Advertisement

Chemosensory Perception

, 1:184 | Cite as

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

  • Mats J. OlssonEmail author
  • Fredrik U. Jönsson
Article

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.

Keywords

Odor Identification Odor Naming Cued Identification 

Notes

Acknowledgment

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

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 47–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell GA, Paton JE (2000) Verbal-cognitive strategy can influence odor judgment. The Aroma-Chology Review 10:3–9Google Scholar
  3. Broman DA, Olsson MJ, Nordin S (2001) Lateralization of olfactory cognitive functions: effects of rhinal side of stimulation. Chem Senses 26(9):1187–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cain WS (1979) To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science 203(4379):467–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cain WS, de Wijk R, Lulejian C, Schiet F, See LC (1998) Odor identification: perceptual and semantic dimensions. Chem Senses 23(3):309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cain WS, Goodspeed RB, Gent JF, Leonard G (1988) Evaluation of olfactory dysfunction in the Connecticut Chemosensory Clinical Research Center. Laryngoscope 98(1):83–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cain WS, Potts BC (1996) Switch and bait: probing the discriminative basis of odor identification via recognition memory. Chem Senses 21(1):35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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)Google Scholar
  9. Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):650–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Desor JA, Beauchamp GK (1974) The human capacity to transmit olfactory information. Percept Psychophys 16(3):551–556Google Scholar
  12. De Wijk RA, Cain WS (1994a) Odor identification by name and edibility: life-span development and safety. Human Factors 36(1):182–187Google Scholar
  13. De Wijk RA, Cain WS (1994b) Odor quality: discrimination versus free and cued identification. Percept Psychophys 56(1):12–18Google Scholar
  14. De Wijk RA, Schab FR, Cain WS (1995) Odor identification. In: Schab FR, Crowder RG (eds) Memory for odors. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 21–37Google Scholar
  15. Distel H, Hudson R (2001) Judgement of odor intensity is influenced by subjects’ knowledge of the odor source. Chem Senses 26(3):247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):176–178Google Scholar
  17. Jönsson FU, Olsson H, Olsson MJ (2005a) Odor emotionality affects the confidence in odor naming. Chem Senses 30(1):29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jönsson FU, Tchekhova A, Lönner P, Olsson MO (2005b) A metamemory perspective on odor naming and identification. Chem Senses 30(4):353–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kobal G, Hummel T, Sekinger B, Barz S, Roscher S, Wolf S (1996) “Sniffin’ Sticks”: screening of olfactory performance. Rhinology 34(4):222–226Google Scholar
  20. Lawless H, Engen T (1977) Associations to odors: Interference, mnemonics, and verbal labeling. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn Mem 3(1):52–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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):294–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Olsson MJ (1999) Implicit testing of odor memory: instances of positive and negative repetition priming. Chem Senses 24(3):347–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olsson MJ, Cain WS (2003) Implicit and explicit memory for odors: hemispheric differences. Mem Cogn 31(1):44–50Google Scholar
  25. Olsson NO, Fridén M (2001) Evidence of odor priming: edibility judgements are primed differently between the hemispheres. Chem Senses 26(2):117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Olsson MJ, Jönsson FJ, Moeller P (2008) Is there an olfactory working memory? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  27. Pierce CA, Block RA, Aguinis H (2004) Cautionary note on reporting eta-squared values from multifactor ANOVA designs. Educ Psychol Meas 64(6):916–924CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden
  2. 2.Section for Psychology, Department of Clinical NeuroscienceKarolinska InstituteStockholmSweden
  3. 3.Stockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations