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

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 Neuroscience Chemosensory Perception Pub Date : 2018-07-26 DOI:10.1007/s12078-018-9247-9
Kathrin Kaeppler
{"title":"How Differences in Ratings of Odors and Odor Labels Are Associated with Identification Mechanisms","authors":"Kathrin Kaeppler","doi":"10.1007/s12078-018-9247-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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.</p><p>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).</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":516,"journal":{"name":"Chemosensory Perception","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s12078-018-9247-9","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemosensory Perception","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12078-018-9247-9","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Neuroscience","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
气味等级和气味标签的差异如何与识别机制相关
当气味来源的线索很容易从上下文获得时,气味感知会受到语言语义过程的影响。与此同时,嗅觉的特点是,当信息缺失时,基本上是感觉驱动的。在本研究中,我们研究了语言效应是否会在语言线索缺失的情况下发生,以及对气味身份的预期如何影响气味评估。总共56名受试者被要求对20个未标记的气味样本在感知维度和质量属性上进行评分,并最终提供气味来源的名称。在接下来的一段时间里,他们对一组为每个参与者单独编写的书面气味标签执行了相同的评级任务。它既包括20个正确的气味名称(真实标签),也包括在第一次会话中任何不正确的气味命名的情况下,自己生成的标签(已识别的标签)。我们将气味评级与两种类型标签的评级进行比较,以测试气味和气味标签评估之间的差异是否源于识别机制。在错误识别的情况下,我们发现气味评估与其识别标签之间的一致性高于气味描述与其真实(但不相关)标签之间的一致性。这些结果表明,气味评价强烈地受到气味的心理形象的影响,而不是实际的感官编码,这种心理形象是自发建立的。我们的研究结果表明,对于相同的物体,气味和气味标签的评估是相似的,在类似的研究中发现的差异可能源于被评估的不同心理表征。气味感觉在没有明确要求的情况下激发气味命名。这些关于气味来源的自我产生的假设对气味感知处理施加了相当大的语义影响,无论其准确性如何。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Chemosensory Perception
Chemosensory Perception 农林科学-神经科学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
>36 weeks
期刊介绍: Coverage in Chemosensory Perception includes animal work with implications for human phenomena and explores the following areas: Identification of chemicals producing sensory response; Identification of sensory response associated with chemicals; Human in vivo response to chemical stimuli; Human in vitro response to chemical stimuli; Neuroimaging of chemosensory function; Neurological processing of chemoreception; Chemoreception mechanisms; Psychophysics of chemoperception; Trigeminal function; Multisensory perception; Contextual effect on chemoperception; Behavioral response to chemical stimuli; Physiological factors affecting and contributing to chemoperception; Flavor and hedonics; Memory and chemoperception.
期刊最新文献
Odor identification testing is inferior compared to neurocognitive testing in predicting conversion to Alzheimer's Disease Children’s Personal Significance of Olfaction — the ChiPSO Questionnaire Subjective Mouthfeel and Temperature Alterations in COVID-19 Patients Six to Ten Months After Diagnosis A Pilot Study of Self-Rated and Psychophysical Olfactory Dysfunction in Men Living with HIV Effects of Gender and Age on Self-reported Odor Imagery Ability
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1