SynthesisScientific reports2025
Olfactory spatial memory: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Olfactory spatial memory: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2025Pooled it
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
The human sense of smell is extraordinarily sensitive, and some argue that a main purpose of olfaction is to localize food sources. Yet, little is known about human spatial memory for odors and the existing literature has never been systematically summarized. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we evaluated the evidence regarding human abilities to memorize arrangements of objects or routes based on olfactory cues, and compared results to those of other senses. We followed the PRISMA guidelines, searching three databases (PubMed, WoS, Scopus). Using manual and automated (ASReview) screening methods, we identified 24 articles that complied with our inclusion criteria (e.g., olfactory spatial memory task, healthy human adults). Four key results emerged. First, odors can be used as landmarks in the formation of neuro-cognitive maps in both sensory and cognitive brain areas, providing a foundation for spatial memory and navigation abilities. Second, the human ability to memorize locations of odors, especially cues signaling high-calorie food, is indicative of its presumed evolutionary role in foraging. Third, odor-recognition and odor-context-place association might stem from overlapping memory processes. Fourth, olfactory targeted training enhances olfactory spatial memory and shows transfer to other modalities and cognitive domains. Seven articles that compared performances in olfactory versus visual spatial memory were eligible for meta-analysis. The analysis was carried out using the standardized mean difference (i.e., Glass’s estimator) as the outcome measure. A random-effects model was fitted to the data. Results showed that olfactory spatial memory is less effective than visual memory ([Formula: see text] = −0.48, 95% CI [ − 0.77, − 0.19]). Notably, two studies exhibiting the largest differences between sensory modalities were either evaluated as of moderate quality or included older participants. Furthermore, all included studies varied in the methods and materials used. Thus, we suggest that addressing methodological variations across studies and investigating the neural mechanisms will be pivotal for further advancing this research field.
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.