Limits...
Use of human senses as sensors.

Sugawara Y, Sugimoto C, Minabe S, Iura Y, Okazaki M, Nakagawa N, Seto M, Maruyama S, Hirano M, Kitayama I - Sensors (Basel) (2009)

Bottom Line: In the latter study, we employed a sensory test for evaluating changes in perception of a given aroma.The perception of fragrance was assessed by 13 contrasting pairs of adjectives as a function of the task assigned to participants.The obtained findings illustrate subtle nuances regarding how essential oils manifest their potency and how olfactory discrimination and responses occur in humans.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Health Science, Prefectural University of Hiroshima, Hiroshima 734-8558, Japan.

ABSTRACT
This paper is an overview of our recent findings obtained by the use of human senses as sensors, suggesting that human senses might be indispensable sensors, not only for practical uses but also for gaining a deeper understanding of humans. From this point of view, two kinds of studies, both based on semantic responses of participants, deserve emphasis. One study assessed the efficacy of the photocatalytic elimination of stains or bio-aerosols from an air environment using TiO(2) as well as the photocatalytic deodorizing efficacy of a TiO(2)-type deodorizer; the other study evaluated the changes in perception of a given aroma while inhaling the fragrance of essential oils. In the latter study, we employed a sensory test for evaluating changes in perception of a given aroma. Sensory tests were conducted twice, when participants were undergoing the Kraepelin mental performance test (mental arithmetic) or an auditory task (listening to environmental natural sounds), once before the task (pre-task) and once after the task (post-task). The perception of fragrance was assessed by 13 contrasting pairs of adjectives as a function of the task assigned to participants. The obtained findings illustrate subtle nuances regarding how essential oils manifest their potency and how olfactory discrimination and responses occur in humans.

No MeSH data available.


Sensory evaluation spectrum for the efficacy of a photocatalytic deodorizer. (a) and (b): The study undertaken in 2003 (n = 21), (c) and (d): The study in 2004 (n = 35). Sensory spectra of (a) and (c) were obtained when the deodorizer was placed in the refrigerator, while those of (b) and (d) were acquired after its removal. The statistical significance for each descriptor was tested by Student's t-test, and the descriptor regarded to be significant at a probability value of p < 0.05 is indicated with a single asterisk (*).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3297136&req=5

f4-sensors-09-03184: Sensory evaluation spectrum for the efficacy of a photocatalytic deodorizer. (a) and (b): The study undertaken in 2003 (n = 21), (c) and (d): The study in 2004 (n = 35). Sensory spectra of (a) and (c) were obtained when the deodorizer was placed in the refrigerator, while those of (b) and (d) were acquired after its removal. The statistical significance for each descriptor was tested by Student's t-test, and the descriptor regarded to be significant at a probability value of p < 0.05 is indicated with a single asterisk (*).

Mentions: The scores recorded in the second inquiry were subtracted from the respective values obtained in the first (the second minus the first). Similarly, the scores registered in the third were subtracted from the respective values in the second (the third minus the second). Figure 4 depicts the resulting sensory evaluation spectrum. Figure 4a as well as Figure 4c show a spectrum indicating the impression difference between before and after installation of the deodorizer, while Figure 4b, as well as Figure 4d, gives the impression difference between after installation of the deodorizer and removal of the deodorizer. These are represented by a bar graph, and the statistical change for each descriptor was assessed by the t-test, in which the statistical significance is marked with an asterisk (*) if the impression difference was significant at a probability value of p < 0.05. Figures 4a and b were obtained from panel C, while Figures 4c and d were from panel D.


Use of human senses as sensors.

Sugawara Y, Sugimoto C, Minabe S, Iura Y, Okazaki M, Nakagawa N, Seto M, Maruyama S, Hirano M, Kitayama I - Sensors (Basel) (2009)

Sensory evaluation spectrum for the efficacy of a photocatalytic deodorizer. (a) and (b): The study undertaken in 2003 (n = 21), (c) and (d): The study in 2004 (n = 35). Sensory spectra of (a) and (c) were obtained when the deodorizer was placed in the refrigerator, while those of (b) and (d) were acquired after its removal. The statistical significance for each descriptor was tested by Student's t-test, and the descriptor regarded to be significant at a probability value of p < 0.05 is indicated with a single asterisk (*).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3297136&req=5

f4-sensors-09-03184: Sensory evaluation spectrum for the efficacy of a photocatalytic deodorizer. (a) and (b): The study undertaken in 2003 (n = 21), (c) and (d): The study in 2004 (n = 35). Sensory spectra of (a) and (c) were obtained when the deodorizer was placed in the refrigerator, while those of (b) and (d) were acquired after its removal. The statistical significance for each descriptor was tested by Student's t-test, and the descriptor regarded to be significant at a probability value of p < 0.05 is indicated with a single asterisk (*).
Mentions: The scores recorded in the second inquiry were subtracted from the respective values obtained in the first (the second minus the first). Similarly, the scores registered in the third were subtracted from the respective values in the second (the third minus the second). Figure 4 depicts the resulting sensory evaluation spectrum. Figure 4a as well as Figure 4c show a spectrum indicating the impression difference between before and after installation of the deodorizer, while Figure 4b, as well as Figure 4d, gives the impression difference between after installation of the deodorizer and removal of the deodorizer. These are represented by a bar graph, and the statistical change for each descriptor was assessed by the t-test, in which the statistical significance is marked with an asterisk (*) if the impression difference was significant at a probability value of p < 0.05. Figures 4a and b were obtained from panel C, while Figures 4c and d were from panel D.

Bottom Line: In the latter study, we employed a sensory test for evaluating changes in perception of a given aroma.The perception of fragrance was assessed by 13 contrasting pairs of adjectives as a function of the task assigned to participants.The obtained findings illustrate subtle nuances regarding how essential oils manifest their potency and how olfactory discrimination and responses occur in humans.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Health Science, Prefectural University of Hiroshima, Hiroshima 734-8558, Japan.

ABSTRACT
This paper is an overview of our recent findings obtained by the use of human senses as sensors, suggesting that human senses might be indispensable sensors, not only for practical uses but also for gaining a deeper understanding of humans. From this point of view, two kinds of studies, both based on semantic responses of participants, deserve emphasis. One study assessed the efficacy of the photocatalytic elimination of stains or bio-aerosols from an air environment using TiO(2) as well as the photocatalytic deodorizing efficacy of a TiO(2)-type deodorizer; the other study evaluated the changes in perception of a given aroma while inhaling the fragrance of essential oils. In the latter study, we employed a sensory test for evaluating changes in perception of a given aroma. Sensory tests were conducted twice, when participants were undergoing the Kraepelin mental performance test (mental arithmetic) or an auditory task (listening to environmental natural sounds), once before the task (pre-task) and once after the task (post-task). The perception of fragrance was assessed by 13 contrasting pairs of adjectives as a function of the task assigned to participants. The obtained findings illustrate subtle nuances regarding how essential oils manifest their potency and how olfactory discrimination and responses occur in humans.

No MeSH data available.