Intranasal Localizability of Odorants: Influence of Stimulus Volume
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When an odorant is presented to one side of the nose and air to the other, the ability to localize which side received the odorant depends upon trigeminal nerve stimulation. It has been shown that performance on this lateralization task increases as stimulus concentration increases. In this study, we determined the influences of stimulus volume and sex on the ability to localize each of 8 odorants presented at neat concentrations: anethole, geraniol, limonene, linalool, menthol, methyl salicylate, phenyl ethanol, and vanillin. At a low stimulus volume (11 mL), only menthol was localized at an above-chance level. At a high stimulus volume (21 mL), above-chance localization occurred for all odorants except vanillin. Women were significantly better than men in localizing menthol. Stimuli rated as most intense were those that were most readily localized. The detection performance measures, as well as rated intensity values, significantly correlated with earlier findings of the trigeminal detectability of odorants presented to anosmic and normosmic subjects. This study suggests that differences in stimulus volume may explain some discrepant findings within the trigeminal chemosensory literature and supports the concept that vanillin may be a "relatively pure" olfactory stimulus.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".