Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38427659›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Development of an automated human scent olfactometer and its use to evaluate detection dog perception of human scent.

Edgar O Aviles-Rosa, Andrea C Medrano, Ariela Cantu, Paola A Prada-Tiedemann, Michele N Maughan, Jenna D Gadberry, Robin R Greubel, Nathaniel J Hall

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Edgar O Aviles-RosaDepartment of Animal & Food Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9551-771X
Andrea C MedranoDepartment of Environmental Toxicology, Forensic Analytical Chemistry and Odor Profiling Laboratory, Lubbock, Texas, United States of America.
Ariela CantuDepartment of Environmental Toxicology, Forensic Analytical Chemistry and Odor Profiling Laboratory, Lubbock, Texas, United States of America.
Paola A Prada-TiedemannDepartment of Environmental Toxicology, Forensic Analytical Chemistry and Odor Profiling Laboratory, Lubbock, Texas, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8909-0740
Michele N MaughanExcet, Springfield, Virginia, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-3681-1561
Jenna D GadberryIntrinsic24 LLC, Hayden, Idaho, United States of America.
Robin R GreubelK9Sensus Foundation, Lucas, Iowa, United States of America.ORCID 0009-0006-2510-8159
Nathaniel J HallDepartment of Animal & Food Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, United States of America.
Texas Tech University · USExcet (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Working Dogs have shown an extraordinary ability to utilize olfaction for victim recovery efforts. Although instrumental analysis has chemically characterized odor volatiles from various human biospecimens, it remains unclear what perceptually constitutes human scent (HS) for dogs. This may be in part due to the lack of methodology and equipment to train and evaluate HS perception. The aims of this research were 1) to develop an automated human scent olfactometer (AHSO) to present HS to dogs in a controlled setting and 2) use the AHSO to evaluate dogs' response to different scented articles and individual components of HS. A human volunteer was placed in a clear acrylic chamber and using a vacuum pump and computer-controlled valves, the headspace of this chamber was carried to one of three ports in a different room. Dogs were trained to search all three ports of the olfactometer and alert to the one containing HS. In Experiment 1 and 2, the AHSO was validated by testing two dogs naïve to HS (Experiment 1) and five certified Search and Rescue (SAR) teams naïve to the apparatus (Experiment 2). All dogs showed sensitivity and specificity to HS > 95% in the apparatus. In Experiment 3, we used a spontaneous generalization paradigm to evaluate generalization from the HS chamber to different scented articles exposed to the same volunteer and to a breath sample. Dogs' response rate to the different scented articles was < 10% but exceeded 40% for the breath sample. In Experiment 4, we replicated this result by re-testing spontaneous generalization to breath and when the volunteer had breath exhausted/removed from the chamber. Dogs' response rate to breath alone was 88% and only 50% when breath was removed. Altogether, the data indicate that exhaled breath is an important and salient component of HS under these conditions.

Indexed as

OdorantsWorking DogsAnimalsDogsHumansPerceptionSensitivity and SpecificitySmell

Identifiers

PMID38427659
PMCPMC10906837
OpenAlexW4392361736

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.