The aim of this work was to verify whether two congruent inputs (simultaneous administration of one odor and the corresponding name) increase recall or, on the contrary, whether recall becomes worse when there is no coincidence between the two simultaneous stimuli (verbal and olfactory). The data show no significant difference among the experimental conditions. It seems then possible to conclude that a ‘visual dominance’ effect takes place vis-á-vis the olfactory mode.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BowerG. H.KarlinM. B.DueckA. (1975) Comprehension and memory for pictures. Memory & Cognition, 3, 216–220.
2.
BrownR. W.LennebergE. H. (1954) A study in language and cognition. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49, 454–462.
3.
ColavitaF. B. (1974) Human sensory dominance. Perception and Psychophysics, 11, 409–412.
4.
CraikF. I. M.LockhartR. S. (1972) Levels of processing: a framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684.
5.
DanielT. C.EllisH. C. (1972) Stimulus codability and long-term recognition memory for visual form. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93, 83–89.
6.
GibsonJ. J. (1933) Adaptation, after-effect and contrast in perception of curved lines. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 1–31.
7.
PaivioA. (1971) Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
8.
PosnerM. I.NissenM. J.KleinR. M. (1976) Visual dominance: an information processing account of its origins and significance. Psychological Review, 83, 157–181.
9.
RabinM. D.CainW. S. (1984) Odor recognition: familiarity, identifiability, and encoding consistency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 316–325.
10.
TreismanA. M.FearnleyJ. S. (1969) The Stroop test: selective attention to color and words. Nature, 222, 437–439.
11.
WalkH. A.JohnsE. E. (1984) Interference and facilitation in short-term memory for odors. Perception and Psychophysics, 36, 508–514.
