% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Ohla:862960,
      author       = {Ohla, Kathrin and Höchenberger, Richard},
      title        = {{E}stimation of {O}lfactory {S}ensitivity {U}sing a
                      {B}ayesian {A}daptive {M}ethod},
      journal      = {Nutrients},
      volume       = {11},
      number       = {6},
      issn         = {2072-6643},
      address      = {Basel},
      publisher    = {MDPI},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2019-03121},
      pages        = {1278 -},
      year         = {2019},
      abstract     = {The ability to smell is crucial for most species as it
                      enables the detection of environmental threats like smoke,
                      it fosters social interactions, and it contributes to the
                      sensory evaluation of food and eating behavior. The high
                      prevalence for smell disturbances throughout the life span
                      call for a continuous effort to improve tools for the quick
                      and reliable assessment of the ability to smell.
                      Odor-dispensing pens, called Sniffin' Sticks, are an
                      established tool to test olfactory function. We tested the
                      suitability of a Bayesian adaptive algorithm (QUEST) to
                      estimate olfactory sensitivity using Sniffin' Sticks by
                      comparing its results with those obtained via the
                      established standard protocol, which relies on a staircase
                      procedure. Thresholds were measured according to both
                      procedures in two sessions (Test and Retest). The staircase
                      successfully yielded threshold estimates in more cases than
                      QUEST. Yet, Test-Retest correlations showed stronger
                      reliability for QUEST (ρ = 0.70) than for staircase
                      thresholds (ρ = 0.50). A strong correlation (ρ = 0.80)
                      between the results of both procedures indicated good
                      validity of QUEST. We conclude that the QUEST procedure may
                      offer quicker convergence and reduced testing time in some
                      cases, but fail to yield a threshold estimate in others.},
      cin          = {INM-3},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)INM-3-20090406},
      pnm          = {572 - (Dys-)function and Plasticity (POF3-572)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF3-572},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:31195704},
      UT           = {WOS:000474936700084},
      doi          = {10.3390/nu11061278},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/862960},
}