FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W80909535> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W80909535 endingPage "59" @default.
• W80909535 startingPage "55" @default.
• W80909535 abstract "The question of how the processing of stimuli from the external world is organized or reorganized when a sensory modality is altered or missing has been the subject of numerous studies, although the studies have mostly been on tactile and auditory abilities (Hatwell, 2003). In contrast, olfaction has been poorly investigated in people who are visually impaired, despite the increasing evidence that humans have a keen sense of smell (Schaal & Porter, 1991). Odors influence mood; well-being (Ehrlichman & Bastone, 1992); and social interactions, such as the choice of partners (Herz & Inzlicht, 2002). Emotional and social implications of odors go back to the earliest periods of development (Schaal, 1988). Olfaction should thus be considered a significant source of environmental information and emotions in persons with visual impairments. Most, if not all, studies of the relationship between olfaction and blindness aimed to test the intuitive hypothesis of increased sensitivity of the unimpaired senses (for a review, see Ferdenzi, Holley, & Schaal, 2004). The comparison of olfactory detection thresholds in participants with and without visual impairments first led to inconsistent results (Boccuzzi, 1962; Griesbach, 1899). More recent studies that have used more reliable methods found no difference between the two groups in olfactory sensitivity, discrimination, or cued identification (that is, the choice of the name of an odor from among several alternatives) (Diekmann, Walger, & von-Wedel, 1994; Schwenn, Hundorf, Moll, Pitz, & Mann, 2002; Smith, Doty, Burlingame, & McKeown, 1993). Conversely, more ecological perceptual tasks, such as noncued odor identification, revealed better performances by participants with visual impairments (Murphy & Cain, 1986; Rosenbluth, Grossman, & Kaitz, 2000; Wakefield, Homewood, & Taylor, 2004). This advantage was interpreted as reflecting higher attention to olfactory stimuli, resulting in deeper knowledge and the better ability to reactivate associated information. Thus, possible differences in favor of people with visual impairments may be a result more of advantages in attentional strategies than of enhanced sensitivity. This view was advocated by Tilney (1929), who examined Helen Keller: [Her] olfactory sense shows nothing above the normal average.... Her sensory supremacy is entirely in the realm of intellect (pp. 1242, 1254). Outstanding olfactory abilities of individuals with visual impairments have repeatedly been reported in everyday life contexts. For instance, Julia Brace (James, 1890) and an anonymous young boy (Hinds, 1984) were able to sort the freshly washed linen of acquaintances by smell alone; Willetta Huggins was able to identify the color of fabrics according to the odor of the dyes (Gault, 1923). Describing children with visual impairments sniffing out objects, people, or themselves, Hinds (1984) interpreted these frequent behaviors as an unrestrained seeking of information. Odors seem to help build representations of the environment, as Rosenfeld (2001) also suggested. In Rosenfeld's survey, respondents with visual impairments declared more often than their sighted counterparts that odors provide useful information to characterize or identify places and people. These sparse observations stimulated us to investigate olfaction-blindness interactions in everyday settings. The purpose of our study was to conduct a pilot investigation of the self-reported awareness and reactivity to odors of children with visual impairments and sighted children. A questionnaire related to relevant everyday contexts involving food and social cues, as well as the general environment, was used to determine whether, and in which conditions, odors would constitute salient cues for children with visual impairments. METHOD Participants Six boys and two girls with visual impairments, aged 8 to 11, were recruited from a specialized center in Dijon, France (see Table 1 for the characteristics of the participants). …" @default.
• W80909535 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W80909535 creator A5051696318 @default.
• W80909535 creator A5060023704 @default.
• W80909535 creator A5072940735 @default.
• W80909535 creator A5075812435 @default.
• W80909535 date "2010-01-01" @default.
• W80909535 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W80909535 title "Attitudes toward Everyday Odors for Children with Visual Impairments: A Pilot Study" @default.
• W80909535 cites W10892821 @default.
• W80909535 cites W1574806262 @default.
• W80909535 cites W1664867946 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2018597864 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2019330325 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2021298968 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2023977915 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2036073421 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2042675444 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2074322458 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2078173719 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2093718651 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2111004193 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2116359099 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2158257658 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2248547187 @default.
• W80909535 cites W2315433904 @default.
• W80909535 cites W4247254250 @default.
• W80909535 doi "https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482x1010400109" @default.
• W80909535 hasPublicationYear "2010" @default.
• W80909535 type Work @default.
• W80909535 sameAs 80909535 @default.
• W80909535 citedByCount "19" @default.
• W80909535 countsByYear W809095352015 @default.
• W80909535 countsByYear W809095352016 @default.
• W80909535 countsByYear W809095352017 @default.
• W80909535 countsByYear W809095352018 @default.
• W80909535 countsByYear W809095352019 @default.
• W80909535 countsByYear W809095352020 @default.
• W80909535 countsByYear W809095352021 @default.
• W80909535 countsByYear W809095352022 @default.
• W80909535 countsByYear W809095352023 @default.
• W80909535 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W80909535 hasAuthorship W80909535A5051696318 @default.
• W80909535 hasAuthorship W80909535A5060023704 @default.
• W80909535 hasAuthorship W80909535A5072940735 @default.
• W80909535 hasAuthorship W80909535A5075812435 @default.
• W80909535 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W80909535 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W80909535 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W80909535 hasConcept C180747234 @default.
• W80909535 hasConcept C2780929884 @default.
• W80909535 hasConcept C548259974 @default.
• W80909535 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W80909535 hasConceptScore W80909535C119767625 @default.
• W80909535 hasConceptScore W80909535C138496976 @default.
• W80909535 hasConceptScore W80909535C15744967 @default.
• W80909535 hasConceptScore W80909535C180747234 @default.
• W80909535 hasConceptScore W80909535C2780929884 @default.
• W80909535 hasConceptScore W80909535C548259974 @default.
• W80909535 hasConceptScore W80909535C71924100 @default.
• W80909535 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W80909535 hasLocation W809095351 @default.
• W80909535 hasLocation W809095352 @default.
• W80909535 hasLocation W809095353 @default.
• W80909535 hasOpenAccess W80909535 @default.
• W80909535 hasPrimaryLocation W809095351 @default.
• W80909535 hasRelatedWork W1968116410 @default.
• W80909535 hasRelatedWork W2016713905 @default.
• W80909535 hasRelatedWork W2030000401 @default.
• W80909535 hasRelatedWork W2052460212 @default.
• W80909535 hasRelatedWork W2064484569 @default.
• W80909535 hasRelatedWork W2092756134 @default.
• W80909535 hasRelatedWork W2150658094 @default.
• W80909535 hasRelatedWork W2334446790 @default.
• W80909535 hasRelatedWork W2983282696 @default.
• W80909535 hasRelatedWork W4241181729 @default.
• W80909535 hasVolume "104" @default.
• W80909535 isParatext "false" @default.
• W80909535 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W80909535 magId "80909535" @default.
• W80909535 workType "article" @default.