Premium
O3
Effects of training on experience and non‐experience sensory odor judges
Author(s) -
Nachnani S,
Majerus G,
Lenton P
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
oral diseases
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.953
H-Index - 87
eISSN - 1601-0825
pISSN - 1354-523X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1601-0825.2005.01105_3.x
Subject(s) - odor , sensory system , audiology , intensity (physics) , psychology , medicine , cognitive psychology , physics , quantum mechanics , neuroscience
In oral malodor research, sensory odor judging is considered the gold standard to evaluate and rate breath odor quality and intensity. Although training and calibration of sensory odor judges has been well documented in other scientific disciplines (foods/beverages, air/water quality, personal care products), little data have been published on training judges for bad breath assessment. Objective The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the training process, with experienced and novice odor judges, for rating both pleasant and unpleasant odorants. Methods Six oral malodor sensory judges four with prior experience and two novices were given verbal information on the oral malodor intensity scale (0‐5) and were given the opportunity to sniff a reference sample of n‐butanol, that had been declared to have a level 3 intensity. Subjects then independently assessed 20 odorant samples for odor intensity (pretest). Four unpleasant and two pleasant odorants, in a variety of intensity levels, and a water samplewere included. Subjects then participated in a training program based on the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standards. Investigators assigned each odorant sample a ‘true’ intensity score. Subjects’ intensity scores were then analyzed as the absolute difference from the ‘true’ intensity. This dependant variable was analyzed using repeated measures ANOVA. Results Training significantly ( P = 0.02) reduced (improved) odor judge error levels, irrespective of previous experience. When comparing improvement between experienced and novice odor judges, there was no significant ( P = 0.99) difference in the size of deviations from the ‘true’ scores (errors) between experienced (0.948) and novice (0.950) judges. There was also no difference ( P = 0.94) in improvement in error levels from pre‐ to post‐test for experienced (pre = 1.13 and post = 0.76) or novice (pre = 1.13 and post = 0.78) judges. There was consistent improvement from pre‐ to post‐test for all odorants ( P = 0.02; pre = 1.10; post = 0.75) except for dimethylsulfide, which became worse ( P = 0.01; pre = 0.97; post = 1.58). When comparing the unpleasant vs pleasant odorants, there was a significant ( P = 0.006) difference in error levels (unpleasant 1.09; pleasant 0.70). After removing the water blank scores from the pleasant odorant category the difference was no longer significant ( P = 0.26). Conclusions A specific training program for odor judges improved subjects’ ability to assess odor intensity irrespective of previous experience. This type of training is recommended prior to conducting oral malodor‐related clinical research trials.