ArticleChemical senses2026
Decoding odor responses: universal patterns and individual signatures in psychophysiology using nonlinear models.
Article in Chemical senses, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Olfactory perception is a complex process driven by the chemical properties of odorants and shaped by a multitude of individual factors. As a result, predicting how an individual perceives a given odor remains challenging. We aimed to address this complexity by integrating individual response patterns, odorant properties, and psychophysiological responses into a unified model. Therefore, we tested perceptual dimensions (valence, temperature, and intensity) of 6 perceptually diverse monomolecular odorants with continuous time-series data from psychophysiological measures (respiration, heart rate, electromyography [EMG] corrugator, and EMG zygomaticus) in a sample of 41 participants. By simultaneously accounting for the odorant itself, individual rating tendencies, and both group-level and individual-specific physiological effect patterns in the nonlinear modeling process, we found that while the specific odorant and individual rating tendencies were the primary drivers of perception, the relative contributions varied significantly across perceptual dimensions. The inclusion of physiological signals significantly improved the predictive models, revealing that both generalizable (group-level) and highly individualized psychophysiological response patterns contributed to how an odor was perceived. Examination of the specific effect patterns revealed respiration and EMG corrugator as key group-level predictors for valence and intensity, while significant individual-specific effect patterns varied considerably across the perceptual dimensions. Our findings demonstrate that a comprehensive understanding of olfactory perception requires the consideration of the interplay between stimulus characteristics, idiosyncratic biases, and distinct universal versus person-specific physiological signatures, offering a more nuanced understanding of this sensory experience.
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.