Wine experts’ recognition of wine odors is not verbally mediated.

Abstract

Experts have better memory for items within their domain of expertise. Critically, this does not depend on more efficient use of language. However, this conclusion is based mainly on findings from experts in visual and auditory domains. Olfactory experts constitute an interesting potential counterexample since language has been implicated to be critically involved in odor memory in previous studies. We examined the role language plays in odor recognition memory for wine experts, who typically display better wine odor memory than novices and who are also able to name odors better than lay people. This suggests wine experts’ superior recognition memory for odors may be verbally mediated. In 2 experiments, recognition memory for wine odors, wine-related odors, and common odors was tested in wine experts and novices. The use of language was manipulated in Experiment 1 with an overt naming versus no-naming condition, and in Experiment 2, with a verbal interference task inhibiting covert verbalization. Across the two experiments the results showed wine experts have better recognition memory for wines, but not for wine-related or common odors, indicating their memory advantage is expertise specific. Critically, this effect was not verbally mediated, as there was no relationship between experts’ ability to name wines and their memory for them. Likewise, directly inhibiting online use of verbalization did not affect memory for wine odors in experts. In sum, once expertise has been acquired, language does not play a causal role in recognition memory for odors.

Do you want a description with that wine? The role of wine mental imagery in consumer's desire to drink using the revised Vividness of Wine Imagery Questionnaire (VWIQ‐II)

“…Of these, 30 participants reported to smoke sometimes, and 16 participants reported smoking daily. Wine knowledge test scores ( M WKT = 8.61, SD WKT = 2.10) were in line with novice scores shown in previous studies (in Croijmans, Arshamian, et al, 2020: M = 7.91, SD = 2.2; in Croijmans & Majid, 2016: M = 9.6, SD = 1.77; in Croijmans, Speed, et al, 2020: M = 7.2, SD = 2.8; and M = 7.9, SD = 2.2).…”

Human Olfaction at the Intersection of Language, Culture, and Biology

“…The hunter-gatherer Jahai name odors with higher consensus than their Western counterparts and apply their basic smell terms to novel odors they have never previously encountered [39]. Wine experts, too, show high consensus when describing the smell of wine [123][124][125][126], but this ability does not generalize beyond their domain of expertise: they are no better than laypeople at describing the smell of coffee or naming other everyday odors [123,125]. Similarly, wine experts have better memory [123] and imagery [127] only for odors in their domain of expertise (see also [122]).…”

“…There is a strong link between language and memory for odors in everyday cognition: odors named correctly are remembered more accurately [128,129]. However, specialists do not show this relationship between odor naming and odor memory for their domain of expertise and inhibiting the use of language during encoding does not impair odor memory [123]. In sum, the evidence to date suggests that everyday but not specialist olfactory memory relies on language in the moment.…”

Categorizing Smells: A Localist Approach

“…Wine and coffee experts’ capacity to identify and name smells, for instance, does not generalize to other, everyday odors (Croijmans & Majid, 2016). Imagery and non‐verbally mediated memory performance also remain specific to the domain of expertise (see Croijmans, Arshamian, Speed, & Majid, 2020; Croijmans & Majid, 2015, 2016; Croijmans, Speed, Arshamian, & Majid, 2020). At best, a limited transfer can occur but across close domains (e.g., food, see Morquecho‐Campos, Larsson, Boesveldt, & Olofsson, 2019).…”