Chem. Senses 24: 191-199,
1999
© Oxford University Press
Perception of Everyday Odors—Correlation between Intensity, Familiarity and Strength of Hedonic Judgement
1 Institute of Medical Psychology, University of Munich, Goethestraße 31, D-80336 Munich, Germany. 2 Institute of Psychology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan. 3 Instituto de Investigaciones Biomédicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Apartado Postal 70228, 04510 México, D.F., México. 4 National Institute of Bioscience and Human Technology, AIST, MITI, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305, Japan.
Correspondence to be sent to: Hans Distel, Institut für Medizinische Psychologie, University of Munich, Goethestraße 31, D-80366, München, Germany. e-mail: hdistel{at}imp.med.uni-muenchen.de
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract IntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
In this study, 40 Japanese, 44 German and 39 Mexican women were presented with 18 everyday odorants. They were asked to rate them for intensity on a six-point scale from not detectable to very strong, for pleasantness on an 11-point scale from -5, to neutral at 0, to +5, and for familiarity on a six-point scale from completely unknown to extremely familiar. Consistent positive correlations were found between paired rating scores for the three measures, and although they were not particularly strong (rs range, 0.19–0.60), for most odorants all three correlations were significant. Similar results were obtained whether the data were analyzed on an individual or a national basis. Most notable were the consistent positive correlations between perceived intensity and ratings of familiarity and hedonic strength. It is suggested that the perceived intensity of the odorants depended not only on stimulus concentration but probably also on experience-dependent factors.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Odor perception is clearly a complex process. One expression of this is the variety of dimensions commonly used to define odors. In addition to basic sensory measures of detection and discrimination, investigators may ask subjects to rate an odor's intensity, pleasantness, irritation or familiarity, to describe its quality and images or memories it evokes, and to name or otherwise identify it (Henion, 1971;
Berglund et al., 1973; Moskowitzet al., 1974, 1976; Doty, 1975; Land, 1979; Jellinek and Köster, 1983;
Doty et al., 1984, 1994; Carrasco and Ridout, 1993).
Moreover, responses to the same stimulus may vary considerably on any of these measures both
between individuals and across test procedures (Doty, 1975; Hyman, 1977; Mower et al., 1977; Degobert, 1979; Land, 1979; Doty et al.,
1994). This complexity helps explain why it
has proved so difficult to develop a reliable classification of odorants or to identify general rules
governing their perception.
The problem is particularly clear in the case of hedonic judgement, that is, the degree to
which a
stimulus is considered pleasant or unpleasant. Hedonic tone has long been recognized as one of
the
most salient features of odors and considerable effort has gone into examining its nature and
origin
(Yoshida, 1964; Moncrieff, 1966; Harper et al., 1968; Engen, 1974; Schiffman, 1974; Doty,
1975; Moskowitz et al., 1976;Land, 1979;). Repeated efforts have been made to explain
hedonic judgement in terms of perceived intensity, an attribute clearly related to stimulus
concentration
and thus thought to reflect the operation of objective and universal psychophysical laws (Cain, 1969;
Berglund et al., 1971; Engen, 1971; Patte et al., 1975) However, the relationship
between hedonic judgement and intensity has proved complex, with some odorants
demonstrating a
positive correlation between pleasantness and intensity, some a negative correlation, and others
variable
inverted U-shaped functions or no correlation at all (Moncrieff, 1966; Henion, 1971; Moskowitz et
al., 1974, 1976; Doty, 1975; Moskowitz, 1977).
It is now generally agreed that the hedonic value of an odorant may vary widely between
individuals or populations, and presumably as a result of experience (Moncrieff,
1966; Engen, 1974,
1988;Moskowitz et
al., 1974, 1976; Degobert, 1979;Land, 1979; Moskowitz, 1979;
Schaal, 1988; Hvastja and Zanuttini, 1989; Ayabe-Kanamura et al., 1998). The judgement of
food odors, for example, may depend on whether they are recognized as such and then on
whether
they are associated with a preferred food, a non-preferred food, or even with food poisoning (Engen, 1974; Moskowitz, 1977; Raudenbusch et al., 1994;Ayabe-Kanamura et al., 1998).
Such differences may result in the same odor being judged as positive or negative even by
individuals
from the same population or culture (Land, 1979;Ayabe-Kanamura et al., 1998).
Thus, findings increasingly point to the idiosyncratic and variable nature of odor perception
and to
the importance of experience in shaping it. This, in turn, suggests the need to test subjects using
natural
stimuli from everyday life which are presumably capable of eliciting a fuller and psychologically
more
relevant range of cognitive and emotional responses than the monomolecular stimuli typically
used in
laboratory testing (Moskowitz, 1977; Rabin and Cain, 1984; Schicker, 1995). Accordingly, in a
previous study we compared the responses of Japanese and German subjects to natural, everyday
odorants thought to be typically Japanese, European or international (Ayabe-Kanamura et al., 1998). We found significant differences not only in
ratings of familiarity and pleasantness but,
surprisingly, also in ratings of intensity. The latter was unexpected since the same odor sources
and
concentrations had been used to test both populations.
We therefore decided to investigate these findings more closely by directly comparing ratings of intensity, familiarity and hedonic judgement given by the original Japanese–German sample and by an equivalent group of Mexican subjects tested using the same stimuli and procedure. More specifically, it was the purpose of the present study to examine the degree of association between the three measures, and to consider whether perceived odor intensity might reflect not only stimulus concentration but also subjects' experience of and hedonic response to the stimuli.
|
Material and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The Japanese and German subjects together with the odorants and test methods have been described in detail in a previous report (Ayabe-Kanamura et al., 1998
). Subjects
To reduce variability arising from possible sex differences in responding to odorants (Cain, 1982;
Doty et al., 1984, 1985) only women
were
tested. All were healthy volunteers with no history
of olfactory impairment. A total of 40 Japanese, 39 Mexicans and 44 Germans were recruited in
equal
numbers from two age groups, 20–30 and 39–50 years.
Odorants and stimulus delivery
Eighteen odorants were chosen as stimuli—six which were thought to be typically
Japanese,
six thought to be typically European and six thought to be international (Table 1). Exactly the same
substances and the same methods of stimulus presentation were used in the three laboratories.
Except
for incense, exact quantities of each substance were presented in 250 ml polyethylene squeeze
bottles
equipped with a flip-up spout (cf. Laska and Hudson, 1991). To mini
mize
visual, acoustic or
proprioceptive cues, substances were secured in disposable teapot filter bags (Cilia®, Melitta, Germany), and these were suspended inside the bottles. Liquids were presented
on absorbent
surgical
strips (Sugi®, Kettenbach, Germany) inside the filter bags. In the case of
incense, this
was lit and a 200 ml glass jar held over it for several minutes to collect the smoke. The jar was
kept
closed except when briefly presented to the subject. Substances were renewed either before each
session (beer), on each test day (perishable foods) or after 3–7 days (inedible substances
as
well as the more durable foods).
|
Test procedure
Testing was carried out over a period of 2 weeks. Each subject was presented with the 18 stimuli in random order in a test session lasting ~30 min. Subjects were allowed to sample each substance freely and were asked to rate in the following sequence: (1) intensity on a six-point scale from not detectable to very strong; (2) pleasantness on an 11-point scale with very unpleasant at –5, neutral at 0 and extremely pleasant at +5; (3) familiarity on a six-point scale from completely unknown to extremely familiar; and (4) edibility on a two-category scale of yes or no. They were also asked to say what the odor reminded them of and, if possible, to name it.
Data analysis
For the purpose of this study the degree of association between rating scores for intensity, familiarity and pleasantness was compared in three ways; for each of the 123 individuals, for each of the 18 odorants and for each of the three nationalities. Eleven trials in which subjects failed to perceive the stimulus were eliminated from statistical analysis: four Japanese for marzipan; three Japanese, two Mexicans and one German for pine wood; and one Japanese for India ink.
Ratings of pleasantness generated by the bipolar ± scale were treated in three ways: as a measure of hedonic strength in which absolute ratings were analyzed without regard to sign (cf. Figure 3b); as a measure of pleasantness in which ratings were treated as values on a single hedonic continuum from least to most pleasant (cf. Figure 3c); and as a measure of valence in which ratings were analyzed according to sign (cf. Figure 3d).
|
The degree of association between measures was calculated using Spearman's correlation coefficient and the distribution of correlation coefficients for individuals or odorants across the three national groups was compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test followed by post-hoc Mann– Whitney U-tests (StatView, Abacus Concepts Inc.). An alpha value of 0.05 was taken as the level of significance throughout. For Spearman's correlation coefficient, significance was reached for individual subjects with rs > 0.48 (n = 18 odorants) and for the different odorants with rs> 0.19 (n = 123 subjects).
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
With the exception of the 11 trials mentioned in the methods above, most of the odorants were clearly perceived by all subjects (Figure 1). However, a conspicuous finding was the broad range of judgements given by individuals in response to any particular odorant, that is, the large degree of individual variability in responding to the same stimulus.
|
Differences between the Japanese and German groups in using the rating scales and in judging the intensity, familiarity and pleasantness of the odorants have been reported elsewhere (Ayabe-Kanamura et al., 1998
). Therefore in this study rating scores have
been
considered mainly with regard to
individual subjects, and the comparison across odorants and nationalities then used to examine
the
generality of these findings. Individual subjects
Intensity and familiarity
Among individual subjects, a positive relationship was found between ratings of intensity and familiarity. When Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated for paired intensity and familiarity ratings given by each of the 123 subjects for the 18 odorants, positive although mostly weak correlations were found in the majority of cases (Figure 2a); for almost 80% of subjects rs was> 0.2, and for 43.4% the values were significant (rs > 0.48, n = 18, P < 0.05).
|
Intensity and hedonic judgement
Similarly, a consistently positive relationship was found between intensity and hedonic strength (rating strength regardless of polarity). In 81% of cases Spearman's correlation coefficient rs was > 0.2 (Figure 2b), and in 32.8% reached significance. However, when the hedonic rating scale was treated as a continuum of increasing pleasantness from –5 to +5 and then compared with intensity judgements, no consistent relationship was found (Figure 2c). Positive and negative correlations were distributed symmetrically around 0 (23.8% rs > 0.2; 27.9% rs < –0.2), and in only 1.6% of cases were significant positive and in 7.4% significant negative correlations found.
Familiarity and hedonic judgement
When familiarity was compared with hedonic strength, in 53% of cases rs was >0.2 and in 10% of cases<–0.2 (Figure 2d), with only 22.1% of the positive correlations and 0.8% of the negative correlations reaching significance. However, an almost exclusively positive relationship was found between familiarity ratings and the pleasantness continuum (Figure 2e). Thus, for 83% of subjects rs was >0.2, reaching significance in 45.1%.
Odorants
When Spearman's correlation coefficient was calculated for each of the 18 odorants using the ratings of all subjects, a significant correlation (rs > 0.19, n = 123, P< 0.05) between intensity and familiarity was found in all cases (Table 1), and for more than half the stimuli, strongly so (P< 0.0001). However, differences between odorants in the strength of correlation were considerable, ranging from rs = 0.19 for coffee to rs = 0.52 for peanuts. For the paired ratings of intensity and hedonic strength, significant positive correlations were found for all but one odorant (perfume), and in 14 cases the coefficients were highly significant (P< 0.0001;Table 1). Again, differences between odorants in the strength of correlation were considerable and ranged from rs = 0.09 for perfume to rs = 0.58 for Japanese tea. For ratings of familiarity and pleasantness, 14 of the 18 correlations were significant, strongly so for nine (P< 0.0001;Table 1). Whereas beer produced the weakest correlation, rs = 0.02, almond produced the strongest, rs = 0.60.
National groups
When the data were analyzed according to nationality, the distributions of correlation coefficients of individual subjects were found to be very similar. Of the five possible comparisons between measures, a significant difference across national groups was found only for the coefficients of intensity and familiarity (Kruskal–Wallis, H3 = 8.88, P <0.05), and then only for the Mexicans compared with the Germans and Japanese (post-hoc Mann–Whitney U, P <0.05 and 0.01 respectively); among the Mexicans the correlation between these two measures was weaker than for the other two groups (rs > 0.2: 69 versus 84 and 85% respectively).
When the data were analyzed by nationality and odorant, both similarities and differences were found in the degree of correlation for particular odorants (Table 2). For example, in none of the national groups was the familiarity and intensity of soy sauce or cheese correlated to a significant degree, although in all three this was the case for dried fish, cypress wood and ointment. On the other hand, among Japanese a significant correlation between intensity and hedonic strength was more often seen for Japanese than for European odorants, and vice versa for the Germans. Nevertheless, no generally consistent pattern of correlations could be identified, and no statistically significant differences were found between national groups.
|
To better demonstrate the contribution of odorants and national groups to the correlations described above, mean rating scores have been calculated for each odorant and national group and the data presented as scatter plots (Figure 3).
As can be seen inFigure 3a, the distribution of mean intensity and familiarity ratings overlapped to a considerable degree across national groups. Comparing particular odorants showed that differences in familiarity across groups were often but not always accompanied by corresponding differences in intensity. For example, mean scores for pine wood—a generally less familiar and less intensive odor—increased rather uniformly from Japanese, to Mexicans, to Germans, and the scores for chocolate from Japanese, to Germans, to Mexicans. On the other hand, this was not the case for dried fish, which Japanese and Mexicans judged as equally familiar but Mexicans as less intense.
The distribution of mean ratings for intensity and hedonic strength appeared similar to the
distribution of ratings for intensity and familiarity (Figure 3b). However,
on
closer inspection it was
evident that the Japanese gave consistently lower judgements of hedonic strength than the
Mexicans,
while the Germans were on average intermediate (cf. Ayabe-Kanamura et al., 1998).
However, for each of the national groups the judgements were significantly correlated (Table 3).
|
In Figure 3c the distribution of mean familiarity and pleasantness judgements is shown. Notable examples are the pleasant and familiar odor of chocolate, the rather unfamiliar and hedonically neutral odor of pine wood and the odor of dried fish—the latter being judged rather familiar and unpleasant by the Mexicans and Germans but apparently neutral by Japanese as a result of the averaging of positive and negative scores (cf. Figure 3d).
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The findings of this study provide consistent evidence for positive correlations between judgements of intensity, familiarity and hedonic strength made in response to everyday odors. This was the case for a clear majority of subjects (Figure 2), and although individual correlation coefficients varied considerably, the pattern was similar across nationalities and measures. While considerable variability in correlation coefficients was also observed across odorants (Table 1), for 13 of the 18 stimuli the values were significant on all three measures. Although these correlations were in general not particularly strong (rs range, 0.19–0.60), when mean rating scores for the 18 odorants were considered, and thus individual variability in the degree of correlation reduced, the values were substantial (rs range, 0.50–0.79; Table 3).
A potential criticism of the present findings concerns stimulus control, particularly the
precise
control of concentration across sessions and laboratories. Although some variability in the
presentation
of perishable substances such as beer cannot be excluded, non-perishable substances such as
ointment
could be presented in precise amounts and thus at the same or very similar concentrations
(AyabeKanamura et al., 1998). More importantly, the fact that
subjects from the three
nationalities showed the same pattern of correlations argues against the possibility that
differences
between stimulus sets significantly affected the findings.
A more substantial concern is that subjects, having judged the intensity of a particular odorant, might have given similar scores to the other measures simply as a result of perseveration. While this cannot be excluded, the high variability in correlation coefficients across odorants and measures (Table 1) argues against it as the only explanation since perseveration should have operated rather uniformly to produce a similar degree of correlation across conditions. Furthermore, the fact that hedonic strength correlated well with intensity but less so with familiarity and, conversely, that pleasantness correlated well with familiarity but not with intensity (Figure 2) suggests that subjects did not simply perseverate in their rating behavior but differentiated between the tasks. Thus, the correlations found here between measures seem to represent real phenomena.
In accounting for these findings two basic questions need to be considered: to what extent can the observed correlations be attributed to odorant concentration or reception, and to what extent might they have been shaped by experience?
Perceived intensity is clearly dependent on stimulus concentration (Cain, 1969; Berglund et al., 1971; Engen, 1971; Patte et al., 1975). However, as shown in Figure 1, intensity ratings
can vary considerably between individuals even when concentration is kept constant. Variability
in
thresholds and psychophysical intensity functions have been reported in previous studies (Rabin and
Cain, 1986; Gross-Isseroff and Lancet, 1988; Laska
and Hudson, 1991), and are usually attributed to
genetic differences in olfactory receptors (Amoore, 1971; Berglund et
al., 1973;
Schiffman,
1974). Whether this can explain the type of variability seen in the present study is doubtful; in the
previous crosscultural analysis (Ayabe-Kanamura et al., 1998),
differences in intensity
ratings
were found between nationalities which could not be simply attributed to differences in the use of
the
rating scale or—given the chemical complexity of the stimuli—to genetic
differences in
receptors (cf. Laska and Hudson, 1991).
Nevertheless, considering hedonic strength, several studies have shown that pleasantness
ratings
frequently correlate either positively or negatively with odor concentration (Henion,
1971; Doty, 1975;
Moskowitz et al., 1976; Moskowitz, 1977),
and our finding of a correlation between intensity
and hedonic strength is consistent with this. Furthermore, it seems sensible that there should be a
close
relation between the two measures (Henion, 1971) given that in a natural
context they convey similar
information: the likely proximity and quantity of an odor source and whether it should be
approached or
avoided. However, several of the studies cited above (Doty, 1975; Moskowitz et al., 1976;
Moskowitz, 1977) also show that for some odorants pleasantness ratings
may
be completely
independent of concentration, suggesting that in explaining hedonic judgement other factors must
also
be taken into account.
Although there is virtually no experimental information on the influence of concentration on the judgement of familiarity, it is conceivable that stimuli perceived as intense may also be more easily recognized or elicit stronger associations, and thus be judged more familiar. Thus, in answer to the first question, it is quite possible that odorant concentration and/or reception influenced subjects' ratings of hedonic strength and familiarity in the present study.
On the other hand, in considering the second question, several lines of evidence suggest that
experience may also have contributed to the correlations. First, it is quite evident that judgements
of
familiarity should be closely connected to experience and thus should reflect the subjects'
degree of knowledge about the various odorants. Moreover, it is likely that experience affects
judgements of pleasantness. Support for this comes from the earlier finding of a clear positive
association between identification of the stimuli as culture-typical food odors and pleasantness
ratings
(Ayabe-Kanamura et al., 1998). Another possibility relates to
the
phenomenon of neophobia,
in which repeated exposure may lead to greater acceptance of previously neutral or mildly
aversive
stimuli (Rozin, 1976). However, as demonstrated by subjects for whom
significant correlations between
familiarity and hedonic strength were found (Figure 2d), a positive
correlation
between familiarity and
pleasantness did not always apply. When mean familiarity and pleasantness ratings for single
odorants
(Figure 3) are examined it is evident that for some stimuli values do not
conform to the general
correlation pattern. An example is dried fish, which was often judged both highly familiar and
highly
unpleasant.
Evidence for the role of experience and cognitive factors in modifying odor perception
comes from
several previous reports. For example, Moskowitz (1979) presented 14
professionals in the cosmetics
field with five cologne fragrances and found, after revealing the brand names, unexpectedly
strong
changes in liking, estimated sweetness and even intensity judgements. Furthermore, in an
evaluation of
individual differences in reported food preferences, a consistently positive association was found
between ratings of pleasantness and intensity (Frank et al., 1994).
More recently, it has also
been demonstrated by manipulating subjects' expectations of the potential danger of an
ambient
odor that cognitive factors may strongly influence the perception of odor intensity. Subjects
believing
the odor to be benign showed adaptation while those suspecting it be hazardous showed
sensitization
(Dalton, 1996; Dalton et al., 1997).
In summary, it would seem to make sense that odorants that have acquired
meaning—particularly of an emotional or motivational nature—should be perceived
and
attended to more readily than stimuli of little relevance, and that this should result in a stronger
subjective perception of stimulus strength. How this might come about and at what level(s) of
processing within the olfactory system is unknown. While higher-order cortical processes are
almost
certainly involved, evidence from animal studies suggest that experience may also result in
odor-specific
enhancement at the sensory surface itself (Wang et al., 1993; Nevitt et al., 1994;
Semke et al., 1995). It is not known if such processes operate in
humans or whether they
contribute to the phenomena reported here, but it is a possibility deserving further investigation
(Wysocki et al., 1989; Hudson and Distel, 1999). Whatever the case, the present findings
suggest that in investigating odor perception not only physico-chemical properties of the stimulus
but
also subjects' experience and expectations should be taken into account.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
We thank G. Dirlich, Munich, for advice on the statistical analysis and particularly for his encouragement to limit it to basic measures.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstractIntroductionMaterial and methodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Amoore, J.E. (1971) Olfactory genetics and anosmia. In Beidler, L.M. (ed.), Handbook of Sensory Physiology, 4, pt 1. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 245–256.
Ayabe-Kanamura, S., Schicker, I., Laska, M., Hudson, R., Distel, H., Kobayakawa, T. and Saito, S. (1998) Differences in the perception of everyday odors—a Japanese–German cross-cultural study. Chem. Senses,23 , 31–38.
Berglund, B., Berglund, U., Ekman, G. and Engen, T. (1971) Individual psychophysical functions for 28 odorants. Percept. Psychophys., 9,379 –384.
Berglund, B., Berglund, U., Engen, T. and Ekman, G. (1973) Multidimensional analysis of twenty-one odors. Scand. J. Psychol., 14, 131–137.
Cain, W.S. (1969) Odor intensity: differences in the exponent of psychophysical function. Percept. Psychophys., 6, 349–354.[Web of Science]
Cain, W.S. (1982) Odor identification by males and
females: predictions vs performance. Chem. Senses, 7, 129–142.
Carrasco, M. and Ridout, J.B. (1993) Olfactory perception and olfactory imagery: a multidimensional analysis. J. Exp. Psychol.: Human Percept. Perform., 19, 287–301.
Dalton, P. (1996) Odor perception and beliefs about
risk. Chem. Senses, 21, 447–458.
Dalton, P., Wysocki, C.J., Brody, M.J. and Lawley, H.J. (1997) The influence of cognitive bias on the perceived odor, irritation and health symptoms from chemical exposure. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health, 69,407 –417.[Web of Science][Medline]
Degobert, P. (1979) Hedonic and intensity ranking of different malodours by category estimation and paired comparison. In Kroeze, J.H.A. (ed.), Preference Behaviour and Chemoreception. IRL Press, London, pp. 107–122.
Doty, R.L. (1975) An examination of relationships between the pleasantness, intensity, and concentration of 10 odorous stimuli. Percept. Psychophys., 17, 492–496.[Web of Science]
Doty, R.L., Shaman, P. and Dann, M. (1984) Development of the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test: a standardized microencapsulated test of olfactory function. Physiol. Behav., 32, 489–502.[Medline]
Doty, R.L., Applebaum, S., Zusho, H. and Settle, R.G. (1985) Sex differences in odor identification ability: a cross-cultural analysis.Neuropsychologia, 23, 667–672.
Doty, R.L., Smith, R., McKeown, D.A. and Raj, J. (1994) Tests of human olfactory function: principal components analysis suggests that most measure a common source of variance. Percept. Psychophys., 56, 701–707.
Engen, T. (1971) Olfactory psychophysics. In Beidler, L.M. (ed.), Handbook of Sensory Physiology, Volume-nr. 4, pt 1. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 216–244.
Engen, T. (1974) The potential use of sensations of odor and taste in keeping children away from harmful substances. Ann. NY Acad. Sci.,237 , 224–228.[Web of Science][Medline]
Engen, T. (1988) The acquisition of odour hedonics. In Van Toller, S. and Dodd, G.H. (eds), Perfumery: The Psychology and Biology of Fragrance. Chapman & Hall, London, pp. 79–90.
Frank, R.A. and Klaauw van der, N.J. (1994) The contribution of chemosensory factors to individual differences in reported food preferences. Appetite, 22,101 –123.[Web of Science][Medline]
Gross-Isseroff, R. and Lancet, D. (1988) Concentration-dependent changes of perceived odor quality. Chem. Senses,13
, 191–204.
Harper, R., Smith, E.C. and Land, D.G. (1968) Odour Description and Odour Classification. American Elsevier, New York.
Henion, K.E. (1971) Odor pleasantness and intensity: a single dimension. J. Exp. Psychol., 90, 275–279.[Web of Science][Medline]
Hudson, R. and Distel, H. (1999) Induced peripheral sensitivity in the developing vertebrate olfactory system. Ann. NY Acad. Sci., in press.
Hvastja, L. and Zanuttini, L. (1989) Odour memory and odour hedonics in children. Perception, 18, 391–396.[Web of Science][Medline]
Hyman, A.M. (1977) Factors influencing the psychophysical function for odor intensity. Sens. Processes, 1, 271–291.
Jellinek, J. and Köster, E.P. (1983) Perceived fragrance complexity and its relationship to familiarity and pleasantness II. J. Soc. Cosmet. Chem., 34,83 –97.
Land, D.G. (1979) Hedonic response and perceived characteristics of odours in man. In Kroeze, J.H.A. (ed.), Preference Behavior and Chemoreception. IRL Press, London, pp. 193–204.
Laska, M. and Hudson, R. (1991) A comparison of the detection thresholds of odour mixtures and their components. Chem. Senses, 16, 651–662.
Moncrieff, R.W. (1966) Odour Preferences. Leonard Hill, London.
Moskowitz, H.R. (1977) Intensity and hedonic functions for chemosensory stimuli. In Kare, M.R. and Maller, O. (eds), The Chemical Senses and Nutrition. Academic Press, New York, pp. 71–101.
Moskowitz, H.R. (1979) Mind body and pleasure: an analysis of factors which influence sensory hedonics. In Kroeze, J.H.A. (ed.), Preference Behavior and Chemoreception. IRL Press, London, pp. 131–141.
Moskowitz, H.R., Dravnieks, A. and Gerbers, C. (1974) Odor intensity and pleasantness of butanol. J. Exp. Psychol.,103 , 216–223.
Moskowitz, H.R., Dravnieks, A. and Klarman, L.A. (1976) Odor intensity and pleasantness for a diverse set of odorants. Percept. Psychophys., 19,122 –128.[Web of Science]
Mower, G.D., Mair, R.G. and Engen, T. (1977) Influence of internal factors on the perceived intensity and pleasantness of gustatory and olfactory stimuli. In Kare, M.R. and Maller, O. (eds), The Chemical Senses and Nutrition. Academic Press, New York, pp. 103–121.
Nevitt, G.A., Dittman, A.H., Quinn, T.P. and Moody, W.J., Jr
(1994) Evidence for a peripheral olfactory memory in imprinted salmon.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA
, 91, 4288–4292.
Patte, F., Etcheto, M. and Laffort, P. (1975) Selected and standardized values of suprathreshold odor intensities for 110 substancesChem. Senses Flavor, 1, 283–305.
Rabin, M.D. and Cain, W.S. (1984) Odor recognition: familiarity, identifiability, and encoding consistency. J. Exp. Psychol.: Learn. Mem. Cognit., 10, 316–325.
Rabin, M.D. and Cain, W.S. (1986) Determinants of measured olfactory sensitivity. Percept. Psychophys., 39, 281–286.[Web of Science][Medline]
Raudenbusch, B., Flaspohler, P. and Frank, R.A. (1994) Odor pleasantness ratings predict food preference patterns. Chem. Senses, 19, 541.
Rozin, P. (1976) The selection of foods by rats, humans, and other animals. In Rosenblatt, J.S., Hinde, R.A., Shaw, E. and Beer, C. (eds), Advances in the Study of Behavior VI. Academic Press, New York, pp. 21–76.
Schaal, B. (1988) Olfaction in infants and children:
developmental and functional perspectives. Chem. Senses, 13, 145–190.
Schicker, I. (1995) Mentale Repräsentation von Alltagsgerüchen. Doctoral Dissertation, München.
Schiffman, S.S. (1974) Physicochemical correlates
of olfactory quality. Science, 185, 112–117.
Semke, E., Distel, H. and Hudson, R. (1995) Specific enhancement of olfactory receptor sensitivity associated with fetal learning of food odors in the rabbit. Naturwissenschaften, 82, 148–149.[Web of Science][Medline]
Wang, H.-W., Wysocki, C.J. and Gold, G.H. (1993) Induction of olfactory receptor sensitivity in mice. Science,260
, 998–1000.
Wysocki, C.J., Dorries, K.M. and Beauchamp, G.K. (1989) Ability to perceive androstenone can be acquired by ostensibly anosmic
people. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 86,7976
–7978.
Yoshida, M. (1964) Studies of psychometric classification of odors. Jap. Psychol. Res., 6, 145–154.
Accepted December 9, 1998
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Guarneros, T. Hummel, M. Martinez-Gomez, and R. Hudson Mexico City Air Pollution Adversely Affects Olfactory Function and Intranasal Trigeminal Sensitivity Chem Senses, November 1, 2009; 34(9): 819 - 826. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Delplanque, D. Grandjean, C. Chrea, L. Aymard, I. Cayeux, B. Le Calve, M. I. Velazco, K. R. Scherer, and D. Sander Emotional Processing of Odors: Evidence for a Nonlinear Relation between Pleasantness and Familiarity Evaluations Chem Senses, June 1, 2008; 33(5): 469 - 479. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Kobayashi, N. Sakai, T. Kobayakawa, S. Akiyama, H. Toda, and S. Saito Effects of Cognitive Factors on Perceived Odor Intensity in Adaptation/Habituation Processes: from 2 Different Odor Presentation Methods Chem Senses, February 1, 2008; 33(2): 163 - 171. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Plailly, B. Tillmann, and J.-P. Royet The Feeling of Familiarity of Music and Odors: The Same Neural Signature? Cereb Cortex, November 1, 2007; 17(11): 2650 - 2658. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Kobayashi, S. Saito, T. Kobayakawa, Y. Deguchi, and R. M. Costanzo Cross-Cultural Comparison of Data Using the Odor Stick Identification Test for Japanese (OSIT-J) Chem Senses, May 1, 2006; 31(4): 335 - 342. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Saito, S. Ayabe-Kanamura, Y. Takashima, N. Gotow, N. Naito, T. Nozawa, M. Mise, Y. Deguchi, and T. Kobayakawa Development of a Smell Identification Test Using a Novel Stick-Type Odor Presentation Kit Chem Senses, May 1, 2006; 31(4): 379 - 391. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. I Rupp, W. W. Fleischhacker, G. Kemmler, H. Oberbauer, A. W Scholtz, C. Wanko, and H. Hinterhuber Various Bilateral Olfactory Deficits in Male Patients With Schizophrenia Schizophr Bull, January 1, 2005; 31(1): 155 - 165. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. I. RUPP, W. W. FLEISCHHACKER, A. HAUSMANN, D. MAIR, H. HINTERHUBER, and M. KURZ OLFACTORY FUNCTIONING IN PATIENTS WITH ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE: IMPAIRMENTS IN ODOR JUDGEMENTS Alcohol Alcohol., November 1, 2004; 39(6): 514 - 519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.-P. Royet and J. Plailly Lateralization of Olfactory Processes Chem Senses, October 1, 2004; 29(8): 731 - 745. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hudry, S. Thobois, E. Broussolle, P. Adeleine, and J.-P. Royet Evidence for Deficiencies in Perceptual and Semantic Olfactory Processes in Parkinson's Disease Chem Senses, July 1, 2003; 28(6): 537 - 543. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Bensafi, C. Rouby, V. Farget, B. Bertrand, M. Vigouroux, and A. Holley Autonomic Nervous System Responses to Odours: the Role of Pleasantness and Arousal Chem Senses, October 1, 2002; 27(8): 703 - 709. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hudry, M. Saoud, T. d'Amato, J. Dalery, and J.-P. Royet Ratings of Different Olfactory Judgements in Schizophrenia Chem Senses, June 1, 2002; 27(5): 407 - 416. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Distel and R. Hudson Judgement of Odor Intensity is Influenced by Subjects' Knowledge of the Odor Source Chem Senses, April 1, 2001; 26(3): 247 - 251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Savic and H. Berglund Right-nostril Dominance in Discrimination of Unfamiliar, but Not Familiar, Odours Chem Senses, October 1, 2000; 25(5): 517 - 523. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||