Advertisement

Is it Easier to Match a Name to an Odor than Vice Versa?

Abstract

Previous literature and common belief suggest a cognitive asymmetry in the odor–name relationship such that it would be easier to match a name to an odor than the other way around. We tested whether it is more difficult to smell an odor and then choose a proper name among three alternatives than to read an odor name and then choose a matching odor among three alternatives. Although instances of an asymmetry are suggested, in both directions, depending on which odors or odor names are involved, the overall conclusion is that no general unidirectional asymmetry is evident. This was true for odorants of both high and low familiarity and identifiability. Different cognitive factors in a complete model of odor–name matching are identified and discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

References

  1. Baddeley AD, Hitch GJ (1974) Working memory. In: Bower GA (ed) The psychology of learning and motivation: advances in research and theory, vol. 8. Academic, New York, pp 47–89

  2. Bell GA, Paton JE (2000) Verbal-cognitive strategy can influence odor judgment. The Aroma-Chology Review 10:3–9

  3. Broman DA, Olsson MJ, Nordin S (2001) Lateralization of olfactory cognitive functions: effects of rhinal side of stimulation. Chem Senses 26(9):1187–1192

  4. Cain WS (1979) To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science 203(4379):467–470

  5. Cain WS, de Wijk R, Lulejian C, Schiet F, See LC (1998) Odor identification: perceptual and semantic dimensions. Chem Senses 23(3):309–326

  6. Cain WS, Goodspeed RB, Gent JF, Leonard G (1988) Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction in the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center. Laryngoscope 98(1):83–88

  7. Cain WS, Potts BC (1996) Switch and bait: probing the discriminative basis of odor identification via recognition memory. Chem Senses 21(1):35–44

  8. Chandra M, Paton JE, Bell GA (2003) Influence of verbal-cognitive strategy on odour identification depends on odour familiarity and not perceived intensity. Chem Senses 28:E10–E11 (http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org)

  9. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159

  10. Dade LA, Zatorre RJ, Evans AC, Jones-Gotman M (2001) Working memory in another dimension: functional imaging of human olfactory working memory. Neuroimage 14(3):650–660

  11. Desor JA, Beauchamp GK (1974) The human capacity to transmit olfactory information. Percept Psychophys 16(3):551–556

  12. De Wijk RA, Cain WS (1994a) Odor identification by name and edibility: life-span development and safety. Human Factors 36(1):182–187

  13. De Wijk RA, Cain WS (1994b) Odor quality: discrimination versus free and cued identification. Percept Psychophys 56(1):12–18

  14. De Wijk RA, Schab FR, Cain WS (1995) Odor identification. In: Schab FR, Crowder RG (eds) Memory for odors. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 21–37

  15. Distel H, Hudson R (2001) Judgement of odor intensity is influenced by subjects’ knowledge of the odor source. Chem Senses 26(3):247–251

  16. Doty RL, Shaman P, Kimmelman CP, Dann MS (1984) University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a rapid quantitative olfactory function test for the clinic. Laryngoscope 94(2 Pt 1):176–178

  17. Jönsson FU, Olsson H, Olsson MJ (2005a) Odor emotionality affects the confidence in odor naming. Chem Senses 30(1):29–35

  18. Jönsson FU, Tchekhova A, Lönner P, Olsson MO (2005b) A metamemory perspective on odor naming and identification. Chem Senses 30(4):353–365

  19. Kobal G, Hummel T, Sekinger B, Barz S, Roscher S, Wolf S (1996) “Sniffin’ Sticks”: screening of olfactory performance. Rhinology 34(4):222–226

  20. Lawless H, Engen T (1977) Associations to odors: Interference, mnemonics, and verbal labeling. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 3(1):52–59

  21. Nordin S, Brämerson A, Lidén E, Bende M (1998) The Scandinavian odor-identification test: development, reliability, validity and normative data. Acta Otolaryngology 118(2):226–234

  22. Nordin S, Nyroos M, Maunuksela T, Niskanen T, Tuorila H (2002) Applicability of the Scandinavian odor identification test: a Finnish–Swedish comparison. Acta Otolaryngology 122(3):294–297

  23. Olsson MJ (1999) Implicit testing of odor memory: instances of positive and negative repetition priming. Chem Senses 24(3):347–350

  24. Olsson MJ, Cain WS (2003) Implicit and explicit memory for odors: hemispheric differences. Mem Cogn 31(1):44–50

  25. Olsson NO, Fridén M (2001) Evidence of odor priming: edibility judgements are primed differently between the hemispheres. Chem Senses 26(2):117–123

  26. Olsson MJ, Jönsson FJ, Moeller P (2008) Is there an olfactory working memory? Unpublished manuscript.

  27. Pierce CA, Block RA, Aguinis H (2004) Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educ Psychol Meas 64(6):916–924

Download references

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Fredrik Gunne, Microsoft, Sweden, for data simulation and Ana Rita Dias for help with the data collection.

Author information

Correspondence to Mats J. Olsson.

Additional information

This research was supported by the Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation and the Swedish Research Council.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olsson, M.J., Jönsson, F.U. Is it Easier to Match a Name to an Odor than Vice Versa?. Chem. Percept. 1, 184 (2008) doi:10.1007/s12078-008-9024-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Odor Identification
  • Odor Naming
  • Cued Identification