Advertisement

Chemosensory Perception

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 18–31 | Cite as

How Differences in Ratings of Odors and Odor Labels Are Associated with Identification Mechanisms

  • Kathrin KaepplerEmail author
Article

Abstract

Introduction

Odor perception is biased by verbal–semantic processes when cues on an odor’s source are readily available from the context. At the same time, olfaction has been characterized as basically sensation driven when this information is absent. In the present study, we examined whether language effects occur when verbal cues are absent and how expectations about an odor’s identity shape odor evaluations.

Methods

A total of 56 subjects were asked to rate 20 unlabeled odor samples on perceptual dimensions as well as quality attributes and to eventually provide an odor source name. In a subsequent session, they performed the same rating tasks on a set of written odor labels that was compiled individually for each participant. It included both the 20 correct odor names (true labels) and in any case of incorrect odor naming in the first session, the self–generated labels (identified labels).

Results

We compared odor ratings to ratings of both types of labels to test whether differences between odor and odor label evaluations were rooted in identification mechanisms. In cases of false identifications, we found higher consistencies between the evaluation of an odor and its identified label than between the description of an odor and its true (yet not associated) label.

Conclusions

These results indicate that odor evaluations are strongly affected by the mental image of an odor rather than the actual sensory codes and that this mental image is built spontaneously. Our findings imply that odors and odor labels are evaluated similarly for identical objects and that the differences found in similar studies may have been rooted in different mental representations being evaluated.

Implications

Odor sensations provoke odor naming without explicit demand. These self–generated hypotheses about an odor’s source exert a considerable semantic impact on odor perceptual processing, regardless of their accuracy.

Keywords

Language Olfaction Odor evaluation Odor identification Perceptual processing Semantic processing 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

12078_2018_9247_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (67 kb)
ESM 1 (XLSX 67 kb)
12078_2018_9247_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (67 kb)
ESM 2 (PDF 66 kb)
12078_2018_9247_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (60 kb)
ESM 3 (PDF 59 kb)

References

  1. de Araujo IE, Rolls ET, Velazco MI, Margot C, Cayeux I (2005) Cognitive modulation of olfactory processing. Neuron 46:671–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arctander S (1969) Perfume and flavor chemicals (aroma chemicals). Volume 1 and 2. S. Arctander, Montclair (NJ)Google Scholar
  3. Arshamian A, Larsson M (2014) Same same but different: the case of olfactory imagery. Front Psychol (Frontiers in Psychology) 5:34Google Scholar
  4. Auvray M, Spence C (2008) The multisensory perception of flavor. Conscious Cogn 17:1016–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayabe-Kanamura S, Kikuchi T, Saito S (1997) Effect of verbal cues on recognition memory and pleasantness evaluation of unfamiliar odors. Percept Mot Skills 85:275–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayabe-Kanamura S, Schicker I, Laska M, Hudson R, Distel H, Kobayakawa T, Saito S (1998) Differences in perception of everyday odors: a Japanese-German cross-cultural study. Chem Senses 23:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bensafi M, Rinck F, Schaal B, Rouby C (2007) Verbal cues modulate hedonic perception of odors in 5-year-old children as well as in adults. Chem Senses 32:855–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berglund B, Höglund A (2012) Is there a measurement system for odor quality? In: Zucco GM, editor. Olfactory cognition: from perception and memory to environmental odours and neuroscience. Amsterdam (NL): Benjamins. p. 3–21Google Scholar
  9. Boelens H, Haring H. 1981. Molecular structure and olfactive quality: an investigation of structure-activity relationships in fragance chemistry by human olfaction. Bussum (NL): Naarden InternationalGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonfigli L, Kodilja R, Zanuttini L (2002) Verbal versus olfactory cues: affect in elicited memories. Percept Mot Skills 94:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Breckler SJ, Fried HS (1993) On knowing what you like and liking what you smell: attitudes depend on the form in which the object is represented. Pers Soc Psychol B 19:228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bueno S, Megherbi H (2009) French categorization norms for 70 semantic categories and comparison with van Overschelde et al.’s (2004) English norms. Behav Res Methods 41:1018–1028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cain WS (1979) To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science 203:467–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cain WS, Gent J, Catalanotto FA, Goodspeed RB (1983) Clinical evaluation of olfaction. Am J Otolaryng 4:252–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cain WS, Potts BC (1996) Switch and bait: probing the discriminative basis of odor identification via recognition memory. Chem Senses 21:35–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cain WS, de Wijk R, Lulejian C, Schiet F, See L-C (1998) Odor identification: perceptual and semantic dimensions. Chem Senses 23:309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carrasco M, Ridout JB (1993) Olfactory perception and olfactory imagery: a multidimensional analysis. J Exp Psychol Human Percept 19:287–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chrea C, Valentin D, Abdi H (2009) Graded structure in odour categories: a cross-cultural case study. Perception 38:292–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Chrea C, Valentin D, Sulmont-Rossé C, Hoang Nguyen D, Abdi H (2005) Semantic, typicality and odor representation: a cross-cultural study. Chem Senses 30:37–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Chrea C, Valentin D, Sulmont-Rossé C, Ly Mai H, Hoang Nguyen D, Abdi H (2004) Culture and odor categorization: agreement between cultures depends upon the odors. Food Qual Prefer 15:669–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cleary AM, Konkel KE, Nomi JS, McCabe DP (2010) Odor recognition without identification. Mem Cognition 38:452–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Coxon JM, Gregson RAM, Paddick RG (1978) Multidimensional scaling of perceived odour of bicyclo [2.2.1] heptane, 1,7,7-trimethylbicyclo [2.2.1] heptane and cyclohexane derivatives. Chem Senses 3:431–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crisinel A-S, Jones S, Spence C (2012) ‘The sweet taste of Maluma’: Crossmodal associations between tastes and words. Chem Percept 5:266–273Google Scholar
  24. Cunningham M, Crady CA (1971) Identification of olfactory dimensions by semantic differential technique. Psychon Sci 23:387–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dalton P, Maute C, Oshida A, Hikichi S, Izumi YU (2008) The use of semantic differential scaling to define the multidimensional representation of odors. J Sens Stud 23:485–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dematte ML, Sanabria D, Spence C (2006) Cross-modal associations between odors and colors. Chem Senses 31:531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Desor JA, Beauchamp GK (1974) The human capacity to transmit olfactory information. Percept Psychophys 16:551–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. de Valk JM, Wnuk E, Huisman JLA, Majid A (2017) Odor-color associations differ with verbal descriptors for odors: a comparison of three linguistically diverse groups. Psychon Bull Rev:1171–1179Google Scholar
  29. de Wijk RA, Cain WS (1994a) Odor identification by name and by edibility: life-span development and safety. Hum Factors 36:182–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. de Wijk RA, Cain WS (1994b) Odor quality: discrimination versus free and cued identification. Percept Psychophys 56:12–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. de Wijk RA, Schab FR, Cain WS (1995) Odor identification In: Schab FR, Crowder RG (eds) Memory for odors. Erlbaum, Mahwah, p 21–38Google Scholar
  32. Distel H, Ayabe-Kanamura S, Martí­nez-Gómez M, Schicker I, Kobayakawa T, Saito S, Hudson R (1999) Perception of everyday odors: correlation between intensity, familiarity and strength of hedonic judgement. Chem Senses 24:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Distel H, Hudson R (2001) Judgement of odor intensity is influenced by subjects’ knowledge of the odor source. Chem Senses 26:247–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Djordjevic J, Lundstrom JN, Clement F, Boyle JA, Pouliot S, Jones-Gotman M (2008) A rose by any other name: would it smell as sweet? J Neurophysiol 99:386–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Doty RL (1975) An examination of relationships between the pleasantness, intensity, and concentration of 10 odorous stimuli. Percept Psychophys 17:492–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Doty RL, Shaman P, Dann M (1984) Development of the university of Pennsylvania smell identification test: a standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol Behav 32:489–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dravnieks A (1985) Atlas of odor character profiles. Philadelphia (PA): ASTMGoogle Scholar
  38. Fornazieri MA, Pinna FR, Bezerra TFP, Antunes MB, Voegels RL (2010) Applicability of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test (SIT) in Brazilians: pilot study. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol 76:695–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Gibson JJ (1966) The senses considered as perceptual systems. Hougthon Miflin, Boston (MA)Google Scholar
  40. Gilbert AN, Martin R, Kemp SE (1996) Cross-modal correspondence between vision and olfaction: the color of smells. Am J Psychol 109:335–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Henion KE (1971) Odor pleasantness and intensity: a single dimension? J Exp Psychol 90:275–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Herz RS (2003) The effect of verbal context on olfactory perception. J Exp Psychol Gen 132:595–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Herz RS (2005) The unique interaction between language and olfactory perception and cognition In: Rosen DT, editor. Trends in experimental psychology research. New York (NY): Nova Science p. 91–109Google Scholar
  44. Herz RS, von Clef J (2001) The influence of verbal labeling on the perception of odors: evidence for olfactory illusions? Perception 30:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Herz RS, Eich E (1995) Commentary and envoi In: Schab FR, Crowder RG, editors. Memory for odors. Mahwah (NJ): Erlbaum. p. 159–176Google Scholar
  46. Higuchi T, Shoji K, Hatayama T (2004) Multidimensional scaling of fragrances: a comparison between the verbal and non-verbal methods of classifying fragrances. Jpn Psychol Res 46:10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Holley A (2002) Cognitive aspects of olfaction in perfumer practice In: Rouby C, Schaal B, Dubois D, Gervais R, Holley A, editors. Olfaction, Taste, and Cognition. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press. p. 16–17Google Scholar
  48. Hudson R, Distel H (2002) The individuality of odor perception In: Rouby C, Schaal B, Dubois D, Gervais R, Holley A, editors. Olfaction, Taste, and Cognition. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press. p. 408–420Google Scholar
  49. Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, Pauli E, Kobal G (1997) ‘Sniffin’ Sticks’: olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odour identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chem Senses 22:39–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jacquot M, Noel F, Velasco C, Spence C (2016) On the colours of odours. Chem Percept 9:79–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kaeppler K (2018) Crossmodal associations between olfaction and vision color and shape visualizations of odors. Chem Percept 95:24Google Scholar
  52. Köster EP (2002) The specific characteristics of the sense of smell In: Rouby C, Schaal B, Dubois D, Gervais R, Holley A, editors. Olfaction, Taste, and Cognition. Cambridge (GB): Cambridge University Press. p. 27–43Google Scholar
  53. Köster EP (2005) Does olfactory memory depend on remembering odors? Chem Senses 30:i236–i237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lawless HT (1984) Flavor description of white wine by “expert” and nonexpert wine consumers. J Food Sci 49:120–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lehrner JP (1993) Gender differences in long-term odor recognition memory verbal versus sensory influences and the consistency of label use. Chem Senses 18:17–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Levinson SC, Majid A (2014) Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind Lang 29:407–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Levitan CA et al (2014) Cross-cultural color-odor associations. PLoS One 9:e101651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lorig TS, Roberts M (1990) Odor and cognitive alteration of the contingent negative variation. Chem Senses 15:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lundström JN, Seven S, Olsson MJ, Schaal B, Hummel T (2006) Olfactory event-related potentials reflect individual differences in odor valence perception. Chem Senses 31:705–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Majid A (2015) Cultural factors shape olfactory language. Trends Cogn Sci 19:629–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Majid A, Burenhult N (2014) Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition 130:266–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Maric Y, Jacquot M (2013) Contribution to understanding odour–colour associations. Food Qual Prefer 27:191–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Moskowitz HR (1979) Mind body and pleasure: an analysis of factors which influence sensory hedonics In: Kroeze JHA, editor. Preference Behavior and Chemoreception. London (GB): IRL Press. p. 131–141Google Scholar
  64. Moskowitz HR, Dravnieks A, Klarman LA (1976) Odor intensity and pleasantness for a diverse set of odorants. Percept Psychophys 19:122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Moss AG, Miles C, Elsley JV, Johnson AJ (2016) Odorant normative data for use in olfactory memory experiments: dimension selection and analysis of individual differences. Front Psychol (Frontiers in Psychology) 7:1267Google Scholar
  66. Nordin S, Brämerson A, Bende M (1998) The Scandinavian odor-identification test: development, reliability, validity and normative data. Acta Otolaryngol 118:226–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Olofsson JK (2014) Time to smell a cascade model of human olfactory perception based on response-time (RT) measurement. Front Psychol 5:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Olofsson JK, Bowman NE, Gottfried JA (2013) High and low roads to odor valence? A choice response-time study. J Exp Psychol Human Percept Perform 39:1205–1211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Olofsson JK, Gottfried JA (2015) The muted sense: neurocognitive limitations of olfactory language. Trends Cogn Sci 19:314–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pilgrim FJ, Schutz HG (1957) Measurement of quantitative and qualitative attributes of flavor In: National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council Symposium, editor. Chemistry of food flavors. Washington D.C.: National Academy PressGoogle Scholar
  71. Prost C, Le Guen S, Courcoux P, Demaimay M (2001) Similarities among 40 pure odorant compounds evaluated by consumers. J Sens Stud 16:551–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Rabin MD, Cain WS (1984) Odor recognition: familiarity, identifiability, and encoding consistency. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 10:316–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Rolls ET, Kringelbach ML, Araujo IET de. 2003. Different representations of pleasant and unpleasant odours in the human brain. Eur J Neurosci 18:695–703Google Scholar
  74. Royet J-P et al (1999) Functional anatomy of perceptual and semantic processing for odors. J Cognitive Neurosci 11:94–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Seo H-S, Buschhüter D, Hummel T (2008) Contextual influences on the relationship between familiarity and hedonicity of odors. J Food Sci 73:273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Seo H-S, Guarneros M, Hudson R, Distel H, Min B-C, Kang J-K, Croy I, Vodicka J, Hummel T (2011) Attitudes toward olfaction: a cross-regional study. Chem Senses 36:177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Solomon GEA (1990) Psychology of novice and expert wine talk. Am J Psychol 103:495–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Solomon GEA (1997) Conceptual change and wine expertise. J Learn Sci 6:41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Spector F, Maurer D (2008) The colour of Os: naturally biased associations between shape and colour. Perception 37:841–847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Stevenson RJ, Case TI, Mahmut M (2007) Difficulty in evoking odor images: the role of odor naming. Mem Cognition 35:578–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Stevenson RJ, Mahmut MK (2013) Using response consistency to probe olfactory knowledge. Chem Senses 38:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Storms G, Boeck P, Ruts W (2001) Categorization of novel stimuli in well-known natural concepts: a case study. Psychon Bull Rev 8:377–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Sugiyama H, Ayabe-Kanamura S, Kikuchi T (2006) Are olfactory images sensory in nature? Perception 35:1699–1708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Sulmont C, Issanchou S, Köster EP (2002) Selection of odorants for memory tests on the basis of familiarity, perceived complexity, pleasantness, similarity and identification. Chem Senses 27:307–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Sulmont-Rosse C (2005) Odor naming methodology: correct identification with multiple-choice versus repeatable identification in a free task. Chem Senses 30:23–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Thiboud M. (1991) Empirical classification of odours In: Müller PM, Lamparsky D, editors. Perfumes: Art, science, and technology. New York (NY): Elsevier. p. 252–286Google Scholar
  87. Ueno Y (1993) Cross-cultural study of odor perception in Sherpa and Japanese people. Chem Senses 18:352–353Google Scholar
  88. Urdapilleta I, Giboreau A, Manetta C, Houix O, Richard JF (2006) The mental context for the description of odors: a semantic space. Eur Rev Appl Psychol 56:261–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. van Overschelde JP, Rawson KA, Dunlosky J (2004) Category norms an updated and expanded version of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms. J Mem Lang 50:289–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Yeshurun Y, Sobel N (2010) An odor is not worth a thousand words: from multidimensional odors to unidimensional odor objects. Annu Rev Psychol 61:219–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Zarzo M (2008) Psychological dimensions in the perception of erveryday odors: pleasantness and edibility. J Sens Stud 23:354–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Zellner DA, McGarry A, Mattern-McClory R, Abreu D (2008) Masculinity/femininity of fine fragrances affects color-odor correspondences: a case for cognitions influencing cross-modal correspondences. Chem Senses 33:211–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Leuphana University LueneburgInstitute of Experimental Business PsychologyLueneburgGermany

Personalised recommendations