this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
38 points (67.6% liked)

science

13604 readers
782 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] chemical_cutthroat 96 points 10 months ago (3 children)

Alright, maybe I'm just cynical and jaded, but this was put on by Proctor & Gamble, and I get the feeling this was just made for the purposes of having a study they could link to for claims that their new scent plug in can improve memory retention in certain groups of people. The fact that the total sample size was less than 50 and split between control and variable means that about 20 people of different age groups participated. That's not much for a study. Also, the control group actually did worse during the experiment than normal, which leads me to believe that the control wasn't handled very well, or that natural deviance in data is greater than the "improvement" they claim. Either way, I'm dubious. It feels like it's destined for a fine print in a commercial that shows between reruns of Law and Order.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago

No, this is warranted skepticism.

[–] prototyperspective 1 points 10 months ago

It's destined for a another study by independent researchers. As simple as that. Also more than one and substantially larger ones would be good given the simplicity, more or less innocuous study design, and the potential benefits. Maybe people assume that if a study says something, you're supposed to immediately take that as the truth. That is never the case. This study is just a very clear case for more good studies on this.

[–] 0Empty0 19 points 10 months ago

For anyone interested in what they used:

"Individuals assigned to the olfactory enrichment group were provided with an odorant diffuser (Diffuser World) and 7 essential oil odorants (rose, orange, eucalyptus, lemon, peppermint, rosemary, and lavender; from The Essential Oil Company, Portland, OR) in identical glass vials that each fit into the diffuser. They were asked to turn on the diffuser when they went to bed, and the odorant was released into the air during the night for 2 h when they first went to sleep. They rotated through the different odorants each night."

[–] Touching_Grass 3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Do I remember my organic chemistry class right that scents that smell good are likely cancer causing?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Aromatic hydrocarbons doesn't mean they smell good. Benzene smells sweet like gasoline does, but I wouldn't want gasoline air fresheners.

[–] Touching_Grass 2 points 10 months ago

Right but synthetic air fresheners that mimic natural ones are all petroleum based. We're just aerosolizing petroleum and inhaling it all day. Like febreeze the bed while the plugged in air freshener in the corner off gasses all before I go turn on my gas stove with the broken vent.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

I do, because it would be less toxic than smelling that sweet sweet gasoline.

[–] elbarto777 2 points 10 months ago

Why would that be? And what do you mean by "scent" in this context? I don't think the scent of fresh fruit is cancer causing.

[–] JustZ 2 points 10 months ago

Is this source legit? I've seen it a few times lately and the headlines and content have been utter nonsense.