Nostril Advantage in Trigeminal/Olfactory Perception and Its Relation to Handedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Few studies investigated nostril-advantage in chemosensory perception, particularly, in relation to handedness. The aim of the present article was therefore to assess whether trigeminal/olfactory perception is altered by handedness. Methods We tested 50 (all right-handed) and 43 (22 left-handed) participants in Studies 1 and 2, respectively. We used binary mixtures of cinnamaldehyde and eucalyptol, in different proportions presented as physical mixtures (the same exact mixture presented birhinally to each nostril) or as a dichorhinic mixtures (different mixtures presented to each nostril). Presenting dichorhinic mixtures allowed us to assess nostril dominance based on participants' report on whether the mixture smelled more like cinnamon or eucalyptus. Participants also evaluated whether the stimuli were "painful," "warm," "cold," and "intense" on visual scales. Results In Study 1, we find that in right handers, stimuli presented to the right nostril dominated over those presented to the left nostril. These stimuli were also rated as more "painful" and "intense." In Study 2, we could not corroborate the findings in the right-handed individuals, and we found limited support for a nostril advantage left-handed individuals. Conclusion Although our data points toward a certain nostril advantage in chemosensory perception, the finding is not systematic, we discuss possible underlying factors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".