2011
DOI: 10.3758/s13421-011-0080-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: Working memory for odors, which has received almost no attention in the literature, was investigated in two experiments. We show that performance in a 2-back task with odor stimuli is well above chance. This is true not only for highly familiar odors, as has been shown by Dade, Zatorre, Evans, and Jones-Gotman, NeuroImage, 14, 650-660, (2001), but also for unfamiliar ones that are notoriously difficult to name. We can conclude that information about an olfactory stimulus can be retained in the short term and c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
54
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
11
54
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The scoring of odor labels (verbalization) followed a modified version of the method described by Jönsson et al (2011). These labels were coded on a 4-point scale (0–3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The scoring of odor labels (verbalization) followed a modified version of the method described by Jönsson et al (2011). These labels were coded on a 4-point scale (0–3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As such, correct identification (the “veridical label”) is likely not important when considering the effect naming has on recognition, and its use for categorization may lead to an overestimation of the amount of “un-nameable” odors. Rather, any odor that has an identifying verbal label attached to it should be considered as utilizing verbal codes (and could conceivably be represented as a verbal, rather than olfactory, code), whilst only very broad categories, such as a basic hedonic label, should be classed as non-verbalisable (Jönsson et al, 2011). In the present task participants are required to attach any verbal label to each odor, which is then scored according to the specificity of this label.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Two conclusions arise from this observation. This finding suggests, first, that activation decay to a level that will not support the generation of an accurate description must be complete for all odors by 3 min postsmelling, and second, that naming provides-as has previously been demonstrated in a number of studies-an additional means (other than memory activation, as described here) of preserving olfactory information across temporal delays (e.g., Herz, 2000;Jönsson, Møller, & Olsson, 2011). Considerable debate has focused on the nature of olfactory short-term memory, especially concerning the role of verbal processes.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 49%
“…In Fragrance Chanel this type of olfactory feedback did not trigger an improvement in performance. Possible interpretations for this could be related to participants' ability to discriminate among the odour stimuli, the fact they did not verbalise the odour [30] or to the significance of the imagined scenario. Further exploration is needed to determine the type of information that can be linked to a certain smell, or to how olfactory feedback can be personalised and related to the students' culture, emotions, or gaming events.…”
Section: Affordances and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%