Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 563

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Different representations of pleasant and unpleasant odours in the human brain

Rolls, Edmund T., Kringelbach, Morten L., De Araujo, Ivan E. T.·2003·European Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Odours are important in emotional processing; yet relatively little is known about the representations of the affective qualities of odours in the human brain. We found that three pleasant and three unpleasant odours activated dissociable parts of the human brain. Pleasant but not unpleasant odours were found to activate a medial region of the rostral orbitofrontal cortex. Further, there was a correlation between the subjective pleasantness ratings of the six odours given during the investigation with activation of a medial region of the rostral orbitofrontal cortex. In contrast, a correlation between the subjective unpleasantness ratings of the six odours was found in regions of the left and more lateral orbitofrontal cortex. Moreover, a double dissociation was found with the intensity ratings of the odours, which were not correlated with the BOLD signal in the orbitofrontal cortex, but were correlated with the signal in medial olfactory cortical areas including the pyriform and anterior entorhinal cortex. Activation was also found in the anterior cingulate cortex, with a middle part of the anterior cingulate activated by both pleasant and unpleasant odours, and a more anterior part of the anterior cingulate cortex showing a correlation with the subjective pleasantness ratings of the odours. Thus the results suggest that there is a hedonic map of the sense of smell in brain regions such as the orbitofrontal cortex, and these results have implications for understanding the psychiatric and related problems that follow damage to these brain areas.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02779.x

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 9 references

Cited by

See all 563

Metadata

Authors
Rolls, E. T., Kringelbach, M. L., & De Araujo, I. E. T.
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-08
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
695-703
ISSN
  • 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9568
OpenAlex
W2088497171
Cited by
563
References
9
FWCI
10.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Different representations of pleasant and unpleasant odours in the human brain. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02779.x
The paper
Rolls, E. T., Kringelbach, M. L., & De Araujo, I. E. T. (2003). Different representations of pleasant and unpleasant odours in the human brain. European Journal of Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02779.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.