Cited by 69Olfactory and Sensory Function StudiesMultisensory perception and integrationBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques

Effect of endogenous attention on detection of weak gustatory and olfactory flavors

Open access
Ashkenazi, Amir, Marks, Lawrence E.·2004·Perception & Psychophysics

Abstract

The effect of endogenous attention on the detectability of weak flavorants was examined in an absolute detection (two-alternative forced-choice) task. Attention to sucrose improved the detectability of sucrose, a gustation-based flavorant, both when the alternative was water and when it was vanillin. But attention to vanillin did not improve the detectability of vanillin, an olfaction-based flavorant, either when the alternative was water or when it was sucrose. Nor did attention improve the detectability of vanillin when the alternative was citric acid, a tastant that is qualitatively less similar to vanillin than is sucrose. Attention had no positive effect on the detection of either sucrose or vanillin when it was mixed with the other substance. These findings suggest that although it is possible to attend selectively to gustatory flavors, it may be more difficult to attend selectively to olfactory flavors--perhaps because attention to flavors, which are taken in the mouth, is directed spatially toward the tongue, where gustatory, but not olfactory, receptors are located.

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 · 10.3758/bf03194904

Cites

77 of 77 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?

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: 2

  1. Hafter, E. R., Schlauch, R. S., & Tang, J. (1993). Attending to audi- tory filters that were not stimulated directly. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 94, 743-747.
  2. Kamen, J. M., Pilgrim, F. J., Gutman, N. J., & Kroll, B. J. (1961). In- teractions of suprathreshold taste stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 348-356.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ashkenazi, A., & Marks, L. E.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Ashkenazi, Amir
Venue
Perception & Psychophysics
Published
2004-05
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
596-608
ISSN
  • 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5962
OpenAlex
W2018230949
Cited by
69
References
77
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (5R01 DC00271-16, R01DC000271)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Biochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Keywords
top-down attention, sucrose, vanillin, citric acid, selective attention
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Female, Humans, Male, Odorants, Sensory Receptor Cells, Smell, Taste, Signal Detection, Psychological

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