Human spatial behavior has been the focus of hundreds of previous research studies. However, the conclusions and generalizability of previous studies on interpersonal distance preferences were limited by some important methodological and sampling issues. The objective of the present study was to compare preferred interpersonal distances across the world and to overcome the problems observed in previous studies. We present an extensive analysis of interpersonal distances over a large data set (N = 8,943 participants from 42 countries). We attempted to relate the preferred social, personal, and intimate distances observed in each country to a set of individual characteristics of the participants, and some attributes of their cultures. Our study indicates that individual characteristics (age and gender) influence interpersonal space preferences and that some variation in results can be explained by temperature in a given region. We also present objective values of preferred interpersonal distances in different regions, which might be used as a reference data point in future studies.

Although the view that women's olfactory abilities outperform men's is taken for granted, some studies involving large samples suggested that male and female olfactory abilities are actually similar. To address this discrepancy, we conducted a meta-analysis of existing studies on olfaction, targeting possible sex differences. The analyzed sample comprised n = 8 848 (5 065 women and 3 783 men) for olfactory threshold (as measured with the Sniffin Sticks Test; SST), n = 8 067 (4 496 women and 3 571 men) for discrimination (SST), n = 13 670 (7 501 women and 6 169 men) for identification (SST), and a total sample of n = 7 154 (3 866 women and 3 288 men) for works using University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (UPSIT). We conducted separate meta-analyses for each aspect of olfaction: identification, discrimination and threshold. The results of our meta-analysis indicate that women generally outperform men in olfactory abilities. What is more, they do so in every aspect of olfaction analyzed in the current study. However, the effect sizes were weak and ranged between g = 0.08 and g = 0.30. We discuss our findings in the context of factors that potentially shape sex differences in olfaction. Nevertheless, although our findings seem to confirm the “common knowledge” on female olfactory superiority, it needs to be emphasized that the effect sizes we observed were notably small.

The currently presented large dataset (n = 1,422) consists of results that have been assembled over the last 8 years at science fairs using the 16-item odor identification part of the “Sniffin’ Sticks”. In this context, the focus was on olfactory function in children; in addition before testing, we asked participants to rate their olfactory abilities and the patency of the nasal airways. We reinvestigated some simple questions, e.g., differences in olfactory odor identification abilities in relation to age, sex, self-ratings of olfactory function and nasal patency. Three major results evolved: first, consistent with previously published reports, we found that identification scores of the youngest and the oldest participants were lower than the scores obtained by people aged 20–60. Second, we observed an age-related increase in the olfactory abilities of children. Moreover, the self-assessed olfactory abilities were related to actual performance in the smell test, but only in adults, and self-assessed nasal patency was not related to the “Sniffin’ Sticks” identification score.

The neural plasticity of the olfactory system offers possibilities of treatment in terms of stimulation of the sense of smell, and different studies have suggested effectiveness of smell training, i.e., daily exposition to certain odors. To obtain reliable and precise estimates of overall treatment benefit on the olfactory function, we meta-analyzed the effects of smell training reported in 13 previous studies. We analyzed the smell training effectiveness across three different olfactory abilities, smell identification, discrimination and threshold for odor detection. We found a significant, positive effect of olfactory training for all olfactory abilities, with large effects of training on identification, discrimination and TDI-score and small-to-moderate effect in the case of threshold for odor detection. Interestingly, the pattern of results differed across Sniffin Sticks subtests depending on the origin of participants smell disorder, and the smell training duration influenced its effectiveness in the case of identification and the TDI score. Although the exact mechanism of olfactory recovery following the smell training still requires further investigation, our meta-analysis showed that such training should be considered an addition or alternative to existing smell treatment methods.