ArticleScientific reports2020
Neural processing of olfactory-related words in subjects with congenital and acquired olfactory dysfunction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global research trends and hotspot evolution of olfactory dysfunction from 2014 to 2024: a bibliometric analysis.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Review
- Structural Brain Changes in Patients with Congenital Anosmia: MRI-Based Analysis of Gray- and White-Matter Volumes.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Ecological Meanings: A Consensus Paper on Individual Differences and Contextual Influences in Embodied Language.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- Altered glucose metabolism of the olfactory-related cortices in anosmia patients with traumatic brain injury.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 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
5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Olfactory loss can be acquired (patients with a history of olfactory experiences), or inborn (patients without olfactory experiences/life-long inability to smell). Inborn olfactory loss, or congenital anosmia (CA), is relatively rare and there is a knowledge gap regarding the compensatory neural mechanisms involved in this condition. The study aimed to investigate the top-down olfactory processing in patients with CA or idiopathic acquired anosmia (IA) in comparison to normosmia controls (NC) during expectancy and reading of odor-associated words. Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to assess brain activations in 14 patients with CA, 8 patients with IA, and 16 NC healthy participants during an expectancy and reading task. Words with strong olfactory associations (OW) (e.g. "banana") or with little or no olfactory associations (CW) (e.g. "chair") were used as stimuli and were presented with a block design Analyses were conducted to explore the brain activation in response to OW expectancy or OW reading between groups (CW as baseline). During the expectancy condition of OW, IA and NC groups showed stronger activation in posterior OFC extending to right insula, caudate region and frontal medial OFC respectively. Whereas during the reading condition of OW, CA patients showed stronger activation in posterior OFC extending to the insula. Increased activation of higher-order brain regions related to multisensory integration among CA patients suggests a compensatory mechanism for processing semantic olfactory cues.
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.