ArticlePloS one2023
Perceptual metrics for odorants: Learning from non-expert similarity feedback using machine learning.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Defining perceptual similarity metrics for odorant comparisons is crucial to understanding the mechanism of olfactory perception. Current methods in olfaction rely on molecular physicochemical features or discrete verbal descriptors (floral, burnt, etc.) to approximate perceptual (dis)similarity between odorants. However, structural or verbal descriptors alone are limited in modeling complex nuances of odor perception. While structural features inadequately characterize odor perception, language-based discrete descriptors lack the granularity needed to model a continuous perception space. We introduce data-driven approaches to perceptual metrics learning (PMeL) based on two key insights: a) by combining physicochemical features with the user's perceptual feedback, we can leverage both structural and perceptual attributes of odors to define dissimilarity, and b) instead of discrete labels, user's perceptual feedback can be gathered as relative similarity comparisons, such as "Does molecule-A smell more like molecule-B, or molecule-C?" These triplet comparisons are easier even for non-experts users and offer a more effective representation of the continuous perception space. Experimental results on several defined tasks show the effectiveness of our approach in evaluating perceptual dissimilarity between odorants. Finally, we investigate how closely our model, trained on non-expert feedback, aligns with the expert's similarity judgments. Our effort aims to reduce reliance on expert annotations.
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.