In this chapter, we review the nature of, and performance levels for, odor source naming, and the different proposed explanations to the generally low odor naming performance observed in experimental studies. We differentiate between odor naming and odor identification and show that although humans can rarely name more than 50% of common household items, this is not an odor naming problem, but rather reflects the difficulty we have in identifying odors. We investigate two broad accounts of odor identification failures in terms of perceptual and associative processes necessary for correct identification. Additionally, we discuss the feeling of knowing and tip of the nose experience commonly associated with identification failures. This type of metacognition provides us with odor knowledge in the absence of odor identification. In light of these phenomena, we discuss the importance of odor identification for olfactory functioning.
2023. Olfactory abstraction: a communicative and metacognitive account. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 378:1870
Martina, Giulia
2023. Smell identification and the role of labels. Philosophical Psychology► pp. 1 ff.
Hehn, Patrick
2021. Olfaktorische Kommunikation bei Events. In Eventpsychologie, ► pp. 231 ff.
2014. Odor Knowledge, Odor Naming, and the “Tip-of-the-Nose” Experience. In Tip-of-the-Tongue States and Related Phenomena, ► pp. 305 ff.
Stevenson, Richard J.
2013. Olfactory perception, cognition, and dysfunction in humans. WIREs Cognitive Science 4:3 ► pp. 273 ff.
Stevenson, Richard J. & Mehmet K. Mahmut
2013. The accessibility of semantic knowledge for odours that can and cannot be named. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 66:7 ► pp. 1414 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.