，烟）的刺激源，

从其他角度来看，被认为是能产生三叉神经刺激的物质。

As indicated in Fig. 2, both the sandpaper and pencil procedures produced clear and

similarly-intense release of the odorants. Based on the findings that odors released by

sandpaper

were

judged

as

more

familiar

than

those

released

by

pencik

and

that

women rated odors released in this fashion as stronger than did men (in accord with

the sex difference noted in other human olfactory work) [13, 17-19], we chose to use

sandpaper

for

releasing

the

stimuli

in

subsequent

studies.

Although

several

of

the

Microfragrance TM samples were difficult to identify, it was conceivable that some

would

be

readily

identified

in

a

multiple- choice

situation

where

the

subjects'

responses are cued by written alternatives (since such a paradigm generally aids recall)

[4]. Thus, we decided to gain more information about these stimuli in Experiment 2

before concluding they should be eliminated from the stimulus set.

如图

2

所示，砂纸和铅笔均产生明确而同样强烈度的气味释放。基于以下两 项实

验结果，

即用砂纸释放的气味比铅笔释放的被判定为更熟悉 以及女性判别这种方

式释放的气味比男性的判别更为强烈

（同其 他有关人类嗅觉研究发现的性别差异

是一致的）

[13

，

17-19]

，我们在随后的研究中选择使用 砂纸释放刺激源。虽然有

几个

Microfragrance

TM

样品难于识别，可以想象得到，一些气味在设置了多重选< /p>

项条件下是很容易被识别的，

这是因为此时受试者的反应受到了书 面选项的提示

（因为这样的模式通常有助于回忆）

[4]

。因此，我们决定在实验

2

中获得更多的

有关这些刺激源的信息，然后再决定是否将他们从刺激源组合中排除。

EXPERIMENT 2

实验

2

Experiment 2 had three main goals: First, to ascertain whether the odorants with poor

identifiability tested in Experiment 1 were more readily identified in a multiple-choice

response

situation

where

response

alternatives

were

provided:

second,

to

use

this

information, along with the information from Experiment 1, to eliminate stimuli front

inclusion in the fnal version of the UPSIT which were not correctly responded to by

the

majority

of

a

large

number

of

normal

individuals;

and

third,

to

evaluate,

using

multiple regression analysis, the relative influences of several subject variables, both

alone and in combination, on UPS1T scores of a rather large and heterogeneous group

of subjects.

Variables

of particular interest were

those of

gender, age and

smoking.

Although most studies suggest that olfactory ability decreases with age [6, 36, 52, 54],

exceptions exist [48,51]. and one recent reviewer suggests the issue is not yet resolved

[24]. Similarly,

general

consensus

is

not

present as

to

whether

gender and smoking

behavior influence smell ability. For example, some studies report a relation between

decreased

olfactory

performance

and

smoking

behavior

[30,34,

42],

whereas

others

report no such relation [24, 40. 54].

实验

2

主要有三大目的：

第一，确认实验

1

中经测试为可识别性不强的气味剂在设置多重反应选项情形下

是否会更易于被识别，

此种情形下将提供多种反应选项。

第二，

联合利用本实验

及实验

1

的信息，从最终纳入

UPSIT

范 围的的刺激源中剔除那些被绝大多数的正

常人员不能正常应答的刺激源。

第三，

采用多元回归分析方法，

评估几种受试者

变量单独或联合对大规模的不同类型人群

UPSIT

< br>得分的相对影响。

特定的目标变

量包括性别、

虽然大多数研究表明，

嗅觉能力随着 年龄而逐渐下降

[6, 36, 52, 54]

，但也有例外 情况存在

[48,51]

，特别是最近的一篇综述表明该问题< /p>

仍然并没有得到解决

[24]

。同样的， 对于性别和吸烟行为是否影响嗅觉功能也还

没有形成共识。

例如 ，

有些研究报告了吸烟行为和嗅觉功能下降是有关联的

[30, 34,

42]

，然而也有其他一些研究并没有发现存在这种关 联性

[24, 40. 54]

。

Subjects

受试者

In

the

initial

segment

of

Experiment

2

(where

the

identifiability

of

the

stimuli

was

established),

1198

volunteers

were

tested.

These

individuals

were

comprised

of

(a)

participants

of

regional

health

fairs

and

public

events,

(b)

primary

and

secondary

public school

students,

(c) university students, (d) employees

of the Hospital

of the

University of Pennsylvania, and (e) residents of homes for the elderly. Only persons

who reported no smell abnormalities and who were able to correctly identify at least

half

of

the

odorants

presented

to

them

were

included.

Seventy-three

percent

of

the

group were White Americans and 21% Black Americans, with most of the remainder

failing

to

indicate

their

ethnicity.

Sixty-two

percent

were

female

and

38%

male.

Eighty

percent

reported

being

current

non-smokers

and

1~

reported

being

smokers,

with the remainder not providing this information. Although a wide spectrum of ages

was well represented in this group, disproportionately more of the subjects fell within

the

younger

age

categories,

as

indicated

by

the

following

summary

statistics:

mean

age=35.24,

SD--19.21;

modal

age=lg.0;

median

age=29.29;

25th

percentile:18.88;

75

th

percentile =50.3). In general, the average ages of the two sexes, of the two major

ethnic

groups,

and

of

the

smokers

and

non-smokers

were

similar

(e.g.,

male

mean

age=34.36

(SD:18.36);

female

mean

age=35.79

(SD:19.72);

White

mean age=36.12

(SD=20.06);

Black

mean

age=35.22

(SD=16.82);

smoker

mean

age=38.50

(SD=16.22): ramsmoker mean age=34.57 (SD= 19.69).

在实验

2

的初始阶段（此时刺激源的可识别性已经确认），

1198

名自 愿者接受测

试。这些自愿者包括：（

a

）参与地区卫生展览会和公众活动的人员，（

b

）小学

和中学公立学校学生，

（

c

）

大学生，

（

d

< br>）

宾夕法尼亚大学附属医院的员工，

（

< br>e

）

敬老院居民。

只有那些声明 没有嗅觉异常，

并且对于提供给他们的气味剂至少能

够正确识别 一半的人员才能入选。

所有人员中，

美国白人和美国黑人的比例 分别

为

73%

和

21%

，其他人员没有说明他们的种族背景。所有人员中女性和男性的比

例分别为

62%

和

38%< /p>

。

80%

的人报告目前没有吸烟，

19%

的人报告为吸烟，其他

人员没有提供此 信息。

虽然此组人员中覆盖的年龄范围很广，

但绝大部分受试者

仍归属于年轻的年龄段，年龄统计数据总结如下：平均年龄

=3 5.24

，标准偏差

SD=19.21

；模态年龄

=19.0,

，中间年龄

= 29.29

；第一四分位数

=18.88

，第三四分

位数

=50.3

。总体来 说，两种性别、两种主要种族背景、吸烟者和非吸烟者的平

均年龄是相近的

（例如，

男性平均年龄

=34.46

（

SD=18.36

）

）

；

女性平均年龄

=35.79

（

SD=19.72

）

；< /p>

白人平均年龄

=36.12

（