Olfactory working memory: exploring the differences in n-back memory for high and low verbalisable odorants

Authors: Moss, A., Miles, C., Elsley, J. and Johnson, A.J.

Journal: Memory

Volume: 27

Issue: 10

Pages: 1319-1344

eISSN: 1464-0686

ISSN: 0965-8211

DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1653469

Abstract:

We describe four experiments each examining n-back performance for high and low verbalisable odorants. Participants were presented with a sequence of odorants and were required to state if the current odorant was the same or different to the odorant presented two items earlier. Experiment 1 reported superior performance for high, relative to low, verbalisable odorants and was evident despite above-chance memory performance for the low verbalisable odorants. Experiment 2 showed that such superiority persisted with a concurrent articulation condition, suggesting that the memory benefit was not a consequence of verbal recording and rehearsal. Experiment 3 employed metacognitive judgments and showed that correct 2-back responses for high verbalisable odorants received more recollection responses compared to low verbalisable odorants. Experiment 4 compared n-back performance across different stimulus types and showed that, for high verbalisable odorants, performance correlated with both letters and abstract shapes, but such correlations were absent for low verbalisable odorants. Taken together, these findings show differences in n-back performance between high and low verbalisable odorants, and show that high verbalisable odorants exhibit performance similarities with both verbal and visual stimuli. We further argue that n-back performance for low verbalisable odorants operates differently to that of high verbalisable odorants.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32660/

Source: Scopus

Olfactory working memory: exploring the differences in n-back memory for high and low verbalisable odorants.

Authors: Moss, A., Miles, C., Elsley, J. and Johnson, A.J.

Journal: Memory

Volume: 27

Issue: 10

Pages: 1319-1344

eISSN: 1464-0686

DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1653469

Abstract:

We describe four experiments each examining n-back performance for high and low verbalisable odorants. Participants were presented with a sequence of odorants and were required to state if the current odorant was the same or different to the odorant presented two items earlier. Experiment 1 reported superior performance for high, relative to low, verbalisable odorants and was evident despite above-chance memory performance for the low verbalisable odorants. Experiment 2 showed that such superiority persisted with a concurrent articulation condition, suggesting that the memory benefit was not a consequence of verbal recording and rehearsal. Experiment 3 employed metacognitive judgments and showed that correct 2-back responses for high verbalisable odorants received more recollection responses compared to low verbalisable odorants. Experiment 4 compared n-back performance across different stimulus types and showed that, for high verbalisable odorants, performance correlated with both letters and abstract shapes, but such correlations were absent for low verbalisable odorants. Taken together, these findings show differences in n-back performance between high and low verbalisable odorants, and show that high verbalisable odorants exhibit performance similarities with both verbal and visual stimuli. We further argue that n-back performance for low verbalisable odorants operates differently to that of high verbalisable odorants.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32660/

Source: PubMed

Olfactory working memory: exploring the differences in n-back memory for high and low verbalisable odorants

Authors: Moss, A., Miles, C., Elsley, J. and Johnson, A.J.

Journal: MEMORY

eISSN: 1464-0686

ISSN: 0965-8211

DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1653469

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32660/

Source: Web of Science (Lite)

Olfactory working memory: exploring the differences in n-back memory for high and low verbalisable odorants

Authors: Moss, A.G., Miles, C., Elsley, J. and Johnson, A.

Journal: Memory

Publisher: Taylor & Francis

ISSN: 0965-8211

DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1653469

Abstract:

We describe four experiments each examining n-back performance for high and low verbalisable odorants. Participants were presented with a sequence of odorants and were required to state if the current odorant was the same or different to the odorant presented two items earlier. Experiment 1 reported superior performance for high, relative to low, verbalisable odorants and was evident despite above chance memory performance for the low verbalisable odorants. Experiment 2 showed that such superiority persisted with a concurrent articulation condition, suggesting that the memory benefit was not a consequence of verbal recording and rehearsal. Experiment 3 employed metacognitive judgments and showed that correct 2-back responses for high verbalisable odorants received more recollection responses compared to low verbalisable odorants. Experiment 4 compared n-back performance across different stimulus types and showed that, for high verbalisable odorants, performance correlated with both letters and abstract shapes, but such correlations were absent for low verbalisable odorants. Taken together, these findings show differences in n-back performance between high and low verbalisable odorants, and show that high verbalisable odorants exhibit performance similarities with both verbal and visual stimuli. We further argue that n-back performance for low verbalisable odorants operates differently to that of high verbalisable odorants.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32660/

Source: Manual

Olfactory working memory: exploring the differences in <i>n</i>-back memory for high and low verbalisable odorants.

Authors: Moss, A., Miles, C., Elsley, J. and Johnson, A.J.

Journal: Memory (Hove, England)

Volume: 27

Issue: 10

Pages: 1319-1344

eISSN: 1464-0686

ISSN: 0965-8211

DOI: 10.1080/09658211.2019.1653469

Abstract:

We describe four experiments each examining n-back performance for high and low verbalisable odorants. Participants were presented with a sequence of odorants and were required to state if the current odorant was the same or different to the odorant presented two items earlier. Experiment 1 reported superior performance for high, relative to low, verbalisable odorants and was evident despite above-chance memory performance for the low verbalisable odorants. Experiment 2 showed that such superiority persisted with a concurrent articulation condition, suggesting that the memory benefit was not a consequence of verbal recording and rehearsal. Experiment 3 employed metacognitive judgments and showed that correct 2-back responses for high verbalisable odorants received more recollection responses compared to low verbalisable odorants. Experiment 4 compared n-back performance across different stimulus types and showed that, for high verbalisable odorants, performance correlated with both letters and abstract shapes, but such correlations were absent for low verbalisable odorants. Taken together, these findings show differences in n-back performance between high and low verbalisable odorants, and show that high verbalisable odorants exhibit performance similarities with both verbal and visual stimuli. We further argue that n-back performance for low verbalisable odorants operates differently to that of high verbalisable odorants.

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/32660/

Source: Europe PubMed Central