Smellspace and Olfactory White

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


White is a mixture, made by a combination of signals at equal intensity across a perceptual space. White light can be split up into all the colors of the visible spectrum, and white noise covers a range of frequencies within the audible range.

Our other senses don't have as clearly defined ranges of perception. We can't give a smell, a taste, or a texture a number the same way that a color or a tone can be defined by a wavelength, but a fascinating recent paper shows that by mixing many different smelly molecules at equal intensities, our perception of the odor will converge on "olfactory white."

The researchers created this strangely neutral smell from different mixtures of up to thirty odors, chosen from a set of 86 molecules that represent a wide range of the kinds of things that we can smell. Human "olfactory stimulus space" contains thousands of molecules, from the fragrant and floral to the putrid. We can distinguish and name many smells, but odors don't map neatly onto a one dimensional spectrum. Sampling the multidimensional stimulus space of odors requires a much more complicated mapping of the smell universe. The figure on the left shows the position of the 86 molecules within two maps of olfactory stimulus space. The first is based on the way that we perceive odors (perceptual space, A) and the second based on the chemical structures of the molecules (physicochemical space, B).


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The perceptual map is built with data from Dravnieks' Atlas of Odor Character Profiles of 144 different molecules. Each smell was compared by 150 professional noses against a list of 146 different odor descriptions like "fruity" "etherish" "decayed" or "seasoning for meat." This enormous multidimensional dataset represents the way that we experience and name olfactory space. Using principal component analysis this 146 dimensional space can be simplified into the two dimensional projection that represents the "distance" between the smells of the different odors in this space.

Physicochemical olfactory space is both more objective and more dense than the map of perceptual space, built from 1514 descriptions of the chemical structures of 1565 odorant molecules. These descriptions include things like the number of atoms, the presence or absence of specific chemical groups, and the weight and shapes of the molecules. The shape of a molecule isn't usually enough to predict its odor but there are some correlations that can be made between the 1514-dimensional space and other perceptual maps, based on professional descriptions or even brain activity.

Maps of brain, rodent olfactory bulb, or odor receptor activation in response to different odors represent a different kind of olfactory space, one mapped and coded in the structure of the sensory organs themselves. The activity map of the rat olfactory bulb for increasing concentrations of isoamyl acetate (banana smell) shows the regions of cells activating and sending signals to the brain saying "banana!"

I'm curious what these activity maps would look like for "white smell," although the authors suggest that the perception may not be caused by the wide activation that characterizes the perception of white light or white noise. Whereas white light equally activates the three color receptors of the eye, using electricity to stimulate the olfactory system leads to no sensation of smell at all rather than the "chemical" "fragrant" or "perfumey" scent of white smell.

These maps provide an interesting way to categorize and discuss smells, but the full extent of olfactory space remains unknown, ready for explorers to build more many-dimensioned maps of smell experiences. You can play around with the olfactory stimulus maps at the Sobel Lab website, look at the databases of rodent brain activity maps, and begin smelling the world more critically and enthusiastically today.

Christina Agapakis is a biologist, designer, and writer with an ecological and evolutionary approach to synthetic biology and biological engineering. Her PhD thesis projects at the Harvard Medical School include design of metabolic pathways in bacteria for hydrogen fuel production, personalized genetic engineering of plants, engineered photosynthetic endosymbiosis, and cheese smell-omics. With Oscillator and Icosahedron Labs she works towards envisioning the future of biological technologies and synthetic biology design.

More by Christina Agapakis

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe