Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29961122›Full record

ArticleJournal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology2018

Olfactory navigation versus olfactory activation: a controversy revisited.

Charles Walcott, Wolfgang Wiltschko, Roswitha Wiltschko, Günther K H Zupanc

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Magnetic maps in animal navigation.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2022
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Charles WalcottDepartment of Neurobiology and Behavior, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Wolfgang WiltschkoFachbereich Biowissenschaften, J.W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 60438, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Roswitha WiltschkoFachbereich Biowissenschaften, J.W. Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, 60438, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Günther K H ZupancLaboratory of Neurobiology, Department of Biology, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, USA. g.zupanc@northeastern.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the early 1970s, Floriano Papi and colleagues proposed the olfactory-navigation hypothesis, which explains the homing ability of pigeons by the existence of an odor-based map acquired through learning. This notion, although supported by some observations, has also generated considerable controversy since its inception. As an alternative, Paulo Jorge and colleagues formulated in 2009 the olfactory-activation hypothesis, which states that atmospheric odorants do not provide navigational information but, instead, activate a non-olfactory path integration system. However, this hypothesis is challenged by an investigation authored by Anna Gagliardo and colleagues and published in the current issue of the Journal of Comparative Physiology A. In this editorial, the significance of the findings of this study is assessed in the broader context of the role of olfaction in avian navigation and homing, and experiments are suggested that might help to finally resolve the olfactory-navigation versus olfactory-activation controversy.

Indexed as

Homing BehaviorSmellSpatial NavigationAnimalsColumbidaeCuesFlight, AnimalLearningModels, BiologicalOdorantsAtmospheric odorantsHomingOlfactory-activation hypothesisOlfactory-navigation hypothesisPigeon

Identifiers

PMID29961122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.