bioRxivEcology
Field-testing olfactory ability to understand human olfactory ecology
K. C. Hoover, D. Botescu, P. Fedurek, S. Aarts, J. C. Berbesque
Abstract
ObjectivesWe know little about human olfactory ability in natural settings because current knowledge derives from lab-based studies using non-representative samples of convenience. The primary objective was to use a validated lab tool, the five-item odor identification test, to assess variation in olfactory ability in different environments. MethodsUsing the five-item test, we conducted two repeated measures experiments that assessed participant ability to correctly identify an odor source in different odor environments. We also examined consistency in odor labelling due to documented potential bias from idiosyncrasies in odor terms. ResultsWe found no variation in olfactory ability due to environment, but this may be due to methodological biases. First, subjective bias results from idiosyncratic differences in participant labelling and researcher coding of answer correctness. Second, better ability to learn odors may provide an advantage to women. Third, reducing positive female learning bias by analyzing consistency in response (regardless of correct odor source identification) fails to assess functional olfactory ability. Functional olfactory ability (naming correct odor source) is significantly better in females, especially in food-rich odor environments. ConclusionsEnvironment was not a significant factor in olfactory ability in this study but that result may be confounded by methodological biases. We not recommend odor identification as a field tool. Functional olfactory ability exhibits a sex-based pattern but consistency in recognizing the same odor does not. Food-rich odors may enhance olfactory ability in females. We discuss evolutionary and ecological implications of superior female functional olfactory ability relative to food foraging activity.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Different armpits under my new nose: olfactory sex but not gender affects implicit measures of embodiment
Marte Roel Lesur, Yoann Stussi, … Bigna Lenggenhager·Biological PsychologyPeer-reviewed·Dec 12, 2022
- Sex differences in olfactory behavior and neurophysiology in Long Evans Rats
Kruthika V. Maheshwar, Abigail E. Stuart, Leslie M. Kay·Journal of NeurophysiologyPeer-reviewed·Dec 19, 2024
- Interspecific variation of olfactory preferences in flies, mice, and humans
Diogo Manoel, Melanie Makhlouf, … Luís R. Saraiva·Chemical SensesPeer-reviewed·Nov 13, 2018
- SMELL-S and SMELL-R: olfactory tests not influenced by odor-specific insensitivity or prior olfactory experience
Julien Wen Hsieh, Andreas Keller, … Leslie B. Vosshall·Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesPeer-reviewed·Oct 10, 2017
- Uncertainty revealed by delayed responses during olfactory matching
Rajdeep Bhowmik, Meenakshi Pardasani, … Nixon M. Abraham·bioRxiv·Sep 11, 2022
- Women show enhanced attractiveness ratings and neural processing of male faces associated with male chemosensory signals
Isabelle A. G. Klinkenberg, Christian Dobel, … Markus Junghöfer·bioRxiv·Oct 23, 2020