ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2011
Olfactory sensitivity for sperm-attractant aromatic aldehydes: a comparative study in human subjects and spider monkeys.
Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 2011. 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reproducible research into human chemical communication by cues and pheromones: learning from psychology's renaissance.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Review
- Olfactory sensitivity for mold-associated odorants in CD-1 mice and spider monkeys.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2018Article
- The search for human pheromones: the lost decades and the necessity of returning to first principles.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2015Review
- Olfactory sensitivity for six predator odorants in CD-1 mice, human subjects, and spider monkeys.PloS one · 2013Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Using a three-alternative forced-choice ascending staircase procedure, we determined olfactory detection thresholds in 20 human subjects for seven aromatic aldehydes and compared them to those of four spider monkeys tested in parallel using an operant conditioning paradigm. With all seven odorants, both species detected concentrations <1 ppm, and with several odorants single individuals of both species even discriminated concentrations <1 ppb from the solvent. No generalizable species differences in olfactory sensitivity were found despite marked differences in neuroanatomical and genetic features. The across-odorant patterns of sensitivity correlated significantly between humans and spider monkeys, and both species were more sensitive to bourgeonal than to lilial, cyclamal, canthoxal, helional, lyral, and 3-phenylpropanal. No significant correlation between presence/absence of an oxygen-containing moiety attached to the benzene ring or presence/absence of an additional alkyl group next to the functional aldehyde group, and olfactory sensitivity was found in any of the species. However, the presence of a tertiary butyl group in para position (relative to the functional aldehyde group) combined with a lack of an additional alkyl group next to the functional aldehyde group may be responsible for the finding that both species were most sensitive to bourgeonal.
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.