Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40149740›Full record

ArticleBrain sciences2025

Losing Your Sense of Smell: How Bad Is It?-A Comparative Study on the Personal Importance of Smell.

Maximiliaan K P Becht, Garmt B Dijksterhuis, Digna M A Kamalski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Brain sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Maximiliaan K P BechtDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Garmt B DijksterhuisFaculty of Psychology and Neuroscience, Section Teaching and Innovation of Learning, Maastricht University, 6229 ER Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-0641-8067
Digna M A KamalskiDepartment of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery, University Medical Centre Utrecht, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7945-2592

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The hierarchical perspective on senses has relegated smell to the lowest rank in Western culture while granting vision superiority. Studies show that olfactory impairments, like vision and hearing impairments, reduce quality of life. Our study examines the perceived value of smell in a student population in comparison to hearing and vision, hypothesizing differences based on previous loss of smell (≥2 weeks) and gender. University students were enlisted in a survey comparing smell to vision, hearing, and forfeiting the senses for various commodities (phone, EUR 10,000, hair, and social media). A total of 200 participants completed the survey, with 52 reporting previous loss of smell and 148 reporting no history of smell loss. Overall, smell was the most frequently forfeited sense. While the sacrifice of hearing and vision remained consistent across various commodities, smell was notably forfeited more for certain items. When comparing groups with and without previous loss of smell, no significant differences were observed in forfeiting the senses across various commodities, except for hair. However, it is noteworthy that smell was forfeited more often for all commodities when considering percentages. Furthermore, females exhibited a greater willingness to sacrifice their sense of smell for USD 10,000 and hair. Smell is valued the lowest among the three senses when asked directly and compared to various commodities. There were no significant differences in its perceived value between those with and without previous loss of smell. Furthermore, females tend to value their sense of smell less than males, according to the surveyed commodities.

Indexed as

commoditiesgenderhearingloss of smellolfactionpsychologicalsmellstudentsvaluevision

Identifiers

PMID40149740
PMCPMC11939840

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.