**What is Neuroaromatherapy?
What is Neuroaromatherapy?
Neuroaromatherapy is the study and application of how aromatic plant molecules interact with cellular receptors, ion channels and sensory systems, and how the resulting signalling influences the nervous system and its associated physiological, perceptual and behavioural responses.
It follows these interactions from the initial molecular interface through intracellular and downstream signalling, sensory transduction and neural pathways to central processing, examining how an aromatic stimulus can ultimately influence perception, autonomic function, emotional state and physiological regulation.
Context to The Piece
I’ve been reading the Summer 2026 article in Aromatherapy Times - The Journal of the International Federation of Aromatherapists - entitled The Brain Body Connection: Neuroaromatherapy, Massage and the Neuroscience of the Olfactory Somatosensory Integration.
It is a terrific article.
Well researched, interesting and great referencing.
I have no issues with it, except one…which is this:
“What is meant by the term: Neuroaromatherapy”?
I’m aware I probably sound obtuse, and I don’t mean to be contrary.
I fully understand how we got to the word; I understand their meaning in the article and even why it is used. But the fact remains that it is a made-up word, and when we make up a new word, surely, we need to explain what we mean by it, otherwise it might be misconstrued and/or maladapted.
In this instance of the word being used in the article, "neuroaromatherapy" is a heading that leads to an exposition of how we now have ways to see some of aromatherapy’s effects on the brain. In other words, when they use the term, they seem to be asking:
What happens neurologically when we use aromatherapy?
Which I agree is really interesting, but this is what I want to know.
If neuroaromatherapy is about nervous-system signalling, why would we artificially stop at olfaction? We do way more in practice than that.
As someone who has always written about clinical evidence from the labs, I would argue that the more rigorous question that neuroaromatherapy is capable of asking is:
What does the evidence about molecular and neural signalling allow an aromatherapist to deliberately do**?**
These are not the same proposition, and my proposed definition potentially goes some way to alleviate the present divorce between the brain and the body. This could be a foundational way to bring forth a fully conversant body-mind model, where the nervous system is shown to be right through the body rather than entirely inside the skull.
Essential oils interact with so much more than just the brain. Likewise neuroscience has more interests that than the brain also. So why don’t we use the term to explain those. If we are going to make up new words, (which I have no arguments against, incidentally, but...) they should be capable of heavy lifting and also be defined clearly so everyone knows what we mean when we write and say them.
I’d like to see this term better defined to move it from “essential oils have neurological effects” towards “ practitioners can use knowledge of molecular and neural signalling to make deliberate therapeutic choices.”
Previous Uses of The Term 'Neuroaromatherapy'
I’d first like to acknowledge that this is a term with an earlier commercial history. In 2007, Natura Bissé International, S.A. applied to register NEURO-AROMATHERAPY as a US trademark in connection with cosmetic products. The application was subsequently abandoned and did not result in a US federal registration. The term was also used commercially by the company in association with cosmetic formulations and claims concerning the sensory and neurophysiological effects of fragrance. Thus, this first naming was product based, and so therefore commodified into a product, rather than as a modality or practice. (The term was also hyphenated, so not quite the same, but close enough).
Two contemporary colleagues also use the term “neuroaromatherapist” to define their practice.
Robin Jones
Has evolved the term “neuroscience backed aromatherapy” to become “Neuroaromatherapy Expert” to sell her DoTerra AromaFemme™ container which combines somatic breathwork and essential oils, and The SomaAroma™ Technique, which she describes as her “proprietary neuro-aromatherapy technique”.
Tammy Lynn Davis
Uses the skills that she terms neuroaromatherapy to do many things, including supporting people living with addictions.
Notably, in one of her YT videos Davis states that in her model, neuroaromatherapy encompasses more than just inhalation, to encompass the integumentary system also. She talks about topical use of aromatherapy and how it works through the skin through olfactory receptors.
Neuroaromatherapy in the LLM Mind
On querying ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity and Gemini, none of them was able to come back with any instances of there being a definable use of the term. Each posited that it was probably that essential oils interacted with the brain. Which they do…but also…that’s just aromatherapy, right? This is supposed to be something bigger.
Summer 2026 AT IFA Member Magazine Edition 149 pp. 26-29
Since there is no author byline, I contacted Lauren Allen, editor of the Aromatherapy Times, whom I should acknowledge, and she asked that the article simply be attributed to the IFA.
Analysing the Use of the Term Neuroaromatherapy in the Aromatherapy Times
It is my argument that the way the Aromatherapy Times uses the term ‘neuroaromatherapy’ projects it as a far smaller study discipline than it could be described as being. This has happened partly because they have separated topics into sections that I don’t necessarily feel they needed to do.
In doing so, doorways to other modes of interactions and signalling have been inadvertently closed, thus narrowing the potential meaning of the modality.
The article’s abstract promises “this article reviews current research on neuroaromatherapy, explores the neurobiology of olfactory processing, examines findings of modern neuroimaging studies, and discusses future directions for understanding the interaction between aromatic compounds, massage and human neurophysiology”.
For the most part it does deliver, but it misses a vital opportunity to bring together more parts of aromatherapy than it does.
A Brief Breakdown of the Article
Section 1 of the argument is a description encompassing the statement “One of the most significant contemporary aromatherapy research is the emergence of neuroaromatherapy – a field that examines how aromatic functions brain function through olfactory pathways and neural networks.”
It then goes on to describe “signals from specialised olfactory receptors expressed on sensory neurons”, of which it says we have around 400.
We do, but not all of them are in the nose, some are in the skin for example…remember that, because we’ll come back to that in a moment.
Section 2 is the Neurobiology of Olfaction - Text book description.
A 10/10 answer to an exam question.
Section 3 should be the section we are interested in:
Neuroaromatherapy and Brain imagery.
A short section, it talks about how the effects of inhaling essential oils can be seen on EEGs and Functional MRI.
Since there is no explanation of what they deem neuroaromatherapy to be, it’s hard to know if this is their complete exposition of what neuroaromatherapy is, or whether this is one argument in a much larger picture.
But what I'd like to know is:
Why Does the Neuroaromatherapy Argument End Here?
As someone who has been writing about how essential oils interact with signalling pathways for a very long time, this transition from section 3 to 4 is where my issue is, because section 4 uses an argument that I would suggest could be easily adapted to show something neuroaromatherapeutic (which is how C-fibre nerves are affected), but the author puts down the thread of neuroaromatherapy to move across to talk about how these C fibres are affected by massage.
In other words, in section 3 they talk about neuroaromatherapy, then in section 4 they talk about something they deem to be only related to neuroaromatherapy…so not actually neuroaromatherapy, it would appear.
The British aromatherapy model puts aromatherapy and massage together, so for the author it likely made sense to compound the benefits of one with the benefits of the other.
But surely that truncates what I would argue that neuroaromatherapy could mean, which is not only how we see the effects shown on brain scans, but more astutely reading and analysing clinical evidence of what oils are capable of and actively trying to replicate that in practice.
Neuroaromatherapy As Whole-Body Practice
So, for example, if I were to look at choosing oils for someone suffering from pain, I might decide to tackle that through the CB2 receptor, which is observed to modulate immunity, inflammation and pain. Scientific evidence demonstrates beta-caryophyllene allosterically interacts with the CB2 receptor, which creates a neuroaromatherapeutic hypothesis that an oil rich in beta-caryophyllene might be helpful here.
Thus, I choose black pepper essential oil to work with.
This is the territory I am calling neuroaromatherapy.
Section 4 of the Aromatherapy Times Article speaks of Massage Therapy and Brain Function.
Again, it is beautifully written, this time about how “touch sensitive mechanoreceptors within the skin continually transmit information into the central nervous system.”
I agree, but I think moving over to massage kind of betrayed the neuroaromatherapy definition a bit, because this phrase “touch sensitive mechanoreceptors within the skin continually transmit information into the central nervous system” could also be an explanation of what happens when we apply cinnamon or peppermint essential oils onto the skin, for example…because these mechanoreceptors can also be activated by certain chemical constituents themselves.
If the definition of neuroaromatherapy were widened to speak of the practice as targeting “nervous system signalling”, then TRP channels enter the argument.
Mechanoreceptors and Chemosensors in Neuroaromatherapy
For those not clear, the family of TRP channels are both chemosensors and mechanoreceptors. Put very simplistically, they sense when someone is pinching you, or your handbag on your shoulder. They also sense other things like temperature, in foods or otherwise.
We should be clear that TRP channels are not strictly speaking neurological - they are ion channels - but through their downstream effects they do bring about neurological effects. I work with them in pain signalling, for example. When activated, TRP channels allow cations such as calcium and sodium into the cell to depolarise it, which then activates gated signals which in turn affect the nervous system. TRPV1, for example, has many jobs, including being a heat sensor. It’s what makes you feel like your head is going to be blown off when you eat a chilli. TRPM8 is a cold sensor, which menthol activates.
Activate them and downstream signalling - and those are the important words - downstream signalling can have analgesic effects.
Non Ordinary Olfactory Receptors
Now, if mechanoreceptors get a look in - which are by definition also chemo receptors - this would be the time to go back to the 400 olfactory receptor groups.
Yes, there are 400. But almost a quarter of them are not in the nose. They are…in other places, doing other things…
Like OR240T, an olfactory receptor expressed by specialist skin cells - keratinocytes. Research has shown that when this receptor is exposed to a synthetic version of santalol - a sandalwood chemical constituent, it initiates an intercellular process that leads to wound healing and hair regrowth.
Olfactory receptor - but potentially no change in brain waves - this happens on the skin.
So, if it cannot be measured on a brain scan, does that mean it is neuroaromatherapeutic?
I don’t think it does.
I think this definition needs to be wider than just the brain…because the nervous system is more than the brain. It moves out into the periphery, so the definition must encompass the periphery too.
Signalling. Not Lock and Key
That said, I think there is a need to be careful not to think too specifically that this is a ligand and receptor skill, because really then this becomes too much like a drug-related prescription with essential oils and I think our knowledge has evolved much further than that.
In the AT article, they use a great line in Section 2 in the Neurobiology of Olfaction, and it is this: “Signals generated by receptor activation travel to the olfactory bulb which serves as the first processing centre for olfactory information”. In other words, the ligand and receptor are just the beginning. It’s what that cascade can do from that first action that becomes important.
Receptors Need Not Be in The Nervous System for Scans to Show A Neurological Effect
Saliently, we might think of actions of essential oils on the insular cortex, a deep brain structure responsible for interoception, the sense of being able to sense your own body. It’s relevant to knowing you feel hungry, for instance.
Aromatherapy has great effects upon the insula. It is really well recorded, demonstrated and proven. Yet none of the studies give evidence of an essential oil constituent being found within the insula.
So, you might say, well, that’s a contradiction, then.
Both things can’t be true.
But they are.
Because the linalool, for example, is still in the nose. It’s generating signals that move along neurons to affect this centre that no constituent can get to.
Now that there, I would argue is a neuroaromatherapeutic effect.
This, I feel, is the gravity of the thing. That we understand what the oils do in the nervous system, not what they are, which in a world where AI is very conversant in what essential oils are, is a really important thing.
Thus, my description takes signalling as its centre of gravity and the fact it is the protocol of a therapist rather than a property of a commodified effect of an essential oil.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Comments