ArticleHeliyon2019
Expanded olfactometer for measuring reaction time to a target odor during background odor presentation.
Article in Heliyon, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Background stimulus delays detection of target stimulus in a familiar odor-odor combination.Scientific reports · 2021Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current olfactometers can insert a target odor into the flow of odorless air as a pulse (i.e., replace odorless air with target odor for a very short time), but no previously designed olfactometer can insert a pulse of target odor into a flow of background odor (i.e., replace background odor with target odor for a very short time). To measure reaction time to a target odor during presentation of a background odor, we developed an expanded olfactometer by adding an attachment to an existing olfactometer. We conducted three experiments to evaluate the performance of the expanded olfactometer. Additionally, four volunteers participated in trial measurement of reaction time for detection of the target odor under background odor and odorless air conditions using the expanded olfactometer. We did not observe a significant difference in gas onset time or rise time of the target odor between background and odorless air conditions. Additionally, the gas onset time and rise time of the target odor were on the order of milliseconds, whereas the gas onset time and rise time of the background odor were on the order of seconds. The reaction time was marginally significantly longer under the background odor condition than the odorless air condition. We did not observe a significant difference in gas onset time or rise time of the target odor between the existing olfactometer and our expanded olfactometer. We succeeded in developing an attachment capable of inserting a target odor into a flow of background odor. Our results revealed that performance related to the presentation of the target odor was comparable between the existing and expanded olfactometers. To more rigorously examine the effect of background odor on detection speed of target odor, we intend to increase the number of participants in the near future.
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.