The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Performance of Mice in an Automated Olfactometer: Odor Detection, Discrimination and Odor Memory
Abstract
Mice were trained on a variety of odor detection and discrimination tasks in 100- or 200-trial sessions using a go, no-go discrete trials operant conditioning procedure. Odors, presented for 1 s on each trial, were generated by an air dilution olfactometer (for threshold tests) and an easily constructed eight-channel liquid dilution unit (for two- and multiple-odor discrimination tasks). Mice rapidly acquired the operant task and demonstrated excellent stimulus control by odor vapors. Their absolute detection threshold for ethyl acetate was similar to that obtained with rats using similar methods. They readily acquired four separate two-odor discrimination tasks and continued to perform well when all eight odors were presented in random order in the same session and when reinforcement probability for correct responding was decreased from 1 to 0.5. Memory for these eight odors, assessed under extinction after a 32 day rest period, was essentially perfect. Time spent sampling the odor on S+ and S- trials was highly correlated with response accuracy. When accuracy was at chance levels (e.g. initial trials on a novel task), stimulus sampling time on both S+ and S- trials was approximately 0.5-0.7 s. As response accuracy increased, sampling time on S+ trials tended to increase and remain higher than sampling time on S- trials.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
A novel multigene family may encode odorant receptors: A molecular basis for odor recognition
Buck, L., & Axel, R. (1991) · Cell · doi:10.1016/0092-8674(91)90418-x · Cited by 4,987
Cited by
Learning-related fine-scale specificity imaged in motor cortex circuits of behaving mice
Komiyama, T., Sato, T. R., O’Connor, D. H., Zhang, Y.-X., Huber, D., Hooks, B. M., Gabitto, M., & Svoboda, K. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08897 · Cited by 447
Learning and survival of newly generated neurons: when time matters
Mouret, A., Gheusi, G., Gabellec, M.-M., de Chaumont, F., Olivo-Marin, J.-C., & Lledo, P.-M. (2008) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2954-08.2008 · Cited by 180
Smelling sounds: Olfactory-auditory sensory convergence in the olfactory tubercle
Wesson, D. W., & Wilson, D. A. (2010) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.6003-09.2010 · Cited by 150
Successful acquisition of an olfactory discrimination test by Asian elephants, Elephas maximus
Arvidsson, J., Amundin, M., & Laska, M. (2012) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.08.021 · Cited by 49
Metadata
- Authors
- Bodyak, N.
- Venue
- Chemical Senses
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-12-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 637-645
- ISSN
- 0379-864X (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3553
- OpenAlex
- W2143094040
- Cited by
- 223
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 1.94
- 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: Performance of Mice in an Automated Olfactometer: Odor Detection, Discrimination and Odor Memory. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/chemse/24.6.637
- The paper
- Bodyak, N. (1999). Performance of Mice in an Automated Olfactometer: Odor Detection, Discrimination and Odor Memory. Chemical Senses. https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/24.6.637
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.