ArticleChemical senses2019
SmellSpace: An Odor-Based Social Network as a Platform for Collecting Olfactory Perceptual Data.
Article in Chemical senses, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hierarchies of smell: structuring the molecular odor space using semantic taxonomies and machine learning.Chemical senses · 2026Article
- Pyrfume: A window to the world's olfactory data.Scientific data · 2024Article
- The Karolinska NeuroCOVID study protocol: Neurocognitive impairment, biomarkers and advanced imaging in critical care survivors.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
- An olfactory self-test effectively screens for COVID-19.Communications medicine · 2022Article
- Data-science based analysis of perceptual spaces of odors in olfactory loss.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Human Olfaction without Apparent Olfactory Bulbs.Neuron · 2020Article
- More Data, Please: Machine Learning to Advance the Multidisciplinary Science of Human Sociochemistry.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Article
- The Digital Neurologic Examination.Digital biomarkersReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A common goal in olfaction research is modeling the link between odorant structure and odor perception. Such modeling efforts require large data sets on olfactory perception, yet only a few of these are publicly and freely available. Given that individual odor perception may be informative on personal makeup and interpersonal relationships, we hypothesized that people would gladly provide olfactory perceptual estimates in the context of an odor-based social network. We developed a web-based infrastructure for such a network we called SmellSpace and distributed 10 000 scratch-and-sniff registration booklets each containing a subset of 12 out of 35 microencapsulated odorants. Within ~100 days, we obtained data from ~1000 participants who rated the odorants along 13 verbal descriptors. To verify that these estimates are comparable to lab-collected estimates we tested 26 participants in a controlled lab setting using the same odorants and descriptors. We observed remarkably high overall group correlations between lab and SmellSpace data, implying that this method provides for credible group-representations of odorants. We further estimated the usability of the data by applying to it two previously published models that used odorant structure alone to predict either odorant pleasantness or pairwise odorant perceptual similarity. We observed statistically significant predictions in both cases, thus further implying that the current data may be helpful toward future efforts of modeling olfactory perception from structure. We conclude that an odor-based social network is a potentially useful instrument for collecting extensive data on olfactory perception and here post the complete raw data set from the first ~1000 participants.
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.