ArticleJournal of animal science2024
Dog sniffing biomechanic responses in an odor detection test of odorants with differing physical properties.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2024. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dogs are utilized in forensic science for their extensive scent-detection capabilities. They are often considered the "gold standard" in-field detection for targets such as illicit drugs and explosives. Despite their prevalence in the field, relatively little is known about how dogs interact with and transport volatile organic compounds through their olfactory system. In this study, 2 groups of dogs were utilized-Sport detection dogs (n = 19) that participate in the National Association of Canine Scent Work and have achieved advanced standing through training and successful search competitions and law enforcement explosive detection dogs (n = 8) which were included for comparison. Both groups were presented with 2 target odorants having differing molecular properties, 2-ethyl-1-hexanol and ammonia, 2 non-target odorants, 1-bromooctane and methyl benzoate, and a negative control. Canines were tested prior to experience with the target odorants, when all odorants were novel, after some brief training with the target odorants, and after a longer training time with the target odorants. The non-target odorants were never used in training. Sniffing was measured using flow sensors embedded in a wall immediately in front of the odorants held in a closed cylinder. Sensor data were used to calculate sniff flow rate, frequency (sniffs per seconds), and volume. Results indicated no difference in sniffing dynamics between target odorants; however, sniffing frequency increased significantly with increased experience with the target odorants (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test, W = 148, P = 6 × 10-5). Sniff volume and flow rate showed a positive correlation to body mass for all sport detection dogs (slope = 2.71, F(1,17) = 9.48, P = 0.007, R2 = 0.32), though the R2 was low, indicating other factors at play. Law enforcement detection dogs were shown to take in significantly higher mean total sniff volumes (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test: W = 0. 7, P = 10-4) and volume flow rates (Wilcoxon rank sum exact test: W = 5, P = 6 × 10-5) compared to the sport detection dogs, but the sniff frequency remained similar for both groups.
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.