Skip Navigation

Chemical Senses 2005 30(1):23-27; doi:10.1093/chemse/bjh252
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sulmont-Rossé, C.
Right arrow Articles by Köster, E.P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sulmont-Rossé, C.
Right arrow Articles by Köster, E.P.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Chemical Senses vol. 30 no. 1 © Oxford University Press 2005; all rights reserved.

Odor Naming Methodology: Correct Identification with Multiple-choice versus Repeatable Identification in a Free Task

Claire Sulmont-Rossé1, Sylvie Issanchou1 and E.P. Köster2

1 INRA, Unité Mixte de Recherches sur les Arômes, 17 rue Sully, BP 86510, 21065 Dijon Cedex, France and 2 WildForsterweg 4A, 3881 NJ Putten, The Netherlands

Correspondence to be sent to: Claire Sulmont-Rossé, UMRA, INRA, 17 rue Sully, BP 86510, 21065 Dijon Cedex, France. e-mail: sulmont{at}dijon.inra.fr

Since there is rarely a social labeling consensus in the identification of odors, it would be better to assess whether participants identify an odor by the same name upon repeated presentation rather than by the name designated as ‘correct’ by the experimenter (veridical label) in identification tasks. To examine the relevance of this proposition, participants were asked to identify familiar odors both in a free and a multiple-choice task. The free task was replicated in order to determine the percentage of repeatable identification. Results showed that the difference between the percentage of correct identification in the multiple-choice task and the percentage of repeatable identification in the free task was small, and that participants often used a repeatable name which differed from the veridical label. Thus, it was suggested that allowing participants to give their own name to an odor when it is not present on a pre-developed list, and measuring whether participants repeat the same name in independent measurements, might improve the relevance of multiple-choice tasks.

Key words: free identification, multiple-choice identification, odor, repeatability, veridical label


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Chem SensesHome page
F. U. Jonsson, A. Tchekhova, P. Lonner, and M. J. Olsson
A Metamemory Perspective on Odor Naming and Identification
Chem Senses, May 1, 2005; 30(4): 353 - 365.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.