A comparative study of memory for olfactory discriminations: Dogs (Canis familiaris), rats (Rattus norvegicus), and humans (Homo sapiens).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disagreement has arisen in the scientific literature regarding the relative olfactory ability of humans relative to other mammals, specifically canines and rodents. A series of experiments are reported in which memory for multiple olfactory discriminations was measured in dogs, rats, and humans. Participants from all three species learned a sequence of 20 different discriminations between an S + odor and an S- odor. Choice of the S+ odor was rewarded with food for dogs and rats and with positive verbal feedback for humans. After learning the discriminations, an initial memory test was given that involved presentation of all 20 S + and S- pairs. A subsequent mix-and-match test was given in which each S + odor was presented with three different S- odors. The memory tests revealed that dogs were superior to rats and that dogs and rats were superior to humans. The relatively poor performance of humans contrasts with prior findings of high recognition memory for odors followed by slow forgetting. We attribute the low accuracy of humans in our experiments to the requirement that participants had to remember the outcome associated with S + (correct) and S- (incorrect) cues and not just their familiarity. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".