ReviewFrontiers in psychology2019
A Critique of Olfactory Objects.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- How to Foster Challenging Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Can Philosophy Support Neuroscientists?The European journal of neuroscience · 2026Review
- Odors as cognitive constructs: history of odor classification and attempts to map odor percepts to physical and chemical parameters.Chemical senses · 2025Review
- The PROUST hypothesis: the embodiment of olfactory cognition.Animal cognition · 2023Review
- Why human olfaction should not be modeled on theories and tasks of vision.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Review
- Application of artificial intelligence to decode the relationships between smell, olfactory receptors and small molecules.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- More than meets the AI: The possibilities and limits of machine learning in olfaction.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- Maximal Dependence Capturing as a Principle of Sensory Processing.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2022Article
- The Sensory and Perceptual Scaffolding of Absorption, Inner Speech, and Self in Psychosis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
- Recurrent circuitry is required to stabilize piriform cortex odor representations across brain states.eLife · 2020Article
- Why Is There So Much More Research on Vision Than on Any Other Sensory Modality?Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Does the sense of smell involve the perception of odor objects? General discussion of perceptual objecthood centers on three criteria: stimulus representation, perceptual constancy, and figure-ground segregation. These criteria, derived from theories of vision, have been applied to olfaction in recent philosophical debates about psychology. An inherent problem with such framing of olfactory objecthood is that philosophers explicitly ignore the constitutive factors of the sensory systems that underpin the implementation of these criteria. The biological basis of odor coding is fundamentally different from the coding principles of the visual system. This article analyzes the three measures of perceptual objecthood against the biological background of the olfactory system. It contrasts the coding principles in olfaction with the visual system to show why these criteria of objecthood fail to be instantiated in odor perception. The argument demonstrates that olfaction affords perceptual categorization without the need to form odor objects.
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.