Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 317–319 | Cite as

A sequential contrast effect in odor perception

  • Harry T. Lawless
Article
  • 194 Downloads

Abstract

An odor of ambiguous quality was shown to shift in rated odor character after presentation of more prototypical odors, always in a direction contrasting with the previous context. The terpene aroma compound, dihydromyrcenol, is perceived as partially woody (pine-like) and partially citrus (lime-like) in odor character. Citrus ratings of this odor increased following exposure to woody odors. Conversely, woody ratings of dihydromyrcenol increased following exposure to citrus odors. Possible explanations for this sequential contrast effect include shifts in cognitive category boundaries, response frequency biases, and simple sensory adaptation.

References

  1. Blakemore, C., & Sutton, P. (1969). Size adaptation: A new aftereffect. Science, 166, 246–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cain, W. S. (1975). Odor intensity: Mixtures and masking. Chemical Senses & Flavor, 1, 339–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Diehl, R. L. (1981). Feature detectors for speech: A critical reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 1–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eimas, P. D., & Corbit, J. (1973). Selective adaptation of linguistic feature detectors. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Engen, T. (1982). The perception of odors. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Koster, E. (1971). Adaptation and cross adaptation in olfaction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Lawless, H. T. (1986). Sensory interactions in mixtures. Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lawless, H. T. (1987). An olfactory analogy to release from mixture suppression in taste. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 266–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lawless, H. T. (1989). Exploration of fragrance categories and ambiguous odors using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis. Chemical Senses, 14, 349–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. McBurney, D. H., & Bartoshuk, L. M. (1973). Interactions between stimuli with different taste qualities. Physiology & Behavior, 10, 1101–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 72, 407–418.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Samuel, A. G. (1986). Red herring detectors in speech perception: In defense of selective adaptation. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 452–499.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harry T. Lawless
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Food ScienceCornell UniversityIthaca

Personalised recommendations