Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38966836›Full record

ArticleActa medica Philippina2024

The Aromatic Scents of Four Plants in Learning and Memory of

Bryan Paul D De Galicia, Paul Mark B Medina

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta medica Philippina, 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
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

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

2 authors.

Bryan Paul D De GaliciaBiological Models Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila.
Paul Mark B MedinaBiological Models Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Folkloric claims have surrounded essential oils, including their enhancement of learning and memory through inhalational exposure. Few studies in humans have shown a benefit in cognition, albeit incremental. However, this benefit may not be entirely attributable to the essential oil aroma but may be confounded by psychological associations. We investigated rosemary, peppermint, lemon, and coffee aromas in a learning and memory model of Methods: We screened for concentrations of the four treatments that are non-stimulatory for altered locomotory behavior in the flies. At these concentrations, we determined if they were chemoneutral (i.e., neither chemoattractant nor chemorepellent) to the flies. Learning and memory of the flies exposed to these aromas were determined using an Aversive Phototaxis Suppression (APS) assay. Results: The aromas of rosemary, peppermint, and lemon that did not elicit altered mobility in the flies were from dilute essential oil solutions that ranged from 0.2 to 0.5% v/v; whereas for the aroma in coffee, it was at a higher concentration of 7.5% m/v. At these concentrations, the aromas used were found to be chemoneutral towards the flies. We observed no improvement in both learning and memory in the four aromas tested. While a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in learning was observed when flies were treated with the aromas of rosemary, peppermint, and coffee, a significant reduction (p < 0.05) in memory was only observed in the peppermint aroma treatment. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that in the absence of psychological association, the four aromas do not enhance learning and memory.

Indexed as

APS assayCitrus limonCoffea arabicaCoffea robustaDrosophila melanogasterlearningmemoryMentha x piperitaRosmarinus officinalis

Identifiers

PMID38966836
PMCPMC11219708

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.