Chapter 14: Olfaction

Introduction to Olfaction

Olfaction, our sense of smell, is the final topic we will explore in this course on Sensation and Perception. Much like taste, olfaction plays a crucial role in our daily lives, influencing our preferences, behaviors, and even emotions. In this chapter, we will examine the intricacies of our sense of smell, its physiological mechanisms, the impact it has on our perception of the world, and the role it plays in various aspects of our lives, from pleasure and business to health.

Figure 14.1

The perfume colognes category generated sales amounting to over 493 million in the US in 2022.

"Perfume Bottle on Counter" by Freerange Stock is in the Public Domain, CC0

The Business of Smell

Olfaction, like taste, is big business. From aromatherapy to perfumes, deodorants, and scented candles, the fragrance industry thrives on our appreciation of pleasant smells. These scents not only enhance our personal experiences but also serve as a means of self-expression and marketing.

Painful Olfactory Experiences

Although smell is often associated with pleasant experiences, some airborne chemicals can produce sensations that are uncomfortable or even painful. It is important to distinguish between the perception of an odor and the irritation caused by certain chemicals. While the olfactory system detects odor molecules, the burning, stinging, or painful sensations produced by substances such as ammonia, chlorine, peppers, or skunk spray are mediated primarily by the trigeminal nerve, which detects irritating chemicals and other potentially harmful stimuli in the eyes, nose, and mouth (Doty et al., 1978).

Skunk spray is a good example of this. The sulfur-containing compounds that give skunk spray its characteristic odor are detected by the olfactory system, allowing us to recognize the smell. However, these chemicals can also strongly activate trigeminal nerve endings, producing burning, watering eyes, irritation of the nasal passages, coughing, and discomfort. In everyday experience, the perception of a "strong smell" often reflects the combined activity of both the olfactory and trigeminal systems (Doty et al., 1978; Hummel & Livermore, 2002).

Figure 14.2

A skunk spray can cause pain and irritation. "Skunk Nose" by Fieldsbh is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Human vs. Canine Olfaction

Humans are relatively sensitive to odors, capable of detecting and identifying a wide range of smells. However, our olfactory capabilities pale in comparison to those of dogs. Dogs possess far more olfactory receptor neurons than humans and can detect some odorants at concentrations 10,000–100,000 times lower, depending on the odorant and breed (Jenkins et al., 2018). This heightened sensitivity allows them to navigate and understand their environment through scent in ways that humans can’t match.

Figure 14.3

Dogs have a remarkable sense of smell.

"140130-M-WA264-008" by US Department of Defense is in the Public Domain, CC0

Applications of Canine Olfaction

Dogs' remarkable olfactory abilities are put to various practical uses (Jenkins et al., 2018). They can track scents that are hours or even days old, making them invaluable in search and rescue operations. Additionally, dogs are employed in detecting drugs, explosives, and even certain medical conditions such as cancer. The use of biomedical detection dogs shows promise in identifying various infectious and non-infectious diseases, including various cancer types, hypoglycemia in diabetes patients, epileptic seizures, COVID-19, and Malaria, to name just a few (Edwards et al., 2017; Pirrone & Albertini, 2017). Research suggests that "sniffer" dogs can detect disease- specific body odors or specific volatile organic compounds associated with metabolic changes due to infections (Edwards et al., 2017). However, the specific odor molecules recognized by dogs remain largely unknown for many diseases. Notably, canine medical scent detection appears more promising for infectious diseases compared to non-infectious ones like cancer, diabetes, and seizures, although there is significant variability in published data on cancer detection.

Human Olfactory Sensitivity

While humans may not match the olfactory prowess of dogs, we still possess a remarkable ability to perceive and identify many odors. Certain smells, like lemon or coffee, are readily recognizable. However, our sensitivity to different odors varies, and some scents, such as honey, can be challenging to identify accurately.

Pheromones and Synchronized Menstruation

Pheromones are chemical signals that play a role in influencing behavior and physiology within a species. One intriguing claim related to human pheromones involves the synchronization of menstrual cycles among women who spend a lot of time together.

In many non-human animals, pheromones have well-established effects on behaviors such as mating, territorial marking, and alarm signaling (Wyatt, 2014). Whether humans possess true pheromones that produce reliable, involuntary physiological or behavioral responses remains an open question.

Martha McClintock's Study

Martha McClintock conducted a famous study on this topic in 1971, which garnered significant attention as well as controversy (McClintock, 1971). Martha McClintock's study involved college females living in the same dormitory. She found that over time, these women's menstrual cycles appeared to synchronize. This phenomenon, if valid, suggested that some form of chemical communication, potentially pheromones, might be at play. McClintock proposed that the close proximity and shared experiences among these women might have led to the synchronization of their menstrual cycles. Following this McClintock and colleagues conducted a study demonstrating that swabs collected from the armpits of women at various stages of their menstrual cycles, when applied to the upper lips of other women, could serve as pheromones—undetectable chemical signals (Stern & McClintock, 1998). These secretions had the effect of either accelerating or extending the menstrual cycles of the recipients, though it's important to note that not all exposed women experienced this phenomenon.

Although these findings were influential, the studies involved relatively small samples and have proven difficult for other researchers to replicate consistently (Wilson, 1992; Yang & Schank, 2006).

The Hypothesis and Its Impact

McClintock's hypothesis sparked interest in the idea that humans, like other animals, might communicate through chemical signals. Her study seemed to provide evidence supporting the existence of human pheromones, which could influence hormonal changes and physiological responses in individuals.

Controversy and Criticism

Despite the initial excitement surrounding McClintock's findings, subsequent research has cast doubt on the validity of her claims (Wilson, 1992; Weller & Weller, 1993; Yang & Schank, 2006). Some critics argue that the observed synchronization could be nothing more than a statistical coincidence. In other words, when multiple women live together, random variations in cycle length can sometimes appear to synchronize purely by chance.

In addition, menstrual cycles naturally vary in length both within and between individuals. Because cycles are rarely identical, women whose cycles differ may sometimes appear to converge and later diverge again even in the absence of any biological mechanism.

Debate Over Human Pheromones

The existence of human pheromones continues to be a subject of debate and skepticism within the scientific community. While some studies have suggested the presence of chemical signals that influence human behavior and physiology, the evidence remains inconclusive, and more rigorous research is needed to confirm their existence definitively.

Consequently, most researchers today do not consider menstrual synchrony to be an established scientific fact (Yang & Schank, 2006; Wyatt, 2015). While humans clearly communicate through many sensory cues—including visual, auditory, and chemical signals—the existence of human pheromones comparable to those found in many other mammals has not been conclusively demonstrated.

Basic Smell Categories

Unlike taste, where we have well-defined basic tastes such as sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and umami, categorizing smells has proven much more challenging (Doty, 2025). One of the earliest attempts was Henning's "odor prism", proposed in 1916. Henning suggested that all odors could be organized around six primary qualities (flowery, fruity, spicy, resinous, burnt, and foul), which are arranged at the corners of a three-dimensional prism (Henning, 1916). Although this was an innovative idea, it was based largely on intuition rather than quantitative data, and subsequent research showed that the complexity of odor perception could not be adequately captured by such a simple classification.

Figure 14.4

Henning proposed that all odors could be organized within a three-dimensional triangular prism defined by six primary odor qualities: flowery, fruity (ethereal), resinous, spicy, burnt, and putrid. According to the model, odors are perceived as combinations of these fundamental qualities, with intermediate odors located along the prism's edges and surfaces.

"Odor prism." by Kahan, T.A. is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

More recently, Dr. Jason Castro (Professor of Neuroscience at Bates College) and his colleagues developed a sophisticated, data-driven approach to this problem (Castro et al., 2013). Rather than beginning with preconceived odor categories, they analyzed a large database of human odor ratings using a machine-learning technique called non-negative matrix factorization. This method searches for patterns within complex datasets and identifies the underlying dimensions that best explain the data. This analysis suggested that human odor perception may be organized into approximately ten broad odor categories, including fragrant, woody/resinous, fruity, minty, lemon, sweet, chemical, popcorn, pungent and decomposed (Castro et al., 2013). Castro's research (Castro, et al., 2013) is especially noteworthy because it used a data-driven and statistically rigorous method to answer a question about the basic categories of smell that had been posed as early as 1916 (with Henning's odor prism) but had remained unresolved for nearly a century.

An interesting question is whether these odor categories are universal or whether they are influenced by language and culture. Research by Asifa Majid and colleagues has shown that not all cultures describe odors in the same way (Majid & Burenhult, 2014). English speakers typically identify odors by referring to their source (for example, "it smells like roses" or "it smells like cinnamon"), whereas speakers of some other languages possess extensive vocabularies consisting of abstract odor terms that are used as readily as color words. These findings raise the intriguing possibility that cultural and linguistic experience may influence how people conceptualize and categorize smells. Whether the underlying perceptual categories themselves are universal or shaped by experience remains an active area of research.

The Physiology of Smell

Our sense of smell relies on a complex physiological process that begins when airborne odor molecules (odorants) enter the nasal cavity during breathing or sniffing. Odorants dissolve in the mucus that covers the olfactory mucosa, a specialized patch of tissue located high within the nasal cavity. Embedded within this tissue are millions of olfactory receptor neurons. When an odorant binds to its matching receptor, it triggers a series of chemical events within the receptor neuron that converts the chemical signal into an electrical signal.

The electrical signals travel along the axons of olfactory receptor neurons through the skull and into the olfactory bulb, the first major processing center for olfactory information. Within the olfactory bulb, axons from receptor neurons expressing the same receptor type converge onto specialized structures called glomeruli (Mombaerts et al., 1996). This organization enhances sensitivity and allows the brain to begin identifying patterns of receptor activation produced by different odorants.

From the olfactory bulb, information is transmitted directly to several brain regions (Shepherd, 2004), including the pyriform cortex, which serves as the primary olfactory cortex, as well as the amygdala, which contributes to the emotional significance of odors. Unlike the other sensory systems, olfactory information reaches these primary brain regions before passing through the thalamus. Subsequent processing involves the mediodorsal nucleus of the thalamus, which relays information to the orbitofrontal cortex, a region involved in the conscious perception and identification of odors and in combining smell with taste to produce the perception of flavor.

This pathway makes olfaction unique among the major sensory systems. Vision, hearing, touch, and taste all relay information through the thalamus before reaching their primary sensory cortices, whereas olfactory information projects directly from the olfactory bulb to primary olfactory cortex and related limbic structures. Researchers do not know the definitive reason why the olfactory system evolved this different organization. One hypothesis is that smell represents an evolutionarily ancient sensory system, and that direct access to brain regions involved in emotion and memory may have allowed rapid responses to biologically important odors. Although this explanation is plausible, it remains a hypothesis rather than an established fact.

Humans possess approximately 350 different functional olfactory receptor types (Buck & Axel, 1991; Niimura, 2012), compared with only three types of cone photoreceptors responsible for color vision. Each receptor type is tuned to respond best to particular molecular features rather than to a single odor. Most odorants activate multiple receptor types (Malnic et al., 1999), and each receptor type can respond to multiple odorants. As a result, every odor produces a unique pattern of activity across the population of olfactory receptors. Furthermore, receptor neurons expressing different receptor types are not evenly distributed across the olfactory mucosa, and their axons converge onto corresponding glomeruli within the olfactory bulb (Mombaerts et al., 1996). Together, this spatial organization forms a chemotopic map, allowing the brain to identify and discriminate thousands of different odors by recognizing distinct patterns of neural activity rather than relying on individual receptors alone.

Figure 14.5

Smell receptors which are located in the olfactory mucosa send signals to regions on the olfactory bulb known as glomeruli.

"Special Senses: Smell " by Cenveo is licensed under CC BY 3.0

Anosmia: The Loss of Smell

Anosmia is the complete loss of the sense of smell (Croy et al., 2014). It can occur temporarily or permanently and may result from a variety of causes, including viral infections, head injuries, chronic nasal inflammation, or damage to the olfactory nerves or brain regions involved in olfactory processing. Because much of what we perceive as flavor depends on smell rather than taste (Rozin, 1982; Shepherd, 2012), people with anosmia often report that food seems bland or lacks its usual richness, even though they can still detect the basic tastes of sweet, sour, salty, bitter, and umami. Anosmia can also reduce the ability to detect potentially dangerous odors, such as smoke, natural gas leaks, or spoiled food, making it a significant safety concern.

One of the hallmark symptoms of the original variants of COVID-19 was the sudden onset of anosmia, often occurring even in the absence of nasal congestion (Parma et al., 2020; Lechien et al., 2020). This symptom provided researchers with valuable insight into how viral infections can disrupt the normal functioning of the olfactory system. Although many people recovered their sense of smell within weeks or months, some experienced a prolonged loss or a distorted sense of smell during recovery.

Cultural Differences in The Perception of Smell

Dr. Asifa Majid from the University of Oxford notes that while it is commonly believed by Westerners that smell is the least important sense this is not true across the globe. In addition, the belief that human languages lack an extensive vocabulary for describing odors and that labeling smells is challenging, is a perspective that is not universally shared by all people (Majid & Burenhult, 2014). Many languages around the world possess substantial lexicons for smells, and some even incorporate smell-related concepts into their grammar. Moreover, in certain cultures, conversations about smell are more commonplace, and naming odors is less arduous. This linguistic diversity in discussing smells remains unexplained but may be influenced by ecological or cultural factors, or a combination thereof. Importantly, the way people talk about smells can potentially impact how they perceive and understand this critical sensory modality.

Conclusion

The chapter on smell perception explored the intricate world of olfaction, exploring how humans and animals process and interpret odors. Beginning with an introduction to the significance of smell in our daily lives, from perfumes to aromatherapy, the chapter highlights the remarkable sensitivity of certain animals, particularly dogs, whose olfactory abilities far surpass those of humans. It discusses the existence of various types of olfactory receptors, the chemotopic map in the olfactory system, and the neural pathway from the olfactory mucosa to the orbitofrontal cortex. The chapter also touches upon the intriguing topic of pheromones, emphasizing Martha McClintock's pioneering study on synchronized menstruation while acknowledging ongoing debates about the existence and impact of human pheromones. Finally, the chapter explores anosmia, the loss of smell, and its relevance to health.

References

Buck, L., & Axel, R. (1991). A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: A molecular basis for odor recognition. Cell, 65(1), 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-8674(91)90418-X

Castro, J. B., Ramanathan, A., & Chennubhotla, C. S. (2013). Categorical dimensions of human odor descriptor space revealed by non-negative matrix factorization. PLoS ONE, 8(9), e73289. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073289

Croy, I., Nordin, S., & Hummel, T. (2014). Olfactory disorders and quality of life—An updated review. Chemical Senses, 39(3), 185–194. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjt072

Doty, R. L. (2025). Odors as cognitive constructs: History of odor classification and implications for olfactory science. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjaf022

Doty, R. L., Brugger, W. E., Jurs, P. C., Orndorff, M. A., Snyder, P. J., & Lowry, L. D. (1978). Intranasal trigeminal stimulation from odorous volatiles: Psychometric responses from anosmic and normal humans. Physiology & Behavior, 20(2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(78)90070-7

Edwards, T. L., Browne, C. M., Schoon, A., Cox, C., & Poling, A. (2017). Animal olfactory detection of human diseases: Guidelines and systematic review. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 20, 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.05.002

Henning, H. (1916). Der Geruch. Johann Ambrosius Barth. https://archive.org/details/HansHenning1916/mode/2up

Hummel, T., & Livermore, A. (2002). Intranasal chemosensory function of the trigeminal nerve and aspects of its relation to olfaction. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 75(5), 305–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-002-0315-7

Jenkins, E. K., DeChant, M. T., & Perry, E. B. (2018). When the nose doesn't know: Canine olfactory function associated with health, management, and potential links to microbiota. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 5, 56. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2018.00056

Lechien, J. R., Chiesa-Estomba, C. M., De Siati, D. R., et al. (2020). Olfactory and gustatory dysfunctions as a clinical presentation of mild-to-moderate forms of COVID-19. European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology, 277, 2251–2261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-020-05965-1

Majid, A., & Burenhult, N. (2014). Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition, 130(2), 266–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.004

Malnic, B., Hirono, J., Sato, T., & Buck, L. B. (1999). Combinatorial receptor codes for odors. Cell, 96(5), 713–723. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)80581-4

McClintock, M. K. (1971). Menstrual synchrony and suppression. Nature, 229(5282), 244–245. https://doi.org/10.1038/229244a0

Mombaerts, P., Wang, F., Dulac, C., et al. (1996). Visualizing an olfactory sensory map. Cell, 87(4), 675–686. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81387-2

Niimura, Y. (2012). Olfactory receptor multigene family in vertebrates: From the viewpoint of evolutionary genomics. Current Genomics, 13(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.2174/138920212799860706

Parma, V., Ohla, K., Veldhuizen, M. G., et al. (2020). More than smell—COVID-19 is associated with severe impairment of smell, taste, and chemesthesis. Chemical Senses, 45(7), 609–622. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjaa041

Pirrone, F., & Albertini, M. (2017). Olfactory detection of cancer by trained sniffer dogs: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Veterinary Behavior, 19, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2017.03.004

Rozin, P. (1982). "Taste-smell confusions" and the duality of the olfactory sense. Perception & Psychophysics, 31(4), 397–401. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202667

Shepherd, G. M. (2004). The human sense of smell: Are we better than we think? PLoS Biology, 2(5), e146. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020146

Shepherd, G. M. (2012). Neurogastronomy: How the brain creates flavor and why it matters. Columbia University Press.

Stern, K., & McClintock, M. K. (1998). Regulation of ovulation by human pheromones. Nature, 392(6672), 177–179. https://doi.org/10.1038/32408

Weller, L., & Weller, A. (1993). Human menstrual synchrony: A critical assessment. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 17(4), 427–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(05)80118-6

Wilson, H. C. (1992). A critical review of menstrual synchrony research. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 17(6), 565–591. https://doi.org/10.1016/0306-4530(92)90016-z

Wyatt, T. D. (2014). Pheromones and animal behavior: Chemical signals and signatures (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139030748

Wyatt, T. D. (2015). The search for human pheromones: The lost decades and the necessity of returning to first principles. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1804), 20142994. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.2994

Yang, Z., & Schank, J. C. (2006). Women do not synchronize their menstrual cycles. Human Nature, 17(4), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12110-006-1005-z