Search for: All records

Plasticity, the term we use to describe the ability of a nervous system to change with experience, is the evolutionary adaptation that freed animal behavior from the confines of genetic determinism. This capacity, which increases with brain complexity, is nowhere more evident than in vertebrates, especially mammals. Though the scientific study of brain plasticity dates back at least to the mid-19th century, the last several decades have seen unprecedented advances in the field afforded by new technologies. Olfaction is one system that has garnered particular attention in this realm because it is the only sensory modality with a lifelong supply of new neurons, from two niches no less! Here, we review some of the classical and contemporary literature dealing with the role of the stimulus or lack thereof in olfactory plasticity. We have restricted our comments to studies in mammals that have used dual tools of the field: stimulus deprivation and stimulus enrichment. The former manipulation has been implemented most frequently by unilateral naris occlusion and, thus, we have limited our comments to research using this technique. The work reviewed on deprivation provides substantial evidence of activity-dependent processes in both developing and adult mammals at multiple levels of the system from olfactory sensory neurons through to olfactory cortical areas. However, more recent evidence on the effects of deprivation also establishes several compensatory processes with mechanisms at every level of the system, whose function seems to be the restoration of information flow in the face of an impoverished signal. The results of sensory enrichment are more tentative, not least because of the actual manipulation: What odor or odors? At what concentrations? On what schedule? All of these have frequently not been sufficiently rationalized or characterized. Perhaps it is not surprising, then, that discrepant results are common in sensory enrichment studies. Despite this problem, evidence has accumulated that even passively encountered odors can “teach” olfactory cortical areas to better detect, discriminate, and more efficiently encode them for future encounters. We discuss these and other less-established roles for the stimulus in olfactory plasticity, culminating in our recommended “aspirations” for the field going forward. 

Abstract The effects of deprivation and enrichment on the electroolfactogram of mice were studied through the paradigms of unilateral naris occlusion and odor induction, respectively. Deprivation was shown to cause an increase in electroolfactogram amplitudes after 7 days. We also show that unilateral naris occlusion is not detrimental to the gross anatomical appearance or electroolfactogram of either the ipsilateral or contralateral olfactory epithelium even after year-long survival periods, consistent with our previous assumptions. Turning to induction, the increase in olfactory responses after a period of odor enrichment, could not be shown in CD-1 outbred mice for any odorant tried. However, consistent with classical studies, it was evident in C57BL/6J inbred mice, which are initially insensitive to isovaleric acid. As is the case for deprivation, enriching C57BL/6J mice with isovaleric acid causes an increase in their electroolfactogram response to this odorant over time. In several experiments on C57BL/6J mice, the odorant specificity, onset timing, recovery timing, and magnitude of the induction effect were studied. Considered together, the current findings and previous work from the laboratory support the counterintuitive conclusion that both compensatory plasticity in response to deprivation and induction in response to odor enrichment are caused by the same underlying homeostatic mechanism, the purpose of which is to preserve sensory information flow no matter the odorant milieu. This hypothesis, the detailed evidence supporting it, and speculations concerning human odor induction are discussed.