ArticleAnimal cognition2022
An investigation on the olfactory capabilities of domestic dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).
Article in Animal cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reliability, repeatability, and age associations of the dogSIT (dog Smell Interaction Test) battery in untrained companion dogs (Canis lupus familiaris).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Dogs' olfactory resting-state functional connectivity is modulated by age and brain shape.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Breed differences in olfactory performance of dogs.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The extraordinary olfactory capabilities in detection and rescue dogs are well-known. However, the olfactory performance varies by breed and search environment (Jezierski et al. in Forensic Sci Int 237:112-118, 2014), as well as by the quantity of training (Horowitz et al. in Learn Motivation 44(4):207-217, 2013). While detection of an olfactory cue inherently demands a judgment regarding the presence or absence of a cue at a given location, olfactory discrimination requires an assessment of quantity, a task demanding more attention and, hence, decreasing reliability as an informational source (Horowitz et al. 2013). This study aims at gaining more clarity on detection and discrimination of olfactory cues in untrained dogs and in a variety of dog breeds. Using a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) paradigm, we assessed olfactory detection scores by presenting a varied quantity of food reward under one or the other hidden cup, and discrimination scores by presenting two varied quantities of food reward under both hidden cups. We found relatively reliable detection performances across all breeds and limited discrimination abilities, modulated by breed. We discuss our findings in relation to the cognitive demands imposed by the tasks and the cephalic index of the dog breeds.
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.