Interference and facilitation in short-term memory for odors

Abstract

This study investigated short-term memory for odors using a four-alternative, forced-choiced recognition paradigm. Stimuli were the odors of 36 common food substances. Twelve subjects were tested in each offour conditions, which differed in the activity performed during the retention interval. Recognition performance was poorest when subjects free associated to an additional odorant presented during the retention interval. Thus, interference from interpolated events does occur in odor memory. Recognition performance was best when the subjects free associated to the name of the target odorant during the retention interval. Thus, the memory code for odors may incorporate semantic information. Remembering odors appears, therefore, to be governed by the same principles as remembering stimuli in other modalities.

Evidence for an Olfactory Store in Working Memory?

“…Similar effects have not been demonstrated in long-term olfactory memory. This conclusion, of a modality-specific short-term store for odours, does not conflict with findings in the literature that verbal processing can contribute to olfactory memory Murphy et al, 1991;Perkins & McLaughlin Cook, 1990;Rabin & Cain, 1984;Walk & Johns, 1984; but see . We suggest that verbal labels aid memory for odours by providing an additional memory code, in the same way that visual imagery can aid memory for words (e.g., Paivio, 1986).…”

“…They suggest that olfactory information is remembered over short intervals in the form of an olfactory code. Miles and Jenkins (2000) demonstrated olfactory suffix effects in olfactory memory, akin to those seen in verbal memory, even when participants had learned to identify and name the stimulus odours (see also Walk and Johns, 1984). In a review of the olfactory memory literature, White (1998) concluded that there is some evidence, in the form of differential capacity limits, differential coding, differential losses following brain damage, and serial position effects, to support a distinction between longterm and short-term memory for odours.…”

“…Thus there is some evidence that preventing verbal rehearsal impairs olfactory short-term memory. There is also some evidence that encouraging verbal rehearsal, by instructing participants to label odours, aids immediate (Walk & Johns, 1984) and delayed olfactory memory (Rabin & Cain, 1984).…”

Are three-sample tasks less sensitive than two-sample tasks? Memory effects in the testing of taste discrimination

“…The opposite can also occur, inducing a case of proactive interference. Research has been reported in the literature indicating the existence of both types of interference in the sensory olfactory modality (Köster, Degel, & Piper, 2002;Lawless & Engen, 1977;Walk & Johns, 1984).…”

Resistance to Interference of Olfactory Perceptual Learning

“…Participants who had experienced an odor in one room, and then later received the same odor within a different room, experienced retroactive interference, but only if they could not identify the odorant. A further discordant finding was made by Walk and Johns (1984), who observed that interpolating a similar odor between presenting the target, and the target and distracters in a delayed matching to sample task, had a deleterious effect on subsequent recognition performance. Both of these contradictory findings might be considered atypical.…”