ArticleBrain sciences2022
Your Money or Your Sense of Smell? A Comparative Analysis of the Sensory and Psychological Value of Olfaction.
Article in Brain sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Losing Your Sense of Smell: It Can Be Worse than Imagined. Comment on Becht et al. Losing Your Sense of Smell: How Bad Is It?-A Comparative Study on the Personal Importance of Smell.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Losing Your Sense of Smell: How Bad Is It?-A Comparative Study on the Personal Importance of Smell.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- As a phenomenon: Ramadan fasting improves olfactory performance.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- The olfactory diary: Tracking awareness and consciousness of the sense of smell throughout the day.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2024Article
- Nature and human well-being: The olfactory pathway.Science advances · 2024Review
- Chemosensory Dysfunction in Long-Term COVID-19 Assessed by Self-Reported and Direct Psychophysical Methods.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A three-factor benefits framework for understanding consumer preference for scented household products: psychological interactions and implications for future development.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In public discourse, the sense of smell is typically characterized as the least important of the five senses. However, there are very little empirical data on this topic. Recently, much more attention has been brought to the sense of smell since olfactory dysfunction is a primary and often long-term symptom of COVID-19 infection. It was therefore of interest to expand research on the perceived value of olfaction in the current cultural condition. We developed a survey that directly compared the value of the senses of smell, hearing, and vision with each other and in relation to nine common items representing digital, material, personal, and physical commodities of varying social and emotional meaningfulness (phone, $10,000, favorite social media, online shopping, favorite streaming service, dream vacation, pet, hair, little left toe). In total, four hundred and seven female and male respondents comprising two life-stage groups (college students, general public adults) participated in our online survey study during winter-spring of 2021. The results reveal that the sense of smell was perceived as vastly less important than vision and hearing and much less valuable than various common commodities. We also found that life-stage and gender mediated our findings. For example, one-quarter of the college student respondents would give up their sense of smell in order to keep their phone and nearly half of all women would give up their sense of smell to keep their hair. Our data further illustrate that the senses of vision and hearing are valued relatively similarly. A number of questions arise from the present data and suggestions for ways in which our survey can be expanded and altered to address further research are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.