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

Research output: Journal contributionsJournal articlesResearchpeer-review

Authors

  • Kathrin Kaeppler

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalChemosensory Perception
Volume12
Issue number1
Pages (from-to)18-31
Number of pages14
ISSN1936-5802
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15.04.2019

    Research areas

  • Language, Odor evaluation, Odor identification, Olfaction, Perceptual processing, Semantic processing
  • Business psychology

Recently viewed

Publications

  1. Geometric analysis of a laser scanner functioning based on dynamic triangulation
  2. Managing Global Production Networks
  3. Photodegradation of micropollutants using V-UV/UV-C processes
  4. Systematic engineering design helps creating new soft machines
  5. Vimentin promoter methylation analysis is a suitable complement of a gene mutation marker panel for the detection of preneoplastic and neoplastic colonic lesions
  6. A generalized α-level decomposition concept for numerical fuzzy calculus
  7. Vergütung, variable
  8. Effect of grain size and structure, solid solution elements, precipitates and twinning on nanohardness of Mg-Re alloys
  9. E-stability and stability of adaptive learning in models with private information
  10. The relationship between values and knowledge in visioning for landscape management
  11. Health State Valuation Methods and Reference Points
  12. Differentiating Different Types of Cognitive Load
  13. Conceptualizing community in energy systems
  14. Modelling ammonia emissions after field application of biogas slurries
  15. Lecture2Go
  16. Modeling Grounding Processes in Chat-based CSCL
  17. Forest structure and heterogeneity increase diversity and alter composition of host–parasitoid networks
  18. Dialogic interactions in higher vocational learning environments in mainland China
  19. Action rate models for predicting actions in soccer
  20. Learning in Real-World Laboratories: A Systematic Impulse for Discussion
  21. Class size, student performance and Tiebout bias
  22. Sustainability-related co-operation among audit committees, internal auditors and external auditors: a survey-based study