ArticleScientific reports2022
A study on the relationship between odor hedonic ratings and individual odor detection threshold.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Maternal depression and offspring neurodevelopmental impairments in wild rodents induced by ecologically relevant prenatal stress.Molecular psychiatry · 2026Article
- Odor Hedonic Profile (OHP): a self-rating tool of everyday odors.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Odor hedonic perception (pleasant/unpleasant character) is considered as the first and one of the most prominent dimensions in olfaction and is known to depend on several parameters. Among them, the relation between the odorant concentration and the hedonic estimation has been widely studied. However, few studies have considered odor hedonic ratings (OHR) in relation to individual detection thresholds (IDT). Thus, the aim of this study was to determine olfactory detection thresholds and to describe hedonic rating variations from individual thresholds to higher concentrations. IDT were performed for two pleasant (apple and jasmine) and two unpleasant (durian and trimethylamine) odorant stimuli. The experimenter presented one by one in a randomized order, the different odorant concentrations above IDT. Participants rated odor hedonic valence of these stimuli on a visual analog scale. Results showed, except for trimethylamine, the same relationship between hedonic ratings and stimulus concentration, i.e., an increase of pleasantness (apple and jasmine)/unpleasantness (durian) ratings at low and middle concentrations followed by a plateau at high concentrations. Correlations between OHR and concentrations as well as between OHR and threshold steps were always significant. Moreover, comparisons between both conditions showed that the correlation coefficient was significantly higher for trimethylamine (and a trend for apple) when IDTs were considered, while no difference was found for jasmine and durian. Overall, results suggested that the relationship between OHR and IDT is odor specific. These findings contribute to explain the large variability of the hedonic tone (i.e., weakly vs. very pleasant, weakly vs. very unpleasant) at specific concentration in the general population and could serve future research in this field (e.g., olfactory preferences in nutrition studies, anhedonia in psychiatric disorders…).
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.