Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Olfactory Imagery

Olfactory imagery is the capacity to experience a smell, intentionally, when the appropriate stimulus is absent (e.g., sniff and imagine the smell of lemon). This is referred to as phenomenal imagery. Phenomenal imagery is difficult to study, as it relies upon self-report, which is hard to validate. Consequently, many investigators explore whether imagining an odor has measurable effects on behavior that are akin to those observed when its real equivalent odor is smelled (e.g., does imagining a smell help one to detect its real equivalent?). This is referred to as performance imagery. Performance imagery assumes the presence of an odor image, but as described in this entry, other causes may produce apparently similar results. Finally, an olfactory image may be evoked automatically and can come to form an indistinguishable part of the percept (e.g., smell vanilla—if you judge this as “sweet” smelling then you have just experienced this form of imagery). In this case, volition has no part to play, there is an odor stimulus, but the resulting percept is a combination of image and stimulus. This is referred to as cue-driven imagery.

Phenomenal Imagery

People report that they can imagine odors. However, they also report that their images are not very vivid and are hard to generate, relative to their experience of visual and auditory images. Some more specific findings have also emerged. Olfactory experts report being better able to imagine odors than nonexperts and factor analysis of self-report measures of imagery in all modalities indicates that there is a separate olfactory/gustatory (taste) dimension. That these two modalities should appear together is no surprise, as they routinely combine to form flavor.

The difficulty in generating olfactory images and their lack of vividness may result from a number of causes. It has been suggested that smell perception may be less vivid and distinct than sensory experience in the other modalities, and so this may be reflected in imagined experiences too. However, certain smells can clearly capture attention (e.g., burning or leaking gas) and others may readily elicit strong emotions or distant memories. Consequently, this may not provide a convincing explanation for the reported lack of vividness and difficulty of evocation.

A further reason is that normal participants may simply be unpracticed at forming olfactory images, and the finding that experts are better in this regard suggests this possibility. Similarly, many imagery experiments begin in the following way: “Imagine the smell of lemon.” To form the image, some connection must exist between the word lemon and a memory of what lemon smells like. Interestingly, normal participants are very poor at naming odors (unlike olfactory experts) that are going from the odor percept to the name. It has been suggested that this is the flipside of going from a name to an odor memory, and that the impoverished nature of the odor-name link—which may result from lack of practice or poor neural connections—may explain why our capacity to imagine odors is not as good as imaging visual or auditory objects. Support for this notion comes from several sources. Hard to name odors are also hard to imagine (unlike their visual equivalents—try to visualize the smell of peanuts versus the sight of peanuts), but learning the odor's names improves self-report measures of imagery. More interestingly, nearly all of the successful performance imagery studies described in the next section involved participants learning the target odor names prior to imagining them.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading