Psycholinguistic variables matter in odor naming

John L A Huisman, Asifa Majid, John L A Huisman, Asifa Majid

Abstract

People from Western societies generally find it difficult to name odors. In trying to explain this, the olfactory literature has proposed several theories that focus heavily on properties of the odor itself but rarely discuss properties of the label used to describe it. However, recent studies show speakers of languages with dedicated smell lexicons can name odors with relative ease. Has the role of the lexicon been overlooked in the olfactory literature? Word production studies show properties of the label, such as word frequency and semantic context, influence naming; but this field of research focuses heavily on the visual domain. The current study combines methods from both fields to investigate word production for olfaction in two experiments. In the first experiment, participants named odors whose veridical labels were either high-frequency or low-frequency words in Dutch, and we found that odors with high-frequency labels were named correctly more often. In the second experiment, edibility was used for manipulating semantic context in search of a semantic interference effect, presenting the odors in blocks of edible and inedible odor source objects to half of the participants. While no evidence was found for a semantic interference effect, an effect of word frequency was again present. Our results demonstrate psycholinguistic variables-such as word frequency-are relevant for olfactory naming, and may, in part, explain why it is difficult to name odors in certain languages. Olfactory researchers cannot afford to ignore properties of an odor's label.

Keywords: Olfaction; Olfactory naming; Semantic interference; Word frequency.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Percentage of veridical answers for first responses and all responses, for the two subsets (high label frequency; low label frequency) of odor stimuli in Experiment 1. Error bars represent standard deviation by participant
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Percentage of veridical answers in Experiment 2 for first responses and all responses, plotted by food and nonfood items; high and low label frequency. Error bars represent standard deviation by participant

References

    1. Ayabe-Kanamura S, Kikuchi T, Saito S. Effect of verbal cues on recognition memory and pleasantness evaluation of unfamiliar odors. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1997;85(1):275–285. doi: 10.2466/pms.1997.85.1.275.
    1. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software. 2015;67(1):1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01.
    1. Barry C, Morrison CM, Ellis AW. Naming the Snodgrass and Vanderwart pictures: Effects of age of acquisition, frequency and name agreement. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1997;50(3):560–585. doi: 10.1080/783663595.
    1. Baayen RH. Analyzing linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2008.
    1. Brysbaert M, Lange M, van Wijnendaele I. The effects of age-of-acquisition and frequency-of-occurrence in visual word recognition: Further evidence from the Dutch language. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2010;12(1):65–85. doi: 10.1080/095414400382208.
    1. Brysbaert M, Stevens M, De Deyne S, Voorspoels W, Storms G. Norms of age of acquisition and concreteness for 30,000 Dutch words. Acta Psychologica. 2014;150:80–84. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.04.010.
    1. Burenhult N, Majid A. Olfaction in Aslian ideology and language. The Senses & Society. 2011;6(1):19–29. doi: 10.2752/174589311X12893982233597.
    1. Burnage G. CELEX: A guide for users. Nijmegen: Centre for Lexical Information; 1990.
    1. Cain SW, Stevens JC, Nickou CM, Giles A, Johnston I, Garcia-Medina MR. Life-span development of odor identification, learning, and olfactory sensitivity. Perception. 1995;24(12):1457–1472. doi: 10.1068/p241457.
    1. Cain WS. To know with the nose: Keys to odor identification. Science. 1979;203(4379):467–470. doi: 10.1126/science.760202.
    1. Cain WS. Odour identification by males and females: Predictions vs. performance. Chemical Senses. 1982;7(2):129–142. doi: 10.1093/chemse/7.2.129.
    1. Cardesín, A., Alobid, I., Benítez, P., Sierra, E., de Haro, J., Bernal-Sprekelsen, M., … Mullol, J. (2006). Barcelona Smell Test–24 (BAST-24): Validation and smell characteristics in the healthy Spanish population. Rhinology, 44(1), 83–89.
    1. Carroll JB, White MN. Word frequency and age of acquisition as determiners of picturenaming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1973;25(1):85–95. doi: 10.1080/14640747308400325.
    1. Cho JH, Jeong YS, Lee YJ, Hong SC, Yoon JH, Kim JK. The Korean version of the Sniffin’ stick (KVSS) test and its validity in comparison with the cross-cultural smell identification test (CC-SIT) Auris Nasus Larynx. 2009;36(3):280–286. doi: 10.1016/j.anl.2008.07.005.
    1. Chrea C, Valentin D, Sulmont-Rossé C, Nguyen DH, Abdi H. Semantic, typicality and odor representation: A cross-cultural study. Chemical Senses. 2005;30(1):37–49. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjh255.
    1. Costa A, Alario FX, Caramazza A. On the categorical nature of the semantic interference effect in the picture-word interference paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2005;12(1):125–131. doi: 10.3758/BF03196357.
    1. Damian MF, Vigliocco G, Levelt WJM. Effects of semantic context in the naming of pictures and words. Cognition. 2001;81(3):B77–B86. doi: 10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00135-4.
    1. Desor JA, Beauchamp GK. The human capacity to transmit olfactory information. Perception & Psychophysics. 1974;16(3):551–556. doi: 10.3758/BF03198586.
    1. Distel H, Hudson R. Judgement of odor intensity is influenced by subjects’ knowledge of the odor source. Chemical Senses. 2001;26(3):247–251. doi: 10.1093/chemse/26.3.247.
    1. Doty RL, Shaman P, Dann M. Development of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: A standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiology & Behavior. 1984;32(3):489–502. doi: 10.1016/0031-9384(84)90269-5.
    1. Dubois D. Categories as acts of meaning: The case of categories in olfaction and audition. Cognitive Science Quarterly. 2000;1:35–68.
    1. Engen T. Remembering odors and their names. American Scientist. 1987;75(5):497–503.
    1. Fjaeldstad A, Petersen MA, Ovesen T. Considering chemical resemblance: A possible confounder in olfactory identification tests. Chemosensory Perception. 2017;10(1/2):42–48. doi: 10.1007/s12078-017-9226-6.
    1. Fusari A, Ballesteros S. Identification of odors of edible and nonedible stimuli as affected by age and gender. Behavior Research Methods. 2008;40(3):752–759. doi: 10.3758/BRM.40.3.752.
    1. Gilad Y, Man O, Pääbo S, Lancet D. Human specific loss of olfactory receptor genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2003;100(6):3324–3327. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0535697100.
    1. Grice P. Logic and conversation. In: Cole P, Morgan JL, editors. Syntax and semantics Speech acts. New York: Academic Press; 1975.
    1. Goubet N, McCall DD, Ducz JK, Bingham ML. Semantic context facilitates odor identification in children and adults. Developmental Psychobiology. 2014;56(3):592–598. doi: 10.1002/dev.21124.
    1. Hummel T, Sekinger B, Wolf SR, Pauli E, Kobal G. ‘Sniffin’ Sticks’: Olfactory performance assessed by the combined testing of odor identification, odor discrimination and olfactory threshold. Chemical Senses. 1997;22(1):39–52. doi: 10.1093/chemse/22.1.39.
    1. Jaeger TF. Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language. 2008;59(4):434–446. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007.
    1. Jescheniak JD, Levelt WJM. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1994;20(4):824–843.
    1. Jescheniak JD, Matushanskaya A, Mädebach A, Müller MM. Semantic interference from distractor pictures in single-picture naming: Evidence for competitive lexical selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2014;21(5):1294–1300. doi: 10.3758/s13423-014-0606-5.
    1. Jönsson, F. (2005). Olfactory metacognition: A metamemory perspective on odor naming. Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Uppsala, Sweden: Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Social Sciences 6.
    1. Jönsson FU, Stevenson RJ. Odor knowledge, odor naming and the “tip of the nose” experience. In: Schwartz BW, Brown AS, editors. Tip of the tongue states and related phenomena. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2014. pp. 306–326.
    1. Keuleers E, Brysbaert M, New B. SUBTLEX-NL: A new frequency measure for Dutch words based on film subtitles. Behavior Research Methods. 2010;42(3):643–650. doi: 10.3758/BRM.42.3.643.
    1. Keetels M, Vroomen J. Perception of synchrony between the senses. In: Murray MM, Wallace MT, editors. Frontiers in the neural basis of multisensory processes. London: Taylor & Francis; 2012. pp. 147–177.
    1. Khan RM, Sobel N. Neural processing at the speed of smell. Neuron. 2004;44(5):744–747. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.11.024.
    1. Klapp ST, Anderson WG, Benian RW. Implicit speech in reading, reconsidered. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1973;100(2):368–37. doi: 10.1037/h0035471.
    1. Kobayashi M, Saito S, Kobayakawa T, Deguchi Y, Costanzo RM. Cross-cultural comparison of data using the odor stick identification test for Japanese (OSIT-J) Chemical Senses. 2006;31(4):335–342. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjj037.
    1. Köster EP, Møller P, Mojet J. A “Misfit” Theory of Spontaneous Conscious Odor Perception (MITSCOP): Reflections on the role and function of odor memory in everyday life. Frontiers in Psychology. 2014;5(64):1–12.
    1. Kroll JF, Stewart E. Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language. 1994;33(2):149–174. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1008.
    1. Laska M, Seibt A, Weber A. ‘Microsmatic’ primates revisited: Olfactory sensitivity in the squirrel monkey. Chemical Senses. 2000;25(1):47–53. doi: 10.1093/chemse/25.1.47.
    1. Lawless HT. Recognition of common odors, pictures, and simple shapes. Perception & Psychophysics. 1978;24(6):493–495. doi: 10.3758/BF03198772.
    1. Lawless HT, Cain WS. Recognition memory for odors. Chemical Senses & Flavour. 1975;1(3):331–337. doi: 10.1093/chemse/1.3.331.
    1. Levelt WJ, Roelofs A, Meyer AS. A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 1999;22(1):1–38.
    1. Levelt, W. J. M. (1996). A theory of lexical access in speech production [Abstract]. In COLING-Proceedings (Vol. 1, pp. 3). Copenhagen: Center for Speechtechnologie.
    1. Levelt WJM. Models of word production. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 1999;3(6):223–232. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01319-4.
    1. Levinson SC, Majid A. Differential ineffability and the senses. Mind & Language. 2014;29(4):407–427. doi: 10.1111/mila.12057.
    1. Lorig TS. On the similarity of odor and language perception. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 1999;23(3):391–398. doi: 10.1016/S0149-7634(98)00041-4.
    1. Majid A. Cultural factors shape olfactory language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2015;19(11):629–630. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.06.009.
    1. Majid A, Burenhult N. Odors are expressible in language, as long as you speak the right language. Cognition. 2014;130(2):266–270. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2013.11.004.
    1. Majid A, Speed L, Croijmans I, Arshamian A. What makes a better smeller? Perception. 2017;46(3-4):406–430. doi: 10.1177/0301006616688224.
    1. Maremmani, C., Rossi, G., Tambasco, N., Fattori, B., Pieroni, A., Ramat, S., … Meco, G. (2012). The validity and reliability of the Italian Olfactory Identification Test (IOIT) in healthy subjects and in Parkinson’s disease patients. Parkinsonism & Related Disorders, 18(6), 788–793.
    1. McGann JP. Poor human olfaction is a 19th-century myth. Science. 2017;356(6338):eaam7263. doi: 10.1126/science.aam7263.
    1. Meyer AS, Roelofs A, Levelt WJM. Word length effects in object naming: The role of a response criterion. Journal of Memory and Language. 2003;48(1):131–147. doi: 10.1016/S0749-596X(02)00509-0.
    1. Morrison CM, Chappell TD, Ellis AW. Age of acquisition norms for a large set of object names and their relation to adult estimates and other variables. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1997;50A:528–559. doi: 10.1080/027249897392017.
    1. Oldfield RC, Wingfield A. Response latencies in naming objects. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 1965;17(4):273–281. doi: 10.1080/17470216508416445.
    1. Olofsson JK, Gottfried JA. The muted sense: Neurocognitive limitations of olfactory language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2015;19(6):314–321. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.007.
    1. Oostdijk N. Het Corpus Gesproken Nederlands [Spoken Dutch Corpus] Nederlandse Taalkunde. 2000;5(3):280–284.
    1. Oostdijk N, Reynaert M, Hoste V, Schuurman I. The construction of a 500 million word reference corpus of contemporary written Dutch. In: Spyns P, Odijk J, editors. Essential speech and language technology for Dutch: Results by the STEVIN-programme. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2013.
    1. R Core Team . R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013.
    1. Rabin MD. Experience facilitates olfactory quality discrimination. Perception and Psychophysics. 1988;44(6):532–540. doi: 10.3758/BF03207487.
    1. Rabin MD, Cain WS. Odor recognition: Familiarity, identifiability, and encoding consistency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1984;10(2):316–325.
    1. Saito S, Ayabe-Kanamura S, Takashima Y, Gotow N, Naito N, Nozawa T, Mise M, Deguchi Y, Kobayakawa T. Development of a smell identification test using a novel stick-type odor presentation kit. Chemical Senses. 2006;31(4):379–391. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjj042.
    1. San Roque L, Kendrick KH, Norcliffe EJ, Brown P, Defina R, Dingemanse M, et al. Vision verbs dominate in conversation across cultures, but the ranking of non-visual verbs varies. Cognitive Linguistics. 2015;26(1):31–60. doi: 10.1515/cog-2014-0089.
    1. Schab FR, Cain WS. Memory for odors. In: Laing DG, Doty RL, Breipohl W, editors. The human sense of smell. Berlin: Springer; 1991. pp. 217–240.
    1. Schiffman SS, Reynolds ML, Young FW. Introduction to multidimensional scaling. Orlando: Academic Press; 1981.
    1. Shepherd GM. The human sense of smell: Are we better than we think? PLoS Biology. 2004;2(5):572–575. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0020146.
    1. Strain E, Patterson K, Seidenberg MS. Semantic effects in single-word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1995;21(5):1140–1154.
    1. Vitkovitch M, Humphreys GW, Lloyd-Jones TJ. On naming a giraffe a zebra: Picture naming errors across different object categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 1993;19(2):243–259.
    1. Wijk RA, Cain WS. Odor identification by name and by edibility: Life-span development and safety. Human Factors. 1994;36(1):182–187. doi: 10.1177/001872089403600112.
    1. Wurm LH, Fisicaro SA. What residualizing predictors in regression analyses does (and what it does not do) Journal of Memory and Language. 2014;72:37–48. doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2013.12.003.
    1. Xavier-Alario R, Segui J, Ferrand L. Semantic and associative priming in picture naming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology. 2000;53(3):741–764. doi: 10.1080/713755907.
    1. Yeshurun Y, Sobel N. An odor is not worth a thousand words: From multidimensional odors to unidimensional odor objects. Annual Review of Psychology. 2010;61(1):219–241. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163639.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors et collaborateurs

Les conditions médicales

Interventions en matière de drogue

3
S'abonner