Effect of Odor Stimulations on Physical Activity: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fewer and fewer people are reaching physical activity recommendations. Therefore, it seems important to make the practice of physical activity more enjoyable to increase the participation rate. Several environmental factors have been studied to see their impact on sports practice, and some studies investigated the effect of odors. This systematic review aims to provide a thorough view of the literature on the effect of different odors on physical activity. The search strategy consisted of using index terms and keywords in MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews – Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science search engine. Data from 19 studies that included 421 participants revealed that the odors had different results on strength, cardiovascular, precision, and postural balance tasks depending on the odors’ exposition. Among results, an important distinction was made between pleasant and unpleasant odors. Therefore, pleasant odors had better results on physical activity by improving participants’ feeling. Even though this review clarified evidence about the effect of odors on physical activity, better methodological consistency is needed across studies such as the odor administration method to produce more meaningful results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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".