Fig 1.
Distribution of groups of participants.
Table 1.
Demographic and clinical characteristics of participants.
Fig 2.
Mean threshold and identification scores in Depressed Bipolar (DB), Euthymic Bipolar (EB), Depressed Unipolar (DU), and Euthymic Unipolar (EU) patients compared to Healthy Controls (HC).
For each parameter, the means with the same letters are not significantly different at the 5% level of significance (Tukey test). Values in parentheses and error bars indicate standard deviation.
Fig 3.
Between-group comparisons of the number of correct identification responses for Positive (POS) and Negative (NEG) odors.
DB: depressed bipolar; EB: euthymic bipolar; DU: depressed unipolar; EU: euthymic unipolar; HC: healthy controls. For positive odors, values with the same letters are not significantly different at the 5% level of significance (Marascuilo procedure).
Table 2.
Mean scores (standard deviation) for the olfactory judgments (all odors) evaluated by Depressed Bipolar (DB), Euthymic Bipolar (EB), Depressed Unipolar (DU), Euthymic Unipolar (EU) patients compared to Healthy Controls (HC).
Fig 4.
Mean hedonic scores for the positive (NEG) and the negative (POS) odors.
DB: depressed bipolar; EB: euthymic bipolar; DU: depressed unipolar; EU: euthymic unipolar; HC: healthy controls. Means with the same letters are not significantly different at the 5% level of significance (Tukey test). Values in parentheses and error bars indicate standard deviation.
Fig 5.
Scatterplot for the correlation data.
Correlation between hedonic rating and clinical variables (Pearson coefficient).
Table 3.
Results of ROC analysis for all patients’ groups (DB, EB, DU and EU) and olfactory tests.