Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33282169›Full record

Reviewi-Perception

Scenting the Anosmic Cube: On the Use of Ambient Scent in the Context of the Art Gallery or Museum.

Charles Spence

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in i-Perception. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Educational and accessible museums and cultural spaces.Humanities & social sciences communications · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

1 author.

Charles SpenceCrossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2111-072X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been growing interest in the possibility of augmenting the visitor's experience of the exhibits in various art galleries and museums by means of the delivery of a genuinely multisensory experience, one that engages more than just the visual sense. This kind of approach both holds the promise of increasing engagement while, at the same time, also helping to address, in some small way, issues around accessibility for the visually impaired visitor. One of the increasingly popular approaches to enhancing multisensory experience design involves the use of scents that have been chosen to match, or augment, the art or museum display in some way. The various different kinds of congruency between olfaction and vision that have been investigated by researchers and/or incorporated into art/museum displays already are reviewed. However, while the laboratory research does indeed appear to suggest that people's experience of the paintings (or rather reproductions or photos of the works of art) may well be influenced by the presence of an ambient odour, the results are by no means guaranteed to be positive, either in terms of the emotional response while viewing the display or in terms of the viewer's subsequent recall of their multisensory experience. As such, caution is advised for those who may be considering whether to augment their multisensory displays/exhibits with ambient scent.

Indexed as

artcongruencymultisensory experience designmuseumolfaction

Identifiers

PMID33282169
PMCPMC7686631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.