[acqq]

Read at least the real scientific article abstract (or even the whole article if you can):

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037663571...

E.g. " Finally, in a second experiment, subjects spent longer with the modified stimulus than with the modified odour by itself, indicating that novelty alone does not explain the dogs' behavior."

If you read a news item about the scientific article and it appears lacking, most of the time it's that the journalist (or the editor) simply omitted the details that make the argument consistent. The news can't copy everything word-for-word, and the time that the "reporter" has to write the "news" and the time he spent on learning on the subject are typically many orders of magnitude smaller than the person who did the scientific work.

Which also doesn't mean that all scientific papers can stand the test of the time. But when seeing inconsistencies, it's worth to first look at the real thing.