Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Next Article in Journal
Chromosomal Instability in Genome Evolution: From Cancer to Macroevolution
Previous Article in Journal
Effectiveness and Durability of a Quaternary Ammonium Compounds-Based Surface Coating to Reduce Surface Contamination
You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 12
Issue 5
10.3390/biology12050670
biology-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Parameter Mapping Sonification of Human Olfactory Thresholds

by
Jean-Luc Boevé
1,* and
Rudi Giot
2
1
OD Taxonomy and Phylogeny, Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Rue Vautier 29, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
2
Research Laboratory in the Field of Arts and Sciences, Institut Supérieur Industriel de Bruxelles, Rue Royale 150, 1000 Brussels, Belgium
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2023, 12(5), 670; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12050670
Submission received: 15 February 2023 / Revised: 18 April 2023 / Accepted: 26 April 2023 / Published: 28 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sonification Algorithms for Biological Data Analysis)
Browse Figures
Figure 1
<p>Schematic representations of the causal relationships and correlations between elements dealing with volatile compounds studied by sonification in Boevé and Giot [<a href="#B12-biology-12-00670" class="html-bibr">12</a>] (<b>A</b>) and in this study (<b>B</b>). In (<b>B</b>), data about bioassay on humans were gathered from the literature. Datasets are mentioned in a box, ‘objects’ in a circle. (<b>A</b>) causal relationship is shown by an arrow, and a statistical correlation is shown by a thick bar. Notice that in (<b>A</b>), the insect secretion was tested on ants indirectly by confronting them with live insects. Gaz chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Molecular weight (MW). Standardized human olfactory threshold (SHOT). Peak sound pressure (Lpeak). For more information, see text.</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Screenshot of the layout interface used in an illustrative condition of parameter mapping by which chemical parameters are linked to sound parameters (green nodes). Letters and digits with a black background are added to the screenshot, as the mapping preset names refer to them in <a href="#biology-12-00670-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. By clicking the “Record All” (below, right), the Processing script performs a batch export of one audio file per molecule listed in a CSV file. For more information, see text.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Scatterplot and regression line of the SHOT d1 versus Lpeak values for 100 molecules. The molecules and their values are listed in <a href="#app1-biology-12-00670" class="html-app">Table S1</a>. The regression formula is Y = −34.474 + 1.9131 X.</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Peak sound pressure obtained by separately testing sound parameters. Five theoretical, small to large, molecules were created in a CSV file (named “setX”). They were used in parameter mapping conditions that included a reduced set of linking nodes. For more explanation, see text.</p> ">
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

It is challenging to deduce the bioactivity of volatile compounds from their chemical characteristics. We therefore previously used parameter mapping sonification to study volatiles secreted by some insects that repel predators. Chemical parameters from single volatiles were linked to sound parameters. The peak sound pressure values from the gathered audio clips contain information about the repellent effect of the compounds. Here, human olfactory thresholds were investigated. The volatiles were subjected to parameter mapping, and the results show that these thresholds are correlated with the peak sound pressures. More generally, the results illustrate that the sonification of volatiles helps to better understand their bioactivity.

Abstract

An objective of chemical ecology is to understand the chemical diversity across and within species, as well as the bioactivity of chemical compounds. We previously studied defensive volatiles from phytophagous insects that were subjected to parameter mapping sonification. The created sounds contained information about the repellent bioactivity of the volatiles, such as the repellence from the volatiles themselves when tested against live predators. Here, we applied a similar sonification process to data about human olfactory thresholds. Randomized mapping conditions were used and a peak sound pressure, Lpeak, was calculated from each audio file. The results indicate that Lpeak values were significantly correlated with the olfactory threshold values (e.g., rS = 0.72, t = 10.19, p < 0.001, Spearman rank-order correlation; standardized olfactory thresholds of 100 volatiles). Furthermore, multiple linear regressions used the olfactory threshold as a dependent variable. The regressions revealed that the molecular weight, the number of carbon and oxygen atoms, as well as the functional groups aldehyde, acid, and (remaining) double bond were significant determinants of the bioactivity, while the functional groups ester, ketone, and alcohol were not. We conclude that the presented sonification methodology that converts chemicals into sound data allows for the study of their bioactivities by integrating compound characteristics that are easily accessible.

1. Introduction

Living organisms produce a huge diversity of chemical compounds that are often used in defence against attacking predators. Defensive compounds constitute interspecific chemical signals that are adaptively beneficial to the emitter but not the receiver [1]. Chemical compounds with a defensive function occur in many plants and animals [2,3,4]. The high diversity of defensive chemicals throughout living organisms is manifest among different species, but also intra-specifically, as a species often emits a complex mixture of defensive compounds [5].
Volatiles acting as repellents, that is, at distance and through the olfactory sense [6], are often used by phytophagous insects against the attack of predators [1,7,8,9]. As a first application of sonification [10,11] to chemical ecology, several insect species belonging to a group of phytophagous hymenopterans, the nematines, were studied [12]. From the chemical profile of the defensive volatile secretions of these insects, each single compound, or molecule, was subjected to sonification, by which chemical parameters were converted into sound parameters (Figure 1). The single compound audio obtained in this way were combined into new, species-specific audio based on the relative concentration of each compound in the given species (not shown in Figure 1). The repellent effect of the single or mixed compounds was tested by bioassays on predatory ants, while both sets of corresponding audio were tested on humans. As a measure of loudness, or volume, the maximum peak reached by the sound pressure (Lpeak, in dB) was calculated from each audio. Testing correlations between Lpeak values and bioassay results revealed that both datasets are significantly positively correlated, which suggests that the audio clips contain information about the repellent bioactivity (Figure 1). Thus, practically speaking, testing audio on humans can be replaced by the more convenient process of measuring Lpeak values from the audio [12].
Any sonification process involves some subjectivity and arbitrary choices when assigning datasets to sound parameters. This is illustrated in many studies applying sonification to various scientific, technical, and societal domains: chemistry [13,14], genomics–proteomics–medicine [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23], animal migration [24], geographic data [25], climatic data [26], seismology [27,28], petroleum engineering [29], astronomy [30], mathematics [31], internet monitoring [32], market data [33], and vision impairment [34,35]. Those studies about (organic) chemistry show that sonification allows an efficient analysis of experimental data and a pattern recognition of chemical samples [13,14,18,20,22,23]. In neuroscience and cardiology, it allows a better monitoring of physiological activities than by statistical approaches [16,21].
Here, one aim was to better understand the pros and cons of the sonification methodology by studying a biological system other than insect predator–prey relationships. Bioassays of volatiles rarely involve numerous compounds tested in identical conditions on one species, an exception being volatiles tested on humans [36,37,38]. Our aim is to propose an alternative approach to the use of regression models to estimate the bioactivity of volatiles on humans [39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47]. These models involve variables such as the presence/absence of functional groups, such as aldehyde or acid, but also other variables that may be difficult to obtain from the literature on compounds rarely encountered in living organisms. More recent data modelling includes two-dimensional gas chromatography retention parameters [48] to determine pungency or irritation thresholds [43,44,49,50]. Here, the human olfactory thresholds of single molecules from Devos et al. [41] were compared with the Lpeak values obtained by the sonification of the same molecules (Figure 1). We reduced the degree of subjectivity by randomizing the mapping conditions. Furthermore, we tested sound parameters separately to evaluate their specific impact on the audio. By randomizing and gradually refining the mapping conditions, we succeeded in increasing the correlation strength between olfactory thresholds and Lpeak values.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Human Olfactory Threshold

As a bioactivity measure, the standardized human olfactory threshold (SHOT, in a log unit of ‘olfactory power’ that can be converted into ppm or ppb units) was acquired from a dataset of 529 molecules [41] based on more than 100 literature references. It includes for each molecule the following data: molecule name, synonyms, reference number, chemical formula, molecular weight (MW), and two SHOT values, viz. mass (d1) or volume (d2) weighted. In short, the higher a SHOT value, the easier the volatile is detected by the human nose. In the present study, the following additional data were gathered from PubChem [51] and other online sources [52]: the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registry number to resolve synonymy ambiguities of chemical names compared with those from its own data sources, and the functional groups. For statistical tests not directly related to the sonification, a first subset of 272 molecules was selected (Table S1). These molecules were mainly aliphatics, and they contained only carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen for some of them. For the sonification, a more restricted subset of 100 molecules was used, being listed in Devos et al. [41] and Abraham et al. [40]. The latter reference is based on Nagata [53] and others, who measured an odour detection threshold (ODT, in ppm, v/v, and negatively correlated with the SHOT) from which Abraham et al. [40] derived values of log (1/ODT).

2.2. Sonification

Working under MacOS Monterey (version 12), the sonification process was applied on single molecules. The chemical descriptors (Table S1) were linearly scaled to fit the general musical instrument digital interface (MIDI) specification, and subjected to a process of parameter mapping [11,25] by using the synthesizer Massive version 1.5.1 (R637) (Native Instruments, Berlin, Germany) and an application written in Processing version 2.2.1 (Processing Foundation, MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge, MA, USA) (Figure 2).
A single synthesizer’s preset sound was assigned to all molecules; it is close to the preset sound “Cloud N9” available in Massive. Only two chemical–sound links (i.e., nodes) were left unchanged throughout the study: a negative relationship was set between the number of carbon atoms in the molecule (1–12; ‘#C’) and the note pitch (MIDI note range of 108–33; see ‘Pitch’ in Figure 2) of the sound assigned to it; a positive relationship was set between the MW (30–170) of the molecule and the note duration (1–10 s; ‘Duration’) of the sound assigned to it. These two links were kept the same to reflect that smaller, compared with larger, molecules are more volatile, thus evaporating more rapidly, which we also linked to the perception of higher sound frequencies. The other chemical and sound parameters were linked together in various combinations across 50 settings to assess the statistical correlation of the resulting audio Lpeak values with the SHOT values (see later). The chemical parameters were the number of oxygen atoms (0–2; ‘#O’), acid groups (0–1; ‘f.ac’), aldehydes (0–1; ‘f.al’), double bonds (0–2; ‘f.db’; not part of other functional groups), esters (0–1; ‘f.es’), ketones (0–2; ‘f.ke’), and alcohols (0–1; ‘f.ol’). The sound parameters were the equalizer frequency (MIDI control 127–0, i.e., decreasing; ‘EQ-Freq’), feedback amplitude (0–127; ‘Feedback’), noise metallic amplitude (0–127; ‘Noise’), equalizer boost (0–64; ‘EQ-Boost’), modulation oscillator filter FM (0–127; ‘Modulation’), insert 1 hardclipper dry/wet (0–127; ‘Clip-DW’), and filter 2 high-pass 4 resonance (80–127; ‘HP-Reson’).
The recorded WAV sounds were gathered via the virtual audio driver BlackHole 16ch version 1.3.0.65 [54], a single batch record of 100 molecules lasting 40–50 min. Different mapping conditions were referred to by a code corresponding to the node positions, with letters “A” to “J” for the chemical parameters and numbers “1” to “9” for the sound parameters (Figure 2). For instance, A2-D1--C8-E3-F4-G6-H7-I5-J9 represents the mapping condition shown in Figure 2. Notice that the number of hydrogen atoms (“B”) was never used, since it is obviously correlated with the #C in organic compounds. As mentioned, we always used the two same nodes that connect the #C with pitch (A2), and the MW with duration (D1). For the seven other chemical parameters (“C”, “E”, “F”, “G”, “H”, “I”, and “J”), 24 assignments to sound parameters “3” to “9” were randomly selected for testing out of 5040 possible combinations; the assignments were randomized by using random functions in Excel. More specific mapping conditions were also tested.
A general workflow was applied as follows: Two CSV files contained the compound name and its chemical descriptors, one file for the 272 molecules, the other for the subset of 100 molecules (Table S1). The master volume of Massive was kept the same, the wheel cursor being positioned as it would be at 10:30 on an analogue clock. In the Processing script, “silence threshold” was set at −60 dB, “duration” at 5 s, and in the mapping interface, the volume was set at 35. A batch record of all 100 molecules led to as many WAV files. Each audio file was analyzed with another application written in Processing to calculate the Lpeak values that were then averaged over the left and right audio channels [12,55]. Overall, at least 5000 audio files were generated during the study.
To estimate the respective impact of each sound parameter on Lpeak, each one was tested separately. To this end, a CSV file contained five theoretical molecules with the following #C vs. MW values: 1 vs. 30, 3 vs. 65, 7 vs. 100, 10 vs. 135, and 12 vs. 170, respectively. The #C was mapped to ‘Pitch’ and MW to ‘Duration’. Audio was gathered with this simple mapping (“A2-D1”, see above) and then with a supplementary node that successively linked a third chemical parameter with each of the seven remaining sound parameters.

2.3. Statistical Analyses

Spearman rank-order correlations were tested and computed online [56] between the SHOT d1 values and the Lpeak values originating from the batch sonification of 100 molecules. The calculation was performed for each mapping condition. These association analyses were explorative in nature and used the same SHOT values throughout the correlation tests. The correlations were followed by the Holm’s sequential Bonferroni correction at significance level α = 0.05. Such Spearman correlations corrected for multiple testing were also performed between SHOT d1 vs. d2, d1 vs. Lpeak, and log (1/ODT) vs. Lpeak.
To assess the added value of the sonification process, the relationships among the chemical parameters, or variables, were modelled by multiple linear regressions (MLRs) using PAST version 4.09 [57]. SHOT d1 was considered as the dependent variable, the eight independent variables being the number of carbon atoms, oxygen atoms, and the functional groups: acid, aldehyde, ester, ketone, alcohol, and (remaining) double bond.

3. Results

Among 24 sonification batch runs selected randomly (except for the nodes “A2” and “D1”), 20 were significantly correlated with the SHOT d1 values, and five resulted in a Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rS) > 0.45 (Table 1, set01 to set24). In these five mapping conditions, the node “E3” occurred five times and “F4” three times. Therefore, 24 new conditions were selected randomly out of 120 possible combinations by keeping constant the nodes “A2”, “D1”, “E3”, and “F4” (Table 1, set26 to set30 plus set54 to set72). The 24 consequent correlations were all significant (p < 0.001, Spearman rank-order correlation; Table 1). A detailed survey of these 24 batches of 100 molecules revealed that Lpeak values tended to be equal or close to 0 dB for molecules containing an aldehyde. This suggested that the sound parameter Feedback, to which this function group was assigned, had a strong impact on the Lpeak values. By restricting the MIDI range of Feedback from 0 to 64 (instead of 0–127), all Lpeak data points had less than −10 dB (Figure 3), although the rS was not increased (see set57b and set73, Table 1). At the lowest dB values, two outliers were observed with less than −40 dB, which corresponded to the data point of methanol and methanal (Figure 3).
Significant correlations were obtained by comparing the bioactivity variables SHOT d1 with d2, SHOT d1 with Lpeak, and log (1/ODT) with Lpeak (Table 2).
Based on the list of 272 molecules, an MLR using SHOT as a dependent variable led to an overall significant regression (R2 = 0.43, F8.263 = 25.19, and p < 0.0001), yet excluding the independent variables ester, ketone, and alcohol (Table S2). In a following MLR, these three functional groups were discarded. Such a reduced model, containing only the number of carbon and oxygen atoms, as well as the functional groups acid, aldehyde, and double bond, still provided a significantly better fit than the null model (R2 = 0.42, F5.266 = 38.39, and p < 0.0001). Based on the subset of 100 molecules, a third MLR using these same dependent and five independent variables also resulted in a significant better fit than the null model (R2 = 0.54, F5.94 = 21.91, p < 0.0001) without excluding any of the independent variables (Table S2).
Testing the respective impact of each sound parameter on Lpeak revealed that Lpeak values were generally lower (<−30 dB) for the largest molecule compared with the smaller ones (Figure 4). The sound parameter ‘EQ-Freq’ was particular in that larger molecules led to high Lpeak values over −10 dB (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

Starting with a dataset about volatile compounds, a sonification process was performed by randomly selecting the parameter mapping conditions. Correlations were calculated between the values of Lpeak from the audio clips and the thresholds, SHOTs, at which humans perceive these volatiles. Relationships between chemical and bioactivity variables were already studied by other methodologies, but acquiring these variables often requires a bioassay series, advanced computing, and/or analytical chemistry [40,48,58]. In the present study, the highest achieved Spearman correlation coefficients (of 0.7) can be interpreted as moderate to nearly strong [59], and outliers were observed. However, interestingly, the overall (i.e., multiple) correlation coefficients from the MLRs reached a similar relationship strength, and the datapoint distribution on the scatterplot indicated no polynomiality. Thus, for the chemical variables considered here, an equivalent performance was reached by using Lpeak values resulting from the sonification process versus using classical statistics only, yet it should be possible to still enhance the relationship strength by further adapting the parameter mapping conditions. This way, and compared with the linear modelling approach, parameter mapping sonification would provide a better insight into the influence of chemical attributes on a bioactivity.
In chemical ecology, bioassays are used to obtain quantitative data about the effect of volatiles on organisms. For instance, rates of repellence are gathered from ants confronted to volatile vapours [1,8,9,60], while the SHOT values used here were gathered from humans detecting odours [53]. Screening volatiles by such experiments allows the ranking of their activity level. In this context, sonification is a complementary or alternative way to obtain comparative, quantitative data. Its advantage is that bioassays are less necessary; such experiments using living organisms may be difficult to set up [12]. More generally, the sonification of medical measures, biological and seismological data, etc., sometimes allows a better interpretation of raw data than via their visual representation that may be less informative [14,20], but listening to such sonified data often requires a preliminary auditory training of the operator [13,14,21]. A training is unwarranted for humans used in bioassays to test their response against volatiles, since they are “detectors” that react upon perceiving a chemical (or an auditory) stimulus, not “translators” that should interpretate the meaning of raw data obtained from analytical chemistry, physiology, or physics.
Reference [12] made three levels of arbitrary choices: (1) the assignment in Massive of a specific preset sound to each chemical class; (2) a general, preselected setting of the parameter mapping condition, on which most of the study relies, then randomizing the conditions to find those leading to higher correlation results; and (3) the mixing of molecule audio into a species audio, according to the relative chemical concentrations in the original insect secretion. Here, the first and third levels were not considered, the first one since the present sound was kept the same for all sonified molecules, and the third one because only single molecules were studied.
From the list of molecules analyzed by parameter mapping, the molecule with lowest #C was assigned to the sound with the highest frequency, and vice versa. In Boevé and Giot [12], the molecules had a #C from 2 to 29 and a MW from 32 to 425, while in the present study, these ranges were 1–12 and 30–170, respectively. Generally, any list of molecules may lead to a particular scaling between chemical and sound parameters, possibly causing the audio of identical molecules from different lists to sound at differing frequencies.
Results from the MLR statistics reveal that among the six functional groups, acid, aldehyde, double bond, ester, ketone, and alcohol, the last three ones can be considered as dispensable, although all six were used in the Spearman correlations between Lpeak versus SHOT and log (1/ODT). Furthermore, the MW of organic molecules is obviously correlated with their #C. Therefore, only the second variable was used in MLRs, while both variables were kept in the sonification. This is because we consider parameter mapping as resulting in audio characteristics that are not properly inferable from a particular chemical parameter. In fact, each distinct sound parameter influenced Lpeak differently, and in a variable way depending on sound frequency (determined by the MW). In contrast to sound frequency (pitch) and duration, the Lpeak, as a measure of sound loudness, was not directly mapped with a chemical trait, although ‘EQ-Freq’ taken alone increased the Lpeak values. The sound parameters that were used together in parameter mapping appear to have intertwined effects that may be difficult to predict, thus requiring a trial-and-error strategy to improve the sonification effectiveness.
In our research, volatiles were not tested for their hedonic perception (i.e., as pleasant versus unpleasant), but detectability and repellent properties. Nevertheless, a next step in the sonification approach of volatiles may be to start with floral bouquets. The audio should then be tested on humans in an adapted experimental setup. An example might be testing human panellists for a sensory evaluation by which they rate the audio (un)pleasantness. Such a setup would also include a combination of sound parameters other than Lpeak to quantify the pleasantness of odour perception via sound traits such as pitch [61] or rhythm [15]. This sonification approach needs to be phased in, distinguishing between chemical attributes of single volatiles and relative concentrations in mixtures of volatiles. Still another application of the sonification described here would be to test feeding deterrent compounds, acting on gustation, that are probably even more diversified in nature than volatiles.

5. Conclusions

Sonification is a heuristic technique that presents new perspectives in data representation, interpretation, and understanding. Here, we showed that parameter mapping between chemical attributes of volatiles and sound parameters leads to estimating the level of olfactory perception of those chemicals by humans. Sonification is constrained, as are other modelling systems [35,39,40,43,44,45,46], by the specific settings involved in its implementation. In this context, the stepwise enhancement of mapping conditions by the setting of randomized chemical–sound nodes resulted gradually in sounds that more reliably reflect the volatile bioactivity. However, we are aware that the bivariate plot graph included more than one outlier, and that the strength of the correlations between the sound trait Lpeak with the human olfactory threshold remained relatively weak. Whether the chemical–sound correspondence can be further enhanced by omitting some chemical attributes and/or by adding new ones, thus also adding new sound parameters, requires further investigation.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/biology12050670/s1, Table S1: Descriptors and bioactivities of the molecules used in the study; Table S2: Statistical results from multiple linear regressions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.-L.B.; methodology, J.-L.B.; software, R.G.; validation, J.-L.B.; formal analysis, J.-L.B.; investigation, J.-L.B.; resources, J.-L.B.; data curation, J.-L.B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.-L.B.; writing—review and editing, J.-L.B. and R.G.; visualization, J.-L.B.; supervision, J.-L.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The Massive preset sound used in this study has a proprietary format. This preset sound and the audio clips produced in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Similar audios are available as MP3 files from Freesound: https://freesound.org/people/jlboeve/packs/30377/ (accessed on 14 February 2023). The two Processing scripts are published [12].

Acknowledgments

We warmly thank Carl Vangestel (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, RBINS, Brussels, Belgium) for useful advice about the MLR statistics, as well as Carl Vangestel, Thierry Backeljau (RBINS), Jacques M. Pasteels (Rhode-Saint-Genèse, Belgium), and Herbert R. Jacobson (Chico, California) for pertinent comments on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pasteels, J.M.; Grégoire, J.-C.; Rowell-Rahier, M. The chemical ecology of defense in arthropods. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1983, 28, 263–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Bhakuni, D.S.; Rawat, D.S. Bioactive Marine Natural Products; Springer & Anamaya: New York, NY, USA; New Delhi, India, 2005; ISBN 978-1-4020-3472-5. [Google Scholar]
  3. Buckingham, J. Dictionary of Natural Products on CD-ROM, Version 15.1; Chapman & Hall/CRC: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007.
  4. Muller-Schwarze, D. Chemical Ecology of Vertebrates, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2006; ISBN 978-0-521-36377-8. [Google Scholar]
  5. Eisner, T.; Eisner, M.; Siegler, M. Secret Weapons: Defenses of Insects, Spiders, Scorpions, and Other Many-Legged Creatures; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005; ISBN 978-0-674-02403-8. [Google Scholar]
  6. Miller, J.R.; Siegert, P.Y.; Amimo, F.A.; Walker, E.D. Designation of chemicals in terms of the locomotor responses they elicit from insects: An update of Dethier et al. (1960). J. Econ. Entomol. 2009, 102, 2056–2060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ruxton, G.D.; Sherratt, T.N.; Speed, M.P. Avoiding Attack. The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals, and Mimicry; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2004; ISBN 978-0-19-852860-9. [Google Scholar]
  8. Whitman, D.W.; Blum, M.R.; Alsop, D.W. Allomones: Chemicals for defense. In Insect Defenses: Adaptive Mechanisms and Strategies of Prey and Predators; Evans, D.L., Schmidt, J.O., Eds.; State University of New York Press: Albany, NY, USA, 1990; pp. 289–351. [Google Scholar]
  9. Whittaker, R.H.; Feeny, P.P. Allelochemics: Chemical interactions between species. Science 1971, 171, 757–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Barrass, S.; Kramer, G. Using sonification. Multimed. Syst. 1999, 7, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Grond, F.; Berger, J. Parameter mapping sonification. In The Sonification Handbook; Hermann, T., Hunt, A., Neuhoff, J.G., Eds.; Logos Publishing House: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 363–397. ISBN 978-3-8325-2819-5. [Google Scholar]
  12. Boevé, J.-L.; Giot, R. Chemical composition: Hearing insect defensive volatiles. Patterns 2021, 2, 100352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Delatour, T. Molecular music: The acoustic conversion of molecular vibrational spectra. Comput. Music J. 2010, 24, 48–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Yeung, E. Pattern recognition by audio representation of multivariate analytical data. Anal. Chem. 1980, 52, 1120–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Baier, G.; Hermann, T. Sonification: Listen to brain activity. In Music That Works–Contributions of Biology, Neurophysiology, Psychology, Sociology, Medicine and Musicology; Haas, R., Brandes, V., Eds.; Springer: Wien, Austria; New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 11–23. [Google Scholar]
  16. Bidelman, G.M. Sonification of scalp-recorded frequency-following responses (FFRs) offers improved response detection over conventional statistical metrics. J. Neurosci. Methods 2018, 293, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Buehler, M.J. Nanomechanical sonification of the 2019-nCoV coronavirus spike protein through a materiomusical approach. arXiv 2020, arXiv:2003.14258. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bywater, R.P.; Middleton, J.N. Melody discrimination and protein fold classification. Heliyon 2016, 2, e00175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Carey, J. Musical genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 1958–1959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Garcia-Ruiz, M.A.; Gutierrez-Pulido, J.R. An overview of auditory display to assist comprehension of molecular information. Interact. Comput. 2006, 18, 853–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Kather, J.N.; Hermann, T.; Bukschat, Y.; Kramer, T.; Schad, L.R.; Zöllner, F.G. Polyphonic sonification of electrocardiography signals for diagnosis of cardiac pathologies. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 44549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Staege, M.S. A short treatise concerning a musical approach for the interpretation of gene expression data. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 15281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Temple, M.D. An auditory display tool for DNA sequence analysis. BMC Bioinform. 2017, 18, e221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hegg, J.C.; Middleton, J.; Robertson, B.L.; Kennedy, B.P. The sound of migration: Exploring data sonification as a means of interpreting multivariate salmon movement datasets. Heliyon 2018, 4, e00532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Schito, J.; Fabrikant, S.I. Exploring maps by sounds: Using parameter mapping sonification to make digital elevation models audible. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2018, 32, 874–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. George, S.S.; Crawford, D.; Reubold, T.; Giorgi, E. Making climate data sing: Using music-like sonifications to convey a key climate record. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2017, 98, 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Avanzo, S.; Barbera, R.; De Mattia, F.; La Rocca, G.; Sorrentino, M.; Vicinanza, D. Data sonification of volcano seismograms and sound/timbre reconstruction of ancient musical instruments with grid infrastructures. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2010, 1, 397–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Paté, A.; Boschi, L.; Carrou, J.-L.L.; Holtzman, B. Categorization of seismic sources by auditory display: A blind test. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 2016, 85, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kadkhodaie, A.; Rezaee, R. Have you ever heard the sound of well logs or reservoir data? J. Pet. Sci. Eng. 2017, 156, 340–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Misdariis, N.; Özcan, E.; Grassi, M.; Pauletto, S.; Barrass, S.; Bresin, R.; Susini, P. Sound experts’ perspectives on astronomy sonification projects. Nat. Astron. 2022, 6, 1249–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cullen, C. The Sonic Representation of Mathematical Data. Ph.D. Thesis, Dublin Institute of Technology, Dublin, Ireland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  32. Axon, L.; Happa, J.; Goldsmith, M.; Creese, S. Hearing attacks in network data: An effectiveness study. Comput. Secur. 2019, 83, 367–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Worrall, D. Using sound to identify correlations in market data. In Proceedings of the CMMR/ICAD 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark, 18–22 May 2009; Ystad, S., Aramaki, M., Kronland-Martinet, R., Jensen, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; Volume 5954 LNCS, pp. 202–218. [Google Scholar]
  34. Geronazzo, M.; Bedin, A.; Brayda, L.; Campus, C.; Avanzini, F. Interactive spatial sonification for non-visual exploration of virtual maps. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2016, 85, 4–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Martínez, B.D.; Villegas, O.O.; Sánchez, V.G.; de Jesús Ochoa Domínguez, H.; Maynez, L.O. Visual perception substitution by the auditory sense. In Computational Science and Its Applications; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 522–533. [Google Scholar]
  36. Heinsohn, R.J.; Cimbala, J.M.; Heinsohn, R.J. Indoor Air Quality Engineering: Environmental Health and Control of Indoor Pollutants; Marcel Dekker: New York, NY, USA, 2003; ISBN 978-0-8247-4061-0. [Google Scholar]
  37. Maroni, M.; Seifert, B.; Lindvall, T. (Eds.) Indoor Air Quality: A Comprehensive Reference Book; Air Quality Monographs; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands; New York, NY, USA, 1995; ISBN 978-0-444-81642-9. [Google Scholar]
  38. Salthammer, T.; Uhde, E. (Eds.) Organic Indoor Air Pollutants: Occurrence, Measurement, Evaluation; Wiley-VCH: Weinheim, Germany; New York, NY, USA, 1999; ISBN 978-3-527-29622-4. [Google Scholar]
  39. Abraham, M.H.; Sánchez-Moreno, R.; Gil-Lostes, J.; Acree, W.E., Jr.; Cometto-Muñiz, J.E.; Cain, W.S. The biological and toxicological activity of gases and vapors. Toxicol. Vitro 2010, 24, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Abraham, M.H.; Sánchez-Moreno, R.; Cometto-Muñiz, J.E.; Cain, W.S. An algorithm for 353 odor detection thresholds in humans. Chem. Senses 2012, 37, 207–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Devos, M.; Patte, F.; Rouault, J.; Laffort, P. Standardized Human Olfactory Thresholds; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2011; ISBN 978-0-19-963146-9. [Google Scholar]
  42. van Gemert, L.J. Odour threshold values in air. In Odour Thresholds. Compilations of Odour Threshold Values in Air, Water and Other Media; Oliemans Punter & Partners BV: Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2011; pp. 11–206. ISBN 978-90-810894-0-1. [Google Scholar]
  43. Alarie, Y.; Schaper, M.; Nielsen, G.D.; Abraham, M.H. Structure-activity relationships of volatile organic chemicals as sensory irritants. Arch. Toxicol. 1998, 72, 125–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Abraham, M.H.; Sanchez-Moreno, R.; Gil-Lostes, J.; Cometto-Muñiz, J.E.; Cain, W.S. Physicochemical modeling of sensory irritation in humans and experimental animals. In Toxicology of the Nose and Upper Airways; Morris, J.B., Shusterman, D.J., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010; pp. 390–403. ISBN 978-0-429-14066-2. [Google Scholar]
  45. Cometto-Muñiz, J.E.; Abraham, M.H. Odor Detection by Humans of Lineal Aliphatic Aldehydes and Helional as Gauged by Dose–Response Functions. Chem. Senses 2010, 35, 289–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cometto-Muñiz, J.E.; Abraham, M.H. Structure–activity relationships on the odor detectability of homologous carboxylic acids by humans. Exp. Brain Res. 2010, 207, 75–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Abraham, M.H.; Acree, W.E.; Cometto-Muñiz, J.E. Descriptors for terpene esters from chromatographic and partition measurements: Estimation of human odor detection thresholds. J. Chromatogr. A 2020, 1609, 460428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Aakash, A.; Nabi, D. Reliable prediction of sensory irritation threshold values of organic compounds using new models based on linear free energy relationships and GC × GC retention parameters. Chemosphere 2023, 313, 137339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Cometto-Muñiz, J.E.; Cain, W.S. Thresholds for odor and nasal pungency. Physiol. Behav. 1990, 48, 719–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Cometto-Muñiz, J.E.; Cain, W.S. Nasal pungency, odor, and eye irritation thresholds for homologous acetates. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 1991, 39, 983–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Kim, S.; Chen, J.; Cheng, T.; Gindulyte, A.; He, J.; He, S.; Li, Q.; Shoemaker, B.A.; Thiessen, P.A.; Yu, B.; et al. PubChem in 2021: New data content and improved web interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021, 49, D1388–D1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lide, D.R. Physical constants of organic compounds. In CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 89th ed.; (Internet Version 2009); CRC Press: Taylor, TX, USA; Francis, UT, USA; Boca Raton, FL, USA; pp. 3:1–523. ISBN 978-1-4200-6679-1.
  53. Nagata, Y. Measurement of odor threshold by triangle odor bag method. In Odor Measurement Review; Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan: Tokyo, Japan, 2003; pp. 118–127. [Google Scholar]
  54. Roth, D. BlackHole. Available online: https://existential.audio/blackhole/2021 (accessed on 14 January 2022).
  55. Boulanger, R.; Lazzarini, V. The Audio Programming Book; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; ISBN 978-0-262-01446-5. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lowry, R. VassarStats: Website for Statistical Computation. Available online: http://vassarstats.net/ (accessed on 21 January 2023).
  57. Hammer, O.; Harper, D.A.T.; Ryan, P.D. PAST: Paleontological statistics software package for education and data analysis. Palaeontol. Electron. 2001, 4, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  58. Lee, B.K.; Mayhew, E.J.; Sanchez-Lengeling, B.; Wei, J.N.; Qian, W.W.; Little, K.; Andres, M.; Nguyen, B.B.; Moloy, T.; Parker, J.K.; et al. A Principal Odor Map Unifies Diverse Tasks in Human Olfactory Perception. BioRxiv 2022, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Akoglu, H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 18, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Boevé, J.-L.; Pasteels, J.M. Modes of defense in nematine sawfly larvae. Efficiency against ants and birds. J. Chem. Ecol. 1985, 11, 1019–1036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Belkin, K.; Martin, R.; Kemp, S.E.; Gilbert, A.N. Auditory pitch as a perceptual analogue to odor quality. Psychol. Sci. 1997, 8, 340–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Biology 12 00670 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic representations of the causal relationships and correlations between elements dealing with volatile compounds studied by sonification in Boevé and Giot [12] (A) and in this study (B). In (B), data about bioassay on humans were gathered from the literature. Datasets are mentioned in a box, ‘objects’ in a circle. (A) causal relationship is shown by an arrow, and a statistical correlation is shown by a thick bar. Notice that in (A), the insect secretion was tested on ants indirectly by confronting them with live insects. Gaz chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Molecular weight (MW). Standardized human olfactory threshold (SHOT). Peak sound pressure (Lpeak). For more information, see text.
Figure 1. Schematic representations of the causal relationships and correlations between elements dealing with volatile compounds studied by sonification in Boevé and Giot [12] (A) and in this study (B). In (B), data about bioassay on humans were gathered from the literature. Datasets are mentioned in a box, ‘objects’ in a circle. (A) causal relationship is shown by an arrow, and a statistical correlation is shown by a thick bar. Notice that in (A), the insect secretion was tested on ants indirectly by confronting them with live insects. Gaz chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Molecular weight (MW). Standardized human olfactory threshold (SHOT). Peak sound pressure (Lpeak). For more information, see text.
Biology 12 00670 g001
Biology 12 00670 g002 550
Figure 2. Screenshot of the layout interface used in an illustrative condition of parameter mapping by which chemical parameters are linked to sound parameters (green nodes). Letters and digits with a black background are added to the screenshot, as the mapping preset names refer to them in Table 1. By clicking the “Record All” (below, right), the Processing script performs a batch export of one audio file per molecule listed in a CSV file. For more information, see text.
Figure 2. Screenshot of the layout interface used in an illustrative condition of parameter mapping by which chemical parameters are linked to sound parameters (green nodes). Letters and digits with a black background are added to the screenshot, as the mapping preset names refer to them in Table 1. By clicking the “Record All” (below, right), the Processing script performs a batch export of one audio file per molecule listed in a CSV file. For more information, see text.
Biology 12 00670 g002
Biology 12 00670 g003 550
Figure 3. Scatterplot and regression line of the SHOT d1 versus Lpeak values for 100 molecules. The molecules and their values are listed in Table S1. The regression formula is Y = −34.474 + 1.9131 X.
Figure 3. Scatterplot and regression line of the SHOT d1 versus Lpeak values for 100 molecules. The molecules and their values are listed in Table S1. The regression formula is Y = −34.474 + 1.9131 X.
Biology 12 00670 g003
Biology 12 00670 g004 550
Figure 4. Peak sound pressure obtained by separately testing sound parameters. Five theoretical, small to large, molecules were created in a CSV file (named “setX”). They were used in parameter mapping conditions that included a reduced set of linking nodes. For more explanation, see text.
Figure 4. Peak sound pressure obtained by separately testing sound parameters. Five theoretical, small to large, molecules were created in a CSV file (named “setX”). They were used in parameter mapping conditions that included a reduced set of linking nodes. For more explanation, see text.
Biology 12 00670 g004
Table
Table 1. Mapping conditions and statistical results obtained by comparing human olfactory thresholds with gathered peak sound pressures. Each mapping condition with a reference code (set) was applied to 100 molecules by running the Processing application (Figure 2). Part of the mapping nodes was determined randomly (mapping goal). Lpeak values were calculated from the resulting audio. These values were then statistically compared with the SHOT d1 values, using the Spearman rank-order correlations with p values (p), two-tailed, at α = 0.05. Sample size (n); Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rS); size of difference relative to variation in the sample data (t). The p values remaining statistically significant after Holm’s sequential Bonferroni correction are given in bold. For more explanation, see text.
Table 1. Mapping conditions and statistical results obtained by comparing human olfactory thresholds with gathered peak sound pressures. Each mapping condition with a reference code (set) was applied to 100 molecules by running the Processing application (Figure 2). Part of the mapping nodes was determined randomly (mapping goal). Lpeak values were calculated from the resulting audio. These values were then statistically compared with the SHOT d1 values, using the Spearman rank-order correlations with p values (p), two-tailed, at α = 0.05. Sample size (n); Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rS); size of difference relative to variation in the sample data (t). The p values remaining statistically significant after Holm’s sequential Bonferroni correction are given in bold. For more explanation, see text.
SetMapping ConditionMapping GoalrStp
set01A2-D1--C3-E7-F4-G5-H8-I6-J9random C E F G H I J0.15291.530.129
set02A2-D1--C5-E3-F6-G7-H9-I4-J8random C E F G H I J0.4655.2<0.001
set03A2-D1--C6-E3-F8-G4-H7-I5-J9random C E F G H I J0.47385.33<0.001
set04A2-D1--C4-E9-F6-G5-H3-I7-J8random C E F G H I J0.31943.340.001
set05A2-D1--C4-E5-F8-G6-H7-I9-J3random C E F G H I J0.25142.570.012
set06A2-D1--C8-E3-F6-G7-H9-I4-J5random C E F G H I J0.35723.79<0.001
set07A2-D1--C6-E3-F4-G7-H5-I8-J9random C E F G H I J0.465.13<0.001
set08A2-D1--C5-E6-F3-G7-H9-I8-J4random C E F G H I J0.20482.070.041
set09A2-D1--C7-E3-F4-G9-H8-I5-J6random C E F G H I J0.52126.04<0.001
set10A2-D1--C3-E7-F6-G4-H5-I8-J9random C E F G H I J0.09170.910.365
set11A2-D1--C9-E3-F8-G7-H6-I5-J4random C E F G H I J0.27182.80.006
set12A2-D1--C7-E8-F5-G3-H4-I6-J9random C E F G H I J0.38744.16<0.001
set13A2-D1--C4-E7-F3-G8-H9-I5-J6random C E F G H I J0.24242.470.015
set14A2-D1--C4-E3-F5-G8-H6-I7-J9random C E F G H I J0.42464.64<0.001
set15A2-D1--C3-E7-F8-G4-H9-I5-J6random C E F G H I J−0.0325−0.320.750
set16A2-D1--C9-E4-F3-G5-H6-I8-J7random C E F G H I J0.26132.680.009
set17A2-D1--C8-E7-F9-G3-H4-I5-J6random C E F G H I J0.1861.870.064
set18A2-D1--C5-E9-F4-G6-H7-I8-J3random C E F G H I J0.39534.26<0.001
set19A2-D1--C7-E3-F9-G6-H4-I5-J8random C E F G H I J0.28252.920.004
set20A2-D1--C9-E4-F3-G5-H6-I7-J8random C E F G H I J0.32833.440.001
set21A2-D1--C3-E7-F4-G6-H5-I8-J9random C E F G H I J0.23062.350.021
set22A2-D1--C6-E4-F8-G7-H9-I5-J3random C E F G H I J0.44564.93<0.001
set23A2-D1--C5-E3-F8-G6-H7-I9-J4random C E F G H I J0.40134.34<0.001
set24A2-D1--C9-E3-F4-G6-H5-I8-J7random C E F G H I J0.58927.22<0.001
set26A2-D1--C9-E3-F4-G7-H5-I8-J6random C G H I J0.57897.03<0.001
set27A2-D1--C5-E3-F4-G7-H8-I6-J9random C G H I J0.60497.52<0.001
set28A2-D1--C6-E3-F4-G5-H7-I8-J9random C G H I J0.56816.83<0.001
set29A2-D1--C5-E3-F4-G7-H9-I6-J8random C G H I J0.6638.77<0.001
set30A2-D1--C5-E3-F4-G9-H6-I8-J7random C G H I J0.50955.86<0.001
set54A2-D1--C9-E3-F4-G7-H6-I5-J8random C G H I J0.59517.33<0.001
set55A2-D1--C7-E3-F4-G5-H6-I8-J9random C G H I J0.57116.89<0.001
set56A2-D1--C9-E3-F4-G6-H7-I8-J5random C G H I J0.64618.38<0.001
set57A2-D1--C8-E3-F4-G6-H7-I5-J9random C G H I J0.713810.09<0.001
set58A2-D1--C7-E3-F4-G8-H9-I5-J6random C G H I J0.55396.59<0.001
set59A2-D1--C6-E3-F4-G8-H7-I9-J5random C G H I J0.44354.9<0.001
set60A2-D1--C5-E3-F4-G6-H7-I8-J9random C G H I J0.63068.04<0.001
set61A2-D1--C6-E3-F4-G5-H7-I9-J8random C G H I J0.52826.16<0.001
set62A2-D1--C5-E3-F4-G8-H9-I7-J6random C G H I J0.52026.03<0.001
set63A2-D1--C7-E3-F4-G8-H6-I9-J5random C G H I J0.48225.45<0.001
set64A2-D1--C9-E3-F4-G7-H5-I6-J8random C G H I J0.6488.42<0.001
set65A2-D1--C5-E3-F4-G9-H6-I7-J8random C G H I J0.51555.96<0.001
set66A2-D1--C5-E3-F4-G6-H7-I9-J8random C G H I J0.60627.55<0.001
set67A2-D1--C5-E3-F4-G7-H6-I9-J8random C G H I J0.44924.98<0.001
set68A2-D1--C6-E3-F4-G5-H9-I7-J8random C G H I J0.50615.81<0.001
set69A2-D1--C9-E3-F4-G6-H5-I7-J8random C G H I J0.61927.81<0.001
set70A2-D1--C6-E3-F4-G8-H9-I7-J5random C G H I J0.35213.72<0.001
set71A2-D1--C8-E3-F4-G5-H7-I6-J9random C G H I J0.717210.19<0.001
set72A2-D1--C7-E3-F4-G5-H8-I9-J6random C G H I J0.5025.75<0.001
set57bA2-D1--C8-E3-F4-G6-H7-I5-J9set57 but Feedback 0–640.64798.42<0.001
set73A2-D1--C8-E3-F4-G5-H7-I6-J9set71 but Feedback 0–640.51365.93<0.001
Table
Table 2. Correlations between bioactivity datasets. Results from Spearman rank-order correlations with p values (p), two-tailed, at α = 0.05. Sample size (n); Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rS); size of difference relative to variation in the sample data (t); and degrees of freedom (df). The three p values remained significant after Holm’s sequential Bonferroni correction. The variables refer to Table S1. The second listed comparison, SHOT d1 vs. Lpeak, refers to ‘set57b’ in Table 1 and is illustrated in Figure 3.
Table 2. Correlations between bioactivity datasets. Results from Spearman rank-order correlations with p values (p), two-tailed, at α = 0.05. Sample size (n); Spearman’s correlation coefficient (rS); size of difference relative to variation in the sample data (t); and degrees of freedom (df). The three p values remained significant after Holm’s sequential Bonferroni correction. The variables refer to Table S1. The second listed comparison, SHOT d1 vs. Lpeak, refers to ‘set57b’ in Table 1 and is illustrated in Figure 3.
Variable ComparisonnrStdfp
SHOT d1 vs. SHOT d22720.985896.622705 × 10−7
SHOT d1 vs. Lpeak1000.64798.4298<1 × 10−6
Log(1/ODT) vs. Lpeak1000.68379.2798<1 × 10−6
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Boevé, J.-L.; Giot, R. Parameter Mapping Sonification of Human Olfactory Thresholds. Biology 2023, 12, 670. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12050670

AMA Style

Boevé J-L, Giot R. Parameter Mapping Sonification of Human Olfactory Thresholds. Biology. 2023; 12(5):670. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12050670

Chicago/Turabian Style

Boevé, Jean-Luc, and Rudi Giot. 2023. "Parameter Mapping Sonification of Human Olfactory Thresholds" Biology 12, no. 5: 670. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12050670

APA Style

Boevé, J. -L., & Giot, R. (2023). Parameter Mapping Sonification of Human Olfactory Thresholds. Biology, 12(5), 670. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology12050670

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop