ArticlePsychopharmacology2017
Validation of the human odor span task: effects of nicotine.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- A cognitive nose? Evaluating working memory benchmarks in the olfactory domain.Chemical senses · 2025Pooled it
- Increased dopamine availability magnifies nicotine effects on cognitive control: A pilot study.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2020Trial
- Olfactory Dysfunction in Schizophrenia: Evaluating Olfactory Abilities Across Species.Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · 2023Review
- The protocol for assessing olfactory working memory capacity in mice.Brain and behavior · 2022Article
- A novel paradigm for assessing olfactory working memory capacity in mice.Translational psychiatry · 2020Article
- Impact of Substance Use Disorder Pharmacotherapy on Executive Function: A Narrative Review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleAmongst non-smokers, nicotine generally enhances performance on tasks of attention, with limited effect on working memory. In contrast, nicotine has been shown to produce robust enhancements of working memory in non-humans.
objectivesTo address this gap, the present study investigated the effects of nicotine on the performance of non-smokers on a cognitive battery which included a working memory task reverse-translated from use with rodents (the odor span task, OST). Nicotine has been reported to enhance OST performance in rats and the present study assessed whether this effect generalizes to human performance.
methodsThirty non-smokers were tested on three occasions after consuming either placebo, 2 mg, or 4 mg nicotine gum. On each occasion, participants completed a battery of clinical and experimental tasks of working memory and attention.
resultsNicotine was associated with dose-dependent enhancements in sustained attention, as evidenced by increased hit accuracy on the rapid visual information processing (RVIP) task. However, nicotine failed to produce main effects on OST performance or on alternative measures of working memory (digit span, spatial span, letter-number sequencing, 2-back) or attention (digits forward, 0-back). Interestingly, enhancement of RVIP performance occurred concomitant to significant reductions in self-reported attention/concentration. Human OST performance was significantly related to N-back performance, and as in rodents, OST accuracy declined with increasing memory load.
conclusionsGiven the similarity of human and rodent OST performance under baseline conditions and the strong association between OST and visual 0-back accuracy, the OST may be particular useful in the study of conditions characterized by inattention.
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.