Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31606800›Full record

ReviewAnimal cognition2020

What smells? Gauging attention to olfaction in canine cognition research.

Alexandra Horowitz, Becca Franks

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Animal cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Role of Olfaction in Dogs: Evolution, Biology, and Human-Oriented Work.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Extensive Connections of the Canine Olfactory Pathway Revealed by Tractography and Dissection.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Alexandra HorowitzDepartment of Psychology, Barnard College, New York, NY, USA. ahorowit@barnard.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9297-8799
Becca FranksDepartment of Environmental Studies, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
Barnard College · USNew York University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the challenges of animal cognition research is overcoming anthropocentric sensory biases-in particular, favoring visual information and cues despite the dominance of other sensory cues in many nonhuman research subjects. As such, it is particularly important for animal cognition researchers to explicitly mention steps taken to control for and attend to the sensory world of their study species. Dogs are well known for their reliance on olfaction, but the extent to which dog cognition and behavior research accounts for olfactory cues or incorporates olfactory controls is unknown. With this bibliographic study, we reviewed canine research published in the past 10 years (2008-2018) in 13 scientific journals and coded the 481 resulting papers for mentions of olfactory or odor cues or controls. Our findings indicate that despite widespread acceptance of the significance of olfaction to dogs, scientific methodology rarely takes olfactory information processing into account. Finally, we propose a simple rubric of recommended reporting of olfactory information in research contexts, with the aims to help attune researchers to the umwelt of their study subjects, and to enhance the methodological reproducibility of canine cognition research.

Indexed as

CognitionSmellAnimalsAttentionDogsOdorantsReproducibility of ResultsCognitionDomestic dogMethodologyOlfactionReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID31606800
OpenAlexW2979789430

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.