We may not be microsmats after all

Jun 11, 2004 3 Replies
L

I just read a stimulating article in _Public Library of Science Biology_ that challenges the received wisdom regarding humans' supposedly poor ability to smell:



formatting link
.1371/journal.pbio.0020146



It cites empirical evidence that we're a lot better at it than we think. I does note that we have less of what might be considered first-line olfactory resources than some other mammals, but it gives some interesting reasons why human brain structures and cognitive abilities might compensate. It's a good read, even aside from its obvious interest to people who care a lot about certain aromas and tastes.



/Lew


Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
D

Lewis Perin rose quietly and spake the following:

Oh, like I needed something else to distract me from what I'm supposed to be doing...

... What *am* I supposed to be doing? ;)

Apparently, the brain is the biggest olfactory organ, much the same way it's the biggest "sex" organ. I'm not surprised that humans perform better than rodents. After all, we understand what we're supposed to do in the test. The rodent's just being a rodent. :)

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
L

Unfortunately the citation for this isn't online, so I haven't followed it, but I would assume the little creatures were being rewarded for the "right answer". Probably the humans were, too.

But in another sense, the article argues that "understanding what we're supposed to do" is a big advantage to an aspiring smat. (Isn't it great when you find a new jargon word as short as that?)

/Lew

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
D

Lewis Perin rose quietly and spake the following:

Yeah. After all those years of being told to avoid jargon, I keep getting new jargon. ;)

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required