ArticleThe Laryngoscope2026
Discrimination of Pairs of Chemosensory Stimuli in Relation to Respiration.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAre paired chemosensory stimuli with very short interstimulus-intervals (ISIs) more often perceived as distinct events when delivered synchronously with inspiration than when delivered asynchronously?
methodsTwin stimuli (H
resultsThe perception rate of twin stimuli increased with increasing ISI. A plateau in the discrimination of separate twin stimuli, averaging 90%, was observed with CO
conclusionPredominantly inspiration-synchronous stimulation allows higher detection of responses at both psychophysical and electrophysiological levels, even at very short ISIs. These findings may help to reduce the duration of clinical experiments and electrophysiological assessments of olfactory function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.