Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26300812›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2015

Effect of fragrance use on discrimination of individual body odor.

Caroline Allen, Jan Havlíček, S Craig Roberts

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Emotional expression in human odour.Evolutionary human sciences · 2022
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Interdisciplinary challenges for elucidating human olfactory attractiveness.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Review
  6. Human olfactory communication: current challenges and future prospects.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  7. Decoding the social volatilome by tracking rapid context-dependent odour change.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Caroline AllenDivision of Psychology, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling , Stirling, UK.
Jan HavlíčekDepartment of Zoology, Charles University , Prague, Czech Republic.
S Craig RobertsDivision of Psychology, School of Natural Sciences, University of Stirling , Stirling, UK.
University of Stirling · GBCharles University · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research suggests that artificial fragrances may be chosen to complement or enhance an individual's body odor, rather than simply masking it, and that this may create an odor blend with an emergent quality that is perceptually distinguishable from body odor or fragrance alone. From this, it can be predicted that a new emergent odor might be more easily identified than an individual's body odor in isolation. We used a triangle test paradigm to assess whether fragrance affects people's ability to distinguish between individual odors. Six male and six female donors provided axillary odor samples in three conditions (without fragrance, wearing their own fragrance, and wearing an assigned fragrance). In total, 296 female and 131 male participants selected the odd one from three odor samples (two from one donor, one from another; both of the same sex). We found that participants could discriminate between the odors at above chance levels in all three odor conditions. Olfactory identification ability (measured using Sniffin' Sticks) positively predicted discrimination performance, and sex differences in performance were also observed, with female raters being correct more often than men. Success rates were also higher for odors of male donors. Additionally, while performance was above chance in all conditions, individual odor discrimination varied across the three conditions. Discrimination rate was significantly higher in the "no fragrance" condition than either of the fragranced conditions. Importantly, however, discrimination rate was also significantly higher in the "own fragrance" condition than the "assigned fragrance" condition, suggesting that naturally occurring variance in body odor is more preserved when blended with fragrances that people choose for themselves, compared with other fragrances. Our data are consistent with the idea that fragrance choices are influenced by fragrance interactions with an individual's own body odor.

Indexed as

body odordeodorantidentificationolfactionsmelltriangle test

Identifiers

PMID26300812
PMCPMC4528100
OpenAlexW1830410969

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.