ArticleJournal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996)2009
Pupillary responses to intranasal trigeminal and olfactory stimulation.
Article in Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Unmet Need of Olfactory Testing in Inflammatory Disorders of the Upper Airways-An EAACI Position Paper.Allergy · 2026Review
- Psychological states affecting initial pupil size changes after olfactory stimulation in healthy participants.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Article
- Congenital central hypoventilation syndrome and the PHOX2B gene: a model of respiratory and autonomic dysregulation.Respiratory physiology & neurobiology · 2010Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate whether pupillary responses to odorous stimuli reflect their intensity or hedonic tone. A total of 21 healthy subjects participated in the study. Using a computer-controlled olfactometer, subjects received intranasal stimuli including odors of rose (PEA; 2 concentrations), lemon and rotten eggs, plus the trigeminal irritant CO2 (also at two concentrations). Changes in the pupil diameter were obtained ipsilaterally to the side of stimulus presentation. Both trigeminal and olfactory stimulation produced an increase in pupillary diameter. Latencies for pupillary reaction were fastest for the higher concentration of CO2 and slowest after the presentation of PEA at the low concentration. Response amplitudes were largest in response to stimulation with CO2 at the high concentration, while they were smallest in response to odorous stimulation with PEA. Response latencies decreased with increasing stimulus intensity. No such correlation was found for hedonic ratings and pupillary reactions. Thus, the change in the pupillary diameter indicates differences between stimulus modalities and stimulus strength, but not pleasantness or unpleasantness of the odors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.