The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of olfactory training in patients with olfactory loss
Abstract
Objectives: Olfactory function is known to be modulated by repeated exposure to odors. The aim of this investigation was whether patients with olfactory loss would benefit from “Training” with odors in terms of an improvement of their general olfactory function. It was hypothesized that olfactory Training should produce both an improved sensitivity towards the odors used in the Training process and an overall increase of olfactory function. Study Design: The prospective study was performed in patients with olfactory dysfunction. Methods: One group of patients performed the Training (n = 40), whereas another part did not (n = 16). Exclusion criteria for patients were sinunasal disease. Olfactory training was performed over a period of 12 weeks. Patients exposed themselves twice daily to four intense odors (phenyl ethyl alcohol: rose, eucalyptol: eucalyptus, citronellal: lemon, and eugenol: cloves). Olfactory testing was performed before and after training using the “Sniffin' Sticks” (thresholds for phenyl ethyl alcohol, tests for odor discrimination and odor identification) in addition to threshold tests for the odors used in the training process. Results: Compared to baseline, training patients experienced an increase in their olfactory function, which was observed for the Sniffin' Sticks test score and for thresholds for the odors used in the training process. In contrast, olfactory function was unchanged in patients who did not perform olfactory training. The present results indicate that the structured, short‐term exposure to selected odors may increase olfactory sensitivity. Laryngoscope, 119:496–499, 2009
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Damm, M., Pikart, L. K., Reimann, H., Burkert, S., Göktas, Ö., Haxel, B., Frey, S., Charalampakis, I., Beule, A., Renner, B., et al. (2014) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1002/lary.24340 · Cited by 363
Self-citationPostinfectious olfactory loss: A retrospective study on 791 patients
Cavazzana, A., Larsson, M., Münch, M., Hähner, A., & Hummel, T. (2018) · The Laryngoscope · doi:10.1002/lary.26606 · Cited by 109
Self-citationWine experts’ recognition of wine odors is not verbally mediated
Croijmans, I., Arshamian, A., Speed, L. J., & Majid, A. (2021) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000949 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Hummel, T., Rissom, K., Reden, J., Hähner, A., Weidenbecher, M., & Hüttenbrink, K.
- Venue
- The Laryngoscope
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-02-23
- Volume
- 119
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 496-499
- ISSN
- 0023-852X (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4995
- OpenAlex
- W2072477385
- Cited by
- 622
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effects of olfactory training in patients with olfactory loss. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/lary.20101
- The paper
- Hummel, T., Rissom, K., Reden, J., Hähner, A., Weidenbecher, M., & Hüttenbrink, K. (2009). Effects of olfactory training in patients with olfactory loss. The Laryngoscope. https://doi.org/10.1002/lary.20101
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.