ArticleiScience2026
Human pairs show collective benefit in olfactory perception despite individual differences and verbal limits.
Article in iScience, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Olfaction is a limit case for human communication. Not only does genetic, personal, and cultural diversity make us smell things differently, but perceptual and neurological factors are meant to make it challenging to verbalize our olfactory experiences, besides the affective value that they have for us. Here, we demonstrate that people still achieve a collective benefit in olfactory tasks when allowed to talk to each other, like the benefits only seen in vision and audition. We measured people's individual smell abilities using a standard clinical test and brought them back after 4 weeks in pairs with matching abilities, others with different ones. We asked everyone to perform discrimination and identification olfactory tasks again, but this time, after giving their own answers, they had to discuss and agree on a joint answer. As in vision, pairs matched in abilities performed better than the best of the two individuals. This joint benefit in olfactory performance overturns the long-held belief that smell resists verbal scaffolding.
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.