Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37117893›Full record

ReviewNature food2022

Odour hedonics and the ubiquitous appeal of vanilla.

Charles Spence

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature food, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. charles.spence@psy.ox.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2111-072X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Our food choices and consumption behaviours are often influenced by odour hedonics, especially in the case of those orthonasally experienced aromas (that is, those odours that are food-related). The origins of odour hedonics remain one of the most intriguing puzzles in olfactory science and, over the years, several fundamentally different accounts have been put forwards to try and explain the varying hedonic responses that people have to a wide range of odorants. Associative learning, innate and molecular accounts of odour pleasantness have all been suggested. Here the origins of the hedonic response to vanilla, which is one of the most liked smells cross-culturally, are explored. The history of vanilla's use in food and medicine is outlined, with a focus on its neurocognitive appeal. While vanilla is one of the most widely liked aromas, it is also rated as smelling sweet to most people. Food scientists are becoming increasingly interested in the possibility that such 'sweet smells' could be used to help maintain the sweetness of commercial food products while, at the same time, reducing the use of calorific sweeteners. Such an approach is likely to be facilitated by the low cost of artificial vanilla flavouring (when compared with the high and fluctuating price of natural vanilla pods).

Identifiers

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.