Cited by 52Multisensory perception and integrationOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesTactile and Sensory Interactions

Flavor binding: Its nature and cause

Stevenson, Richard J.·2014·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

The brain binds inputs from multiple senses to enhance our ability to identify key events in the environment. Understanding this process is based mainly on data from the major senses (vision and audition), yet compelling examples of binding occur in other domains. When we eat, in fact taste, smell, and touch combine to form flavor. This process can be so complete that most people fail to recognize that smell contributes to flavor. The flavor percept has other features: (a) it feels located in the mouth, even though smell is detected in the nose and taste on the tongue, and (b) it feels continuous, yet smell is delivered in pulses to the nose during eating. Furthermore, tastes can modify smell perception and vice versa. Current explanations of these binding-related phenomena are explored. Preattentive processing provides a well-supported account of taste-to-tongue binding. Learning between taste and smell can explain perceptual interactions between these senses and perhaps localization of smell to the mouth. Attentional processes may also be important, especially given their role in binding the major senses. Two are specifically examined. One claims that the failure to recognize smell's role in flavor stems from the role of involuntary attention's "defaulting" to the mouth and taste (i.e., binding by ignoring). Another claims that taste and smell form a common attentional channel in the mouth, in effect becoming one sense. Except for preattentive processing, the mechanisms involved in flavor binding differ markedly from those proposed for the major senses. This distinction may result from functional differences, with flavor supporting future food choice but not current identification.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0033473

Cites

214 of 214 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 multisensory integration of interoceptive flavour cues is likely more automatic than the combination of cues involved in interpreting exteroceptive food-related signals.

    “Overall, it would seem likely that the multisensory integration of interoceptive flavour cues is more automatic than the combination of cues that is involved in interpreting exteroceptive food-related signals [1,174,175].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stevenson, R. J.
Affiliations
Macquarie University (AU)
Corresponding author
Stevenson, Richard J.
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2014
Volume
140
Issue
2
Pages
487-510
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2332892232
Cited by
52
References
214
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
multisensory integration, taste, olfaction, preattentive processing, attention, involuntary attention, food choice
MeSH terms
Attention, Brain, Humans, Perception, Smell, Taste, Touch

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