Olfactory Working Memory: Effects of Verbalization on the 2-back Task

Overview

Journal Mem Cognit

Specialty Psychology

Date 2011 Mar 4

PMID 21369969

Citations 12

Authors

Fredrik U Jonsson

Per Moller

Mats J Olsson

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Working memory for odors, which has received almost no attention in the literature, was investigated in two experiments. We show that performance in a 2-back task with odor stimuli is well above chance. This is true not only for highly familiar odors, as has been shown by Dade, Zatorre, Evans, and Jones-Gotman, NeuroImage, 14, 650-660, (2001), but also for unfamiliar ones that are notoriously difficult to name. We can conclude that information about an olfactory stimulus can be retained in the short term and can continuously be updated for comparison with new olfactory probes along the lines of a functional odor working memory. However, the performance in the working memory task is highly dependent on participants' verbalization of the odor. In addition, results indicated that odor working memory performance is dependent on the ability to discriminate among the odor stimuli (Experiment 2). The results are discussed in relation to recent ideas of a separate olfactory working memory slave system.

Citing Articles

The capacity and organization of gustatory working memory.

Lim S, Hochenberger R, Ruda I, Fink G, Viswanathan S, Ohla K Sci Rep. 2022; 12(1):8056.

PMID: 35577835 PMC: 9110745. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-12005-x.

A novel paradigm for assessing olfactory working memory capacity in mice.

Huang G, Jiang L, Su F, Wang H, Zhang C, Yu X Transl Psychiatry. 2020; 10(1):431.

PMID: 33319773 PMC: 7738675. DOI: 10.1038/s41398-020-01120-w.

Limitations in odour simulation may originate from differential sensory embodiment.

Arshamian A, Manko P, Majid A Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2020; 375(1800):20190273.

PMID: 32306876 PMC: 7209937. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2019.0273.

Smell and 3D Haptic Representation: A Common Pathway to Understand Brain Dynamics in a Cross-Modal Task. A Pilot OERP and fNIRS Study.

Invitto S, Montinaro R, Ciccarese V, Venturella I, Fronda G, Balconi M Front Behav Neurosci. 2019; 13:226.

PMID: 31616263 PMC: 6775200. DOI: 10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00226.

Odorant Normative Data for Use in Olfactory Memory Experiments: Dimension Selection and Analysis of Individual Differences.

Moss A, Miles C, Elsley J, Johnson A Front Psychol. 2016; 7:1267.

PMID: 27605921 PMC: 4995200. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01267.

References

Schmiedek F, Hildebrandt A, Lovden M, Wilhelm O, Lindenberger U . Complex span versus updating tasks of working memory: the gap is not that deep. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2009; 35(4):1089-1096. DOI: 10.1037/a0015730. View

Sulmont C, Issanchou S, Koster E . Selection of odorants for memory tests on the basis of familiarity, perceived complexity, pleasantness, similarity and identification. Chem Senses. 2002; 27(4):307-17. DOI: 10.1093/chemse/27.4.307. View

Cleary A . Recognition with and without identification: dissociative effects of meaningful encoding. Mem Cognit. 2002; 30(5):758-67. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196431. View

Kane M, Conway A, Miura T, Colflesh G . Working memory, attention control, and the N-back task: a question of construct validity. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2007; 33(3):615-622. DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.33.3.615. View

White T, Hornung D, Kurtz D, Treisman M, Sheehe P . Phonological and perceptual components of short-term memory for odors. Am J Psychol. 1998; 111(3):411-34. View

Murphy C, Cain W, Gilmore M, Skinner R . Sensory and semantic factors in recognition memory for odors and graphic stimuli: elderly versus young persons. Am J Psychol. 1991; 104(2):161-92. View

Oberg C, Larsson M, Backman L . Differential sex effects in olfactory functioning: the role of verbal processing. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2002; 8(5):691-8. DOI: 10.1017/s1355617702801424. View

Olsson M, Cain W . Psychometrics of odor quality discrimination: method for threshold determination. Chem Senses. 2000; 25(5):493-9. DOI: 10.1093/chemse/25.5.493. View

Rabin M, Cain W . Odor recognition: familiarity, identifiability, and encoding consistency. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1984; 10(2):316-25. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.10.2.316. View

10.

Cain W . To know with the nose: keys to odor identification. Science. 1979; 203(4379):467-70. DOI: 10.1126/science.760202. View

11.

Jonsson F, Olsson M . Olfactory metacognition. Chem Senses. 2003; 28(7):651-8. DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bjg058. View

12.

Yeshurun Y, Dudai Y, Sobel N . Working memory across nostrils. Behav Neurosci. 2008; 122(5):1031-7. DOI: 10.1037/a0012806. View

13.

Herz R, Engen T . Odor memory: Review and analysis. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013; 3(3):300-13. DOI: 10.3758/BF03210754. View

14.

Shamosh N, DeYoung C, Green A, Reis D, Johnson M, Conway A . Individual differences in delay discounting: relation to intelligence, working memory, and anterior prefrontal cortex. Psychol Sci. 2008; 19(9):904-11. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02175.x. View

15.

de Wijk R, Cain W . Odor quality: discrimination versus free and cued identification. Percept Psychophys. 1994; 56(1):12-8. DOI: 10.3758/bf03211686. View

16.

Baddeley . The episodic buffer: a new component of working memory?. Trends Cogn Sci. 2000; 4(11):417-423. DOI: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01538-2. View

17.

Levy L, Henkin R, Lin C, Hutter A, Schellinger D . Increased brain activation in response to odors in patients with hyposmia after theophylline treatment demonstrated by fMRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1998; 22(5):760-70. DOI: 10.1097/00004728-199809000-00019. View

18.

Dade L, Zatorre R, Evans A, Jones-Gotman M . Working memory in another dimension: functional imaging of human olfactory working memory. Neuroimage. 2001; 14(3):650-60. DOI: 10.1006/nimg.2001.0868. View

19.

Brown G, Neath I, Chater N . A temporal ratio model of memory. Psychol Rev. 2007; 114(3):539-76. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.539. View

20.

Jonsson F, Tchekhova A, Lonner P, Olsson M . A metamemory perspective on odor naming and identification. Chem Senses. 2005; 30(4):353-65. DOI: 10.1093/chemse/bji030. View