On Handshakes and Animal Behavior

AKA Olfactory Sampling

Non-human primates Mark Zuckerberg and Pope Francis shaking hands and about to smell each other's chemosignals once they start covertly raising their hands near their face in about 20 seconds from now.

After you shake someone's hand, you smell your own hand. Sometimes the shaking hand, and sometimes the opposite, depending on the gender match. They call it "olfactory sampling," but we call it "smelling your fingers," and despite its being in poor taste while in public view, we do it almost neurotically, albeit covertly -- so covertly that even we don't notice ourselves doing it. 

I'm surprised this didn't resurface at the outset of the pandemic when we were all paying so much attention to how often we touch our face. In fact, the authors set us up thus:

Consistent with previous studies (Nicas and Best, 2008), we observed that humans often bring their hands to their noses. Of 153 subjects, 85 (55.55%) touched their nose with their hand at least once during baseline before the greet. Idle subjects had a hand (either right or left) at the vicinity of their nose for 22.14% of the time. (that's a lot of time!)

But this isn't just about how you can't keep your own hands off yourself:

Whereas facial self-touching has been considered a form of displacement stress response (Troisi, 2002), akin to rodent grooming, the novel framework we propose here for this behavior is that of olfactory sampling.

In this really carefully controlled study, they videotaped  hundreds of people after shaking hands with a greeter at the lab, and even outfitted the subjects tubes near their nose to monitor their sniffing behavior. The results were "unequivocal," and remind us that we are in fact animals, sniffing up a storm:

We found that humans often sniff their own hands*, and selectively increase this behavior after handshake. After handshakes within gender, subjects increased sniffing of their own right shaking hand by more than 100%. In contrast, after handshakes across gender, subjects increased sniffing of their own left non-shaking hand by more than 100%. Tainting participants with unnoticed odors significantly altered the effects, thus verifying their olfactory nature. Thus, handshaking may functionally serve active yet subliminal social chemosignaling, which likely plays a large role in ongoing human behavior.

*For example, by touching their nose when they were in the room on their own; ... Criterion for scoring was any application of a hand to the face, as long as touching was under the eyebrows and above the chin; n=271 down to 153.

And later on in the report, things get even more complicated:

The body odor of some of the experimenters was tainted by perfumes or gender-specific odors. Volunteers who shook hands with these tainted individuals behaved differently; when the experimenter was tainted with perfume the volunteers spent more time sniffing their own hands, but when the experimenter was tainted with a gender-specific odor they spent less time sniffing of their own hands. This shows that different smells influenced the hand sniffing behavior of the volunteers.

Now that you know, you might notice yourself doing it constantly. What would be really interesting now would be to somehow get some anosmics up in the mix, maybe congenitally, maybe some recent long covid anosmics, and see how these numbers change?

Notes:

Frumin I, et al. [incl Noam Sobel] A social chemosignaling function for human handshaking. eLife. 2015 Mar 03;4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4345842/

Limbic Fitness and The Aging Brain

We all know that memory function decreases as we age. One of the ways in which this is evidenced is in the correlation between how much our eyes move and the brain activity that comes with it. You see grandpa's eyes skipping around the room, from one face to another, but he isn't recording any of it. (Exaggeration of course, depends how old he is, and his mental capacity.)

It's normal for people of all ages that the more we look at the same thing, the less and less brain activity there is in our memory-forming hippocampus. But in older folks, they can dart their eyes all over the place, and yet generate no information about what they see. No matter how many times they look at a thing, it can remain unfamiliar.

Despite the fact that smell is typically associated with airtight bear-trap memories, we can experience similar diminishing effects with our sense of smell. The relationship is so intimate that our olfactory perception is used to forecast dementia decades in advance.

It is certainly possible that your 60-year old self can be transported 50 years into the past by the mere wisp of familiar a molecule. But your 110-year old self will be less likely to transport so swiftly back to your 60's - the older we get, the less robust the memory-complex formed by each sensation.

This is covered pretty thoroughly in Hidden Scents. Olfaction, the limbic system and our episodic memory form a powerful complex of stored experience. But this system works less and less as we age-out of episodic memory and begin to rely more regularly on semantic memory for our day to day activities.

Episodic memories, i.e., the collection of feelings in your body during a particular episode in your life, are very powerful when recalled. Ironically, they cannot be recalled at will. They must come to us from outside, unlocked by a face, a voice, or a smell. The name of a friend from first grade doesn't do it. The smell of the inside of your first lunchbox, that'll do it.

You're way less likely to be brought to tears at the re-smelling of your first new car (if you were to somehow recreate that, or be so lucky as to be exposed to it later in life). Your dad's first new car - the one you got to ride in when you were 8 - smelling that might get emotional.

Notes:

Link between what we see and how we remember 'breaks' as we get older

Oct 2018, phys.org

Zhong-Xu Liu et al, Age-related changes in the relationship between visual exploration and hippocampal activity, Neuropsychologia (2018). DOI: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2018.07.032

Image source - link