Cited by 80Multisensory perception and integrationOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesTactile and Sensory Interactions

Oral referral: On the mislocalization of odours to the mouth

Open access
Spence, Charles·2016·Food Quality and Preference

Abstract

Oral referral is central to multisensory flavour perception. The phenomenon, first described a little over a century ago, is characterized by the mislocalization of food-related olfactory stimuli to the oral cavity. Many researchers believe that it contributes to the widespread confusion concerning which sense really provides the information that is bound together in flavour percepts. In this review, evidence supporting the role of a number of factors that have been suggested to modulate oral referral, including tactile capture of olfaction, the relative timing of olfactory and gustatory stimuli, and gustatory capture (possibly involving prior entry) is critically evaluated. The latest findings now support the view that the oral referral of orthonasal aroma (what some have chosen to call orthonasal location binding) is modulated by taste intensity, while for retronasal odours, it is the congruency between the odour-taste(s) pairing that is key. Specifically, the more congruent a particular combination of olfactory and gustatory stimuli, the more likely the component unisensory stimuli will be bound together as a flavour object (or Gestalt) and, as a result, localized together to the oral cavity. The possible roles of attention, attentional capture, and the nutritional significance of the taste in the phenomenon of oral referral are also reviewed. Ultimately, the suggestion is made that oral referral may reflect a qualitatively different kind of multisensory interaction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.foodqual.2016.02.006

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The loss of the source of olfactory information is most likely a result of gustatory attention capture, where the most intense stimulus directs attention to the spatial location where that stimulus comes from.

    “The loss of the source of olfactory information is most likely a result of gustatory attention capture (according to Reference [187]), where the most intense stimulus (normally taste) directs one's attention to the spatial location where that stimulus comes from.”

    From The Role of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Sensory Factors in Sweetness Perception of Food and Beverages: A Review (2019) · cites this paper as [187]

    Section 2.3, “Gustatory capture,” describes a proposed mechanism in which a tastant draws attention to the mouth, with more intense tastants associated with greater oral referral. But the Conclusions also discuss an alternative explanation and leave open which is most appropriate. The paper therefore supports gustatory attentional capture as a possible explanation, not as the most likely cause of losing track of an odour’s source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Fincks, H. T. (1886). The gastronomic value of odours. Contemporary Review, 50, 680-695.
  2. Scott, T. R., & Plata-Salaman, C. R. (1991). Coding of taste quality. In T. V. Getchell, L. M. Bartoshuk, R. L. Doty, & J. B. J Snow (Eds.). Smell and taste in health and disease (pp. 345-368). New York, NY: Raven Press.
  3. Small, D. M., & Green, B. G. (2011). A proposed model of a flavour modality. In M. M. Murray & M. Wallace (Eds.), Frontiers in the neural bases of multisensory processes (pp. 717-738). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  4. Smith, B. (2013). Taste, philosophical perspectives. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of mind (pp. 731-734). San Diego, CA: University of California.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Spence, C.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Spence, Charles
Venue
Food Quality and Preference
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-06
Volume
50
Pages
117-128
ISSN
0950-3293 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2289906294
Cited by
80
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 3
FWCI
12.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Food Quality and Preference (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
AHRC (AH/L007053/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
taste intensity, attentional capture, multisensory integration

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review