Machine learning advances effort to crack the perceptual code

Four loko put a bird on it taxidermy fam you probably haven’t heard of them street art subway tile single-origin coffee craft beer master cleanse sriracha.

Something mysterious and remarkable resides in the sense of smell, most famously captured by the novelist Marcel Proust in The Remembrance of Things Past. 

In the years following its original publication, scientists were examining the mechanisms that gave rise to scent profiles such as lemon and rose. It was already known that visual and auditory perceptual qualities were not complete psychological constructions but tied to real and quantifiable properties of electromagnetic radiation. Early theories suggested, much like hearing and vision, that an odorant molecule bears an electromagnetic signature that interacts uniquely with sensory receptors in the nose. Like objects resonating at a specific, characteristic frequency, complementarity between the molecule and receptor progressively grew into a distinct perceptual experience (e.g. “rose” or “lemon”). More recent work has since challenged this quantum mechanical “resonance”-based explanation, however, this and other early theories treated olfactory coding as a tractable, scientific problem, which was a key development in shaping current day thinking. 

It now seems clear that factors such as molecular shape, functional groups, and additional physicochemical properties contribute to the initial interaction between an odorant molecule  and receptors in the nose. Given an acceptable fit between the key (the molecule) and lock (the receptor), the sensory neuron in the nose expressing the receptor passes an activity threshold, leading to a signaling cascade that ultimately terminates in the olfactory or piriform cortex where the final identity (rose, lemon, etc.) is assigned. Yet many nuances remain unclear such as how very subtle shape differences can result in wildly different perceptual experiences (Explanation Box 1)

Explanation Box 1: 

An challenge to a simple chemical structure-based explanation for odor coding is the perceptual variation observed among enantiomers. Enantiomers are mirror versions of a compound, pictured right for limonene. Conventional wisdom was that receptor logic simply could not resolve these slight structural variations and relay such distinct perceptual experiences. Yet there are many examples where enantiomers, though highly similar,  vary in their activity on receptors or proteins in general, with one partner among the pair possibly lacking biological activity altogether. What this suggests is that intuitively slight structural variation may seem negligible but it evidences an evolutionary history, going back potentially millions of years into the past. As such, it is not unexpected for minor structural or physicochemical variation to result in different perceptual experiences. 

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

    Leave Your Comment Here

    You cannot copy content of this page