False alerts during Phase 2.

Data points are the mean ± 95% confidence intervals. Introducing novel distractor odors increased the proportion of false alerts during the first two sessions. After the second session with novel distractors the proportion of false alerts reduced and by the end of the phase dogs did not show any false alerts to the distractors. The distribution of false alerts by distractor odor shows more responses to the person hygiene (PH) products of the volunteers and to the control chamber than to the other distractors.</p

Experiment 3 data.

Working Dogs have shown an extraordinary ability to utilize olfaction for victim recovery efforts. Although instrumental analysis has chemically characterized odor volatiles from various human biospecimens, it remains unclear what perceptually constitutes human scent (HS) for dogs. This may be in part due to the lack of methodology and equipment to train and evaluate HS perception. The aims of this research were 1) to develop an automated human scent olfactometer (AHSO) to present HS to dogs in a controlled setting and 2) use the AHSO to evaluate dogs’ response to different scented articles and individual components of HS. A human volunteer was placed in a clear acrylic chamber and using a vacuum pump and computer-controlled valves, the headspace of this chamber was carried to one of three ports in a different room. Dogs were trained to search all three ports of the olfactometer and alert to the one containing HS. In Experiment 1 and 2, the AHSO was validated by testing two dogs naïve to HS (Experiment 1) and five certified Search and Rescue (SAR) teams naïve to the apparatus (Experiment 2). All dogs showed sensitivity and specificity to HS > 95% in the apparatus. In Experiment 3, we used a spontaneous generalization paradigm to evaluate generalization from the HS chamber to different scented articles exposed to the same volunteer and to a breath sample. Dogs’ response rate to the different scented articles was </div

Averaged probability of alert to the different testing odors during a trial ± 95% confident interval.

Averaged probability of alert to the different testing odors during a trial ± 95% confident interval.</p

Search and Rescue (SAR) team information.

Teams with the same superscript share the same handler.</p

Dogs (N = 6) average probability of alert and sniff time ± 95% confidence interval to the different testing odors.

Data points with different superscripts within a panel are statistically different from each other. A) shows dogs response rate to the different testing odors. B) Shows dogs sniff time (s) to the target and testing odors. Dashed line indicates the 3 s mark which was our alert criterion.</p

Schematic of the Automated Human Scent Olfactometer (AHSO).

Schematic of the Automated Human Scent Olfactometer (AHSO).</p

Experiment 1 data.

Working Dogs have shown an extraordinary ability to utilize olfaction for victim recovery efforts. Although instrumental analysis has chemically characterized odor volatiles from various human biospecimens, it remains unclear what perceptually constitutes human scent (HS) for dogs. This may be in part due to the lack of methodology and equipment to train and evaluate HS perception. The aims of this research were 1) to develop an automated human scent olfactometer (AHSO) to present HS to dogs in a controlled setting and 2) use the AHSO to evaluate dogs’ response to different scented articles and individual components of HS. A human volunteer was placed in a clear acrylic chamber and using a vacuum pump and computer-controlled valves, the headspace of this chamber was carried to one of three ports in a different room. Dogs were trained to search all three ports of the olfactometer and alert to the one containing HS. In Experiment 1 and 2, the AHSO was validated by testing two dogs naïve to HS (Experiment 1) and five certified Search and Rescue (SAR) teams naïve to the apparatus (Experiment 2). All dogs showed sensitivity and specificity to HS > 95% in the apparatus. In Experiment 3, we used a spontaneous generalization paradigm to evaluate generalization from the HS chamber to different scented articles exposed to the same volunteer and to a breath sample. Dogs’ response rate to the different scented articles was </div

Experiment 4 data.

Working Dogs have shown an extraordinary ability to utilize olfaction for victim recovery efforts. Although instrumental analysis has chemically characterized odor volatiles from various human biospecimens, it remains unclear what perceptually constitutes human scent (HS) for dogs. This may be in part due to the lack of methodology and equipment to train and evaluate HS perception. The aims of this research were 1) to develop an automated human scent olfactometer (AHSO) to present HS to dogs in a controlled setting and 2) use the AHSO to evaluate dogs’ response to different scented articles and individual components of HS. A human volunteer was placed in a clear acrylic chamber and using a vacuum pump and computer-controlled valves, the headspace of this chamber was carried to one of three ports in a different room. Dogs were trained to search all three ports of the olfactometer and alert to the one containing HS. In Experiment 1 and 2, the AHSO was validated by testing two dogs naïve to HS (Experiment 1) and five certified Search and Rescue (SAR) teams naïve to the apparatus (Experiment 2). All dogs showed sensitivity and specificity to HS > 95% in the apparatus. In Experiment 3, we used a spontaneous generalization paradigm to evaluate generalization from the HS chamber to different scented articles exposed to the same volunteer and to a breath sample. Dogs’ response rate to the different scented articles was </div

Experiment 2 barrel search.

Working Dogs have shown an extraordinary ability to utilize olfaction for victim recovery efforts. Although instrumental analysis has chemically characterized odor volatiles from various human biospecimens, it remains unclear what perceptually constitutes human scent (HS) for dogs. This may be in part due to the lack of methodology and equipment to train and evaluate HS perception. The aims of this research were 1) to develop an automated human scent olfactometer (AHSO) to present HS to dogs in a controlled setting and 2) use the AHSO to evaluate dogs’ response to different scented articles and individual components of HS. A human volunteer was placed in a clear acrylic chamber and using a vacuum pump and computer-controlled valves, the headspace of this chamber was carried to one of three ports in a different room. Dogs were trained to search all three ports of the olfactometer and alert to the one containing HS. In Experiment 1 and 2, the AHSO was validated by testing two dogs naïve to HS (Experiment 1) and five certified Search and Rescue (SAR) teams naïve to the apparatus (Experiment 2). All dogs showed sensitivity and specificity to HS > 95% in the apparatus. In Experiment 3, we used a spontaneous generalization paradigm to evaluate generalization from the HS chamber to different scented articles exposed to the same volunteer and to a breath sample. Dogs’ response rate to the different scented articles was </div

Performance of SAR teams (N = 5) in the AHSO and the Control test.

Performance of SAR teams (N = 5) in the AHSO and the Control test.</p