Search

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19-; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: -82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19-: -59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.

Background: More than a year after recovering from COVID-19, a large proportion of individuals, many of whom work in the healthcare sector, still report olfactory dysfunctions. However, olfactory dysfunction was common already before the COVID-19 pandemic, making it necessary to also consider the existing baseline prevalence of olfactory dysfunction. To establish the adjusted prevalence of COVID-19 related olfactory dysfunction, we assessed smell function in healthcare workers who had contracted COVID‐19 during the first wave of the pandemic using psychophysical testing. Methods: Participants were continuously tested for SARS‐CoV‐2 IgG antibodies since the beginning of the pandemic. To assess the baseline rate of olfactory dysfunction in the population and to control for the possibility of skewed recruitment of individuals with prior olfactory dysfunction, consistent SARS-CoV‐2 IgG naïve individuals were tested as a control group. Results: Fifteen months after contracting COVID‐19, 37% of healthcare workers demonstrated a quantitative reduction in their sense of smell, compared to only 20% of the individuals in the control group. Fifty-one percent of COVID‐19‐recovered individuals reported qualitative symptoms, compared to only 5% in the control group. In a follow-up study 2.6 years after COVID-19 diagnosis, 24% of all tested recovered individuals still experienced parosmia. Conclusions: In summary, 65% of healthcare workers experienced parosmia/hyposmia 15 months after contracting COVID-19. When compared to a control group, the prevalence of olfactory dysfunction in the population increased by 41 percentage points. Parosmia symptoms were still lingering two-and-a half years later in 24% of SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals. Given the amount of time between infection and testing, it is possible that the olfactory problems may not be fully reversible in a plurality of individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nitric oxide (NO) is involved in a variety of biological functions including blood vessel dilation and neurotransmitter release. In animals, NO has been demonstrated to affect multiple behavioral outcomes, such as memory performance and arousal, whereas this link is less explored in humans. NO is created in the paranasal sinuses and studies show that humming releases paranasal NO to the nasal tract and that NO can then cross the blood brain barrier. Akin to animal models, we hypothesized that this NO may traverse into the brain and positively affect information processing. In contrast to our hypothesis, an articulatory suppression memory paradigm and a speeded detection task found deleterious effects of humming while performing the task. Likewise, we found no effect of humming on emotional processing of photos. In a fourth experiment, participants hummed before each trial in a speeded detection task, but we again found no effect on response time. In conclusion, either nasal NO does not travel to the brain, or NO in the brain does not have the expected impact on cognitive performance and emotional processing in humans. It remains possible that NO influences other cognitive processes not tested for here. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies have indicated that breathing shapes the underlying oscillatory brain activity critical for episodic memory, potentially impacting memory performance. However, the literature has presented conflicting results, with some studies suggesting that nasal inhalation enhances visual memory performance, while others have failed to observe any significant effects. Furthermore, the specific influence of breathing route (nasal vs. mouth) and the precise phase of the respiratory cycle during which stimuli are presented have remained elusive. To address this, we employed a visual recognition memory (VRM) and electroencephalography paradigm in which stimuli presentation was phase‐locked to either inhalation or exhalation onset, using a within‐subject design where participants performed the memory task while engaging in separate sessions of nose and mouth breathing. We show that neither breathing route nor breathing phase has a significant impact on VRM performance as measured by d‐prime, with the data supporting the null hypothesis. However, we did find an effect of breathing phase on response bias, with participants adopting a more conservative decision criterion during exhalation. Moreover, we found that breathing phase during memory encoding shaped the late parietal effect (LPE) amplitude, while the Frontal Negative Component (FN400) and LPE during recognition were less impacted. While our study demonstrates that breathing does not shape VRM performance, it shows that it influences brain activity, reinforcing the importance of further research to elucidate the extent of respiratory influence on perception, cognition, and behavior. We demonstrate that phase‐locked breathing through the nose and mouth does not shape episodic visual recognition memory performance but does impact underlying event‐related potentials and response bias criterion. These findings challenge the belief that breathing affects visual memory function and underscore the importance of methodological considerations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]