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. Nonlinear anisotropic boundary value problems – regularity results and multiscale discretizations
  2. The interplay between posture control and memory for spatial locations
  3. A toolkit for robust risk assessment using F-divergences
  4. Direct parameter specification of an attention shift: Evidence from perceptual latency priming
  5. Finding Datasets in Publications: The University of Paderborn Approach
  6. On the role of linguistic features for comprehension and learning from STEM texts. A meta-analysis
  7. Effects of accuracy feedback on fractal characteristics of time estimation
  8. Operational integration of EMIS and ERP systems
  9. The shooter bias: Replicating the classic effect and introducing a novel paradigm
  10. Graph-based Approaches for Analyzing Team Interaction on the Example of Soccer
  11. Learning from Erroneous Examples
  12. Performance of an IMU-Based Sensor Concept for Solving the Direct Kinematics Problem of the Stewart-Gough Platform
  13. Geometric series with randomly increasing exponents
  14. Incorporating ecosystem services into ecosystem-based management to deal with complexity
  15. A piezo servo hydraulic actuator for use in camless combustion engines and its control with MPC
  16. Improve a 3D distance measurement accuracy in stereo vision systems using optimization methods’ approach
  17. Priority Rule-based Planning Approaches for Regeneration Processes
  18. An Equation with many Variables
  19. Toward a gecko-inspired, climbing soft robot
  20. Experimental analysis of measurement process for a QCM using the pulse coincidence method