Smell's puzzling discrepancy: Gifted discrimination, yet pitiful identification

Young, Benjamin

doi:10.1111/mila.12233

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 153 publications

(192 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to some, odour naming is hard because of the underlying neural architecture: either olfactory areas of the brain are too weakly connected to language areas [21], or too directly connected [22], or the cortical resources that process odours and language hamper one another [23]. Here, we propose a different line of argumentation, and suggest odour naming is hard partially because of the nature of the underlying representations (see [24] for a similar conclusion but for different reasons). Namely, compared with other perceptual modalities odour representations are more weakly represented because:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Limitations in odour simulation may originate from differential sensory embodiment

Arshamian

Manko

Majid

2020

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across diverse lineages, animals communicate using chemosignals, but only humans communicate about chemical signals. Many studies have observed that compared with other sensory modalities, communication about smells is relatively rare and not always reliable. Recent cross-cultural studies, on the other hand, suggest some communities are more olfactorily oriented than previously supposed. Nevertheless, across the globe a general trend emerges where olfactory communication is relatively hard. We suggest here that this is in part because olfactory representations are different in kind: they have a low degree of embodiment, and are not easily expressed as primitives, thereby limiting the mental manipulations that can be performed with them. New exploratory data from Dutch children (9–12 year-olds) and adults support that mental imagery from olfaction is weak in comparison with vision and audition, and critically this is not affected by language development. Specifically, while visual and auditory imagery becomes more vivid with age, olfactory imagery shows no such development. This is consistent with the idea that olfactory representations are different in kind from representations from the other senses. This article is part of the Theo Murphy meeting issue ‘Olfactory communication in humans’.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 82%

Limitations in odour simulation may originate from differential sensory embodiment

Arshamian

Manko

Majid

2020

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The general picture of human olfactory capacities is quite contrasted in this respect: Detection and discrimination are quite accurate: Humans can identify between 26% and 60% of the tested odorants by name, this percentage varying across experiments, ages, the way the odor is presented, and more (Young, 2019, p. 2), but identification remains a challenge (Gutiérrez, Dhurandhar, Keller, Meyer, & Cecchi, 2018; Young, 2019). Most of us can detect whether a new smell (which was not previously in the perceiver’s environment) is present, or we can tell that two smells are different, but struggle to determine whether two smells are similar, or whether a present smell matches a template or label stored in memory.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Categorizing Smells: A Localist Approach

Jraissati

Deroy

2021

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans are poorer at identifying smells and communicating about them, compared to other sensory domains. They also cannot easily organize odor sensations in a general conceptual space, where geometric distance could represent how similar or different all odors are. These two generalities are more or less accepted by psychologists, and they are often seen as connected: If there is no conceptual space for odors, then olfactory identification should indeed be poor. We propose here an important revision to this conclusion: We believe that the claim that there is no odor space is true only if by odor space, one means a conceptual space representing all possible odor sensations, in the paradigmatic sense used for instance for color. However, in a less paradigmatic sense, local conceptual spaces representing a given subset of odors do exist. Thus the absence of a global odor space does not warrant the conclusion that there is no olfactory conceptual map at all. Here we show how a localist account provides a new interpretation of experts and cross‐cultural categorization studies: Rather than being exceptions to the poor olfactory identification and communication usually seen elsewhere, experts and cross‐cultural categorization are here taken to corroborate the existence of local conceptual spaces.

show abstract

“…The current study addresses a major question for the science of human cognition—why is it so difficult for most people to talk about odors (Majid et al, )? Multiple accounts have been proposed to explain odor ineffability (e.g., Engen, ; Köster et al, ; Lorig, ; Olofsson & Gottfried, ; Young). However, a growing number of studies across a variety of communities demonstrates that the ability to talk about odors is strongly influenced by the rich, structured knowledge that accompanies both professional expertise (e.g., Croijmans & Majid, ; Knaapila et al, , ; Parr et al, ; Royet, Delon‐Martin, & Plailly, ; Sezille et al, ; Urdapilleta et al, ; Zucco et al, ) and entrenched cultural and linguistic practices (e.g., Floyd et al, ; Majid & Burenhult, ; Majid et al, ; O'Meara et al, ; Wnuk & Majid, ; see Majid, for a review).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since language relies on abstraction, it is said to be incompatible with this episodic representation (Köster, Møller, & Mojet, ). Similarly, Young suggests the issue resides in representational format, but according to him the problem is due to an incompatibility in compositional formats for odors versus language. Other explanations appeal to neuroanatomy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Iranian Herbalists, But Not Cooks, Are Better at Naming Odors Than Laypeople

Casillas

Rafiee²,

Majid

2019

Cognitive Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Odor naming is enhanced in communities where communication about odors is a central part of daily life (e.g., wine experts, flavorists, and some hunter‐gatherer groups). In this study, we investigated how expert knowledge and daily experience affect the ability to name odors in a group of experts that has not previously been investigated in this context—Iranian herbalists; also called attars—as well as cooks and laypeople. We assessed naming accuracy and consistency for 16 herb and spice odors, collected judgments of odor perception, and evaluated participants' odor meta‐awareness. Participants' responses were overall more consistent and accurate for more frequent and familiar odors. Moreover, attars were more accurate than both cooks and laypeople at naming odors, although cooks did not perform significantly better than laypeople. Attars' perceptual ratings of odors and their overall odor meta‐awareness suggest they are also more attuned to odors than the other two groups. To conclude, Iranian attars—but not cooks—are better odor namers than laypeople. They also have greater meta‐awareness and differential perceptual responses to odors. These findings further highlight the critical role that expertise and type of experience have on olfactory functions.

show abstract

Smell's puzzling discrepancy: Gifted discrimination, yet pitiful identification

Cited by 14 publications

References 153 publications

Limitations in odour simulation may originate from differential sensory embodiment

Limitations in odour simulation may originate from differential sensory embodiment

Categorizing Smells: A Localist Approach

Iranian Herbalists, But Not Cooks, Are Better at Naming Odors Than Laypeople

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About