bs_bs_banner

Journal of Sensory Studies ISSN 0887-8250

LEARNING ODORS: THE IMPACT OF VISUAL AND OLFACTORY

MENTAL IMAGERY TRAINING ON ODOR PERCEPTION
S. TEMPERE1,2,6, M.L. HAMTAT3, J.C. BOUGEANT4, G. de REVEL1,2 and G. SICARD5
1
EA 4577, Unité de Recherche Œnologie, Univ. de Bordeaux, ISVV, F-33882 Villenave d’Ornon, France
2
USC 1366, Œnologie, INRA, ISVV, F-33882 Villenave d’Ornon, France
3
EA 4139, Psychologie, Santé et Qualité de Vie, Univ. Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France
4
Laboratoire d’Etude des Mécanismes Cognitifs (EMC), Univ. Lyon, Bron, France
5
UMR 7259, Neurophysiologie des Interactions Cellulaire et Neuropathologie, Univ. Aix-Marseille, F-13331 Marseille, France

6
Corresponding authors. ABSTRACT
TEL: +33557575858;
FAX: +33557575813; Mental imagery has been used successfully in sensorimotor training, but rarely to
EMAIL: sophie.tempere@u-bordeaux.fr. improve sensory skills. Novices, undergraduate enology students (intermediates)
and wine experts were asked to repeatedly imagine the visual images or smells of
Accepted for Publication September 24, 2014
odorant sources presented in picture form. Olfactory abilities, odor sensitivity and
doi:10.1111/joss.12124
identification performance were compared before and after mental training to
check the differential effects of the two types of sensory training. We demonstrated
that, like repeated objective odorant stimulations, repeated imagination of odors
was able to enhance olfactory performance in objective perception. Both odor
detection and identification abilities were improved. However, according to our
results: (1) the effect was odorant specific; and (2) the impact of training on iden-
tification was restricted to wine experts. In addition, interestingly, the experts’
olfactory identification performance apparently deteriorated following specific
visual attention during the training phase.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
One extremely important aspect of sensory evaluation is training panelists to
achieve consistent results. The results demonstrated the effectiveness of olfactory
mental imagery as training strategy. The findings demonstrated that olfactory
mental imagery was able to modify olfactory capabilities of wine professionals,
with results comparable to those obtained using perceptual training. Conse-
quently, olfactory mental imagery is an excellent tool for training the olfactory
capacities of panelists, and may be extended to perfumers, flavorists and tasting
panelists with a view to improving product quality control, without material
stimulus such as chemical supports.

The existence of olfactory imagery is controversial

INTRODUCTION
Mental imagery is defined as the creation of a neural repre-
sentation in the absence of an external stimulus or event and
is accessed from memory (Kosslyn et al. 2001). This phe-
nomenon has been widely studied in the visual, auditory,
tactile and sensory motor domains (Kosslyn and Shwartz
1977; Aleman et al. 2000; Anema et al. 2012; Bläsing and
Schack 2012). The effectiveness of mental imagery as a
training strategy has been shown in several areas, such as
sport and music (Pascual-Leone et al. 1995; Jones and Stuth
1997; Veraksa and Gorovaya 2012).
(Crowder and Schab 1995; Stevenson and Case 2005).
However, multiple experiments leave little doubt concern-
ing its reality (Djordjevic et al. 2005; Sugiyama et al. 2006;
Bensafi et al. 2007). In addition, clinical studies reporting
subjective odor perceptions, i.e., olfactory hallucinations,
may be considered additional proofs of the capacity of the
olfactory system to produce olfactory imagery (Ohayon
2000). Furthermore, it is even possible to describe interac-
tions between mental imagery and objective perception of
odors. For example, intermodal interactions of olfactory
imagery are illustrated by the fact that the intensity of taste

Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 435
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD
perception may be modified when the participant is asked
to create an olfactory mental image: the intensity of the per-
ception of sweet solutions was increased when the subject
simultaneously perceived or imagined the smell of straw-
berries (Djordjevic et al. 2004a).
The interaction between objective and subjective olfac-
tory experiences has been confirmed by psychometric, neu-
ropsychological and neurophysiological studies showing
overlaps in psychophysiological processes (Algom and Cain
1991; Levy et al. 1999; Bensafi et al. 2003). Other authors
have described similar neural substrates evoked during
olfactory mental imagery (OMI) and objective olfactory
perception (Djordjevic et al. 2005; Plailly et al. 2012).
Djordjevic et al. (2004b) reported that an olfactory mental
exercise disrupted olfactory detection tasks. The authors
showed how detection of weak odors was affected by pre-
ceding olfactory or visual imagery tasks. Participants made
significantly more mistakes when the imagined odor was
inconsistent with the one presented in the detection task. In
the same paradigm, visual mental imagery (VMI) had no
effect on performance. Indeed, interactions between olfac-
tory imagery and real odor perception have previously been
reported (Lyman and McDaniel 1990; Carrasco and Ridout
1993). Facilitating or inhibiting effects depend not only on
the perceived and imagined object but also on the sensory
modality of the imagery: Lyman and McDaniel (1990) com-
pared OMI and visual imagery to evaluate the effects
of modality encoding on later stimulus recognition.
Intramodal correlations were identified: odor recognition
was enhanced by OMI of congruent odor names while
image recognition was enhanced by VMI (The participants
visually imagined items from a word list).
On the basis of these data, we hypothesized that olfactory
mental training would help improve individuals’ olfactory
skills. However, several previous studies had suggested that
not all subjects were able to produce olfactory mental
images and that this capacity was better developed in sub-
jects with a sustained practice of smelling particular odors
(Gilbert et al. 1998; Djordjevic et al. 2004b; Plailly et al.
2012). Consequently, wine specialists, who use their noses in
their daily work, were included in this study. Wine quality is
primarily evaluated by experts who use their sensory skills
to assess its sensory characteristics. A previous study focus-
ing on the chemosensory abilities of wine experts evaluated
their sensitivity to wine quality markers (Tempere et al.
2011). A wide dispersion of chemosensory thresholds was
found, resembling that of nonexperts. Abnormally low sen-
sitivity to certain odorants – specific hyposmia – was even
detected in some experts. Training to enable wine profes-
sionals to overcome these specific deficits would be
welcome. The experiments reported in this article addressed
two dimensions of olfactory perception using OMI training
to improve the olfactory abilities of novices and wine
436
S. TEMPERE ET AL.
experts. The impact of OMI training on odor detection and
identification performance was tested. Visual imagery was
considered as a control task to assess the specificity impact
of the training.
EXPERIMENT 1 – IMPACT OF
OLFACTORY MENTAL TRAINING ON
INDIVIDUAL DETECTION THRESHOLDS
In this experiment, we assessed the change in olfactory sen-
sitivity of enology students following repeated mental
imagery tasks.
METHODS
Subjects
A group of 42 volunteer enology students participated in
this experiment during the first 6 months of their training:
21 women and 21 men with an average age of 24 ± 5 years.
All students reported a normal ability to smell and no respi-
ratory infections or allergies. The study was performed in
accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki on Biomedical
Research involving human subjects and approved by the
Local Ethics Committee. All participants provided written
informed consent. According to published literature, these
subjects corresponded more to the definition of “intermedi-
ates” than novices (Parr et al. 2004).
Olfactory Stimuli
Two different key wine compounds were used: diacetyl
[431-03-8] with a buttery odor (Fluka, Saint-Quentin
Fallavier, France) and 1-octen-3-one [4312-99-6] reminis-
cent of mushrooms (Lancaster, Alfa Aesar, Schiltigheim,
France).
In an initial experiment, the odors of both diacetyl and
1-octen-3-one stimuli were considered familiar by 62 and
67%, respectively, of a sample of 60 controls. Diacetyl was
considered to represent butter “Fairly well to well”, being
slightly less typical than the odor of 1-octen-3-one, which
represented mushroom odor “Well to Very well”.
In order to make each compound soluble, stock solutions
containing an average of 1 g/L in ethanol (HPLC purity,
Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) were prepared and confirmed
by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. These solutions
were then diluted in spring water (Volvic, Danone, Paris,
France; pH ± SD = 7.21 ± 0.2). Odor detection thresholds
were determined using an ascending procedure with 10
perithreshold concentrations (10 successive twofold dilu-
tions). Serial dilutions of the two stimuli were prepared the
day before the test session to allow time for equilibration of
the headspace in testing bottles.
Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
S. TEMPERE ET AL.
Odorant solutions were presented in randomly coded
brown bottles (30 mL, open diameter = 2 cm) (Prince
Emballage, Eysines, France), with phenolic resin caps and
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) seals (VWR, Fontenay-
Sous-Bois, France).
The stimulus concentration ranges to be tested (Table 1)
were determined by analyzing published data and conduct-
ing preliminary experiments. In each case, 10 perithreshold
concentrations were prepared, each pair differing by a factor
of 2.
Procedure
Olfactory Detection Measurements. In order to
evaluate the impact of OMI, the subjects’ sensitivity was
assessed twice: before and after training.
Sensitivity is usually evaluated by the odor detection
threshold, defined as the lowest concentration of an odor
that can be detected, but not necessarily identified, by a
sample of subjects.
Individual olfactory detection thresholds were measured
for both compounds. Each subject performed 10 3-AFC
ascending detection tests (ISO 13301 2002): for each of the
10 trials, the participant received a set of three bottles (two
blanks of spring water and one with the diluted odorant at 1
of the 10 concentrations) and was asked to sniff each bottle
in the prescribed order and then choose the spiked sample
in each set of three bottles. The participant indicated the
positive sample on a data sheet (forced choice).
Experimental Groups and Mental Imagery Tasks.
The participants were assigned at random to one of the
three following training groups (14 subjects per group).
OMI Group. Every day, the subjects spent 2 min imagining
specific odors (1 min per item). This group was familiarized
with olfactory imagery practice using the Vividness of
Olfactory Imagery Questionnaire (VOIQ) and the Vividness
of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) (Gilbert et al.
1998). These questionnaires introduce the difference
between visual and olfactory imageries requiring subjects to
mentally evoke objects and activities with visual or olfactory
cues. Subjects were advised to sniff actively during the train-
ing phase as this sensorimotor activity seems to facilitate the
TABLE 1. PUBLISHED DETECTION THRESHOLDS OF CHEMICALS DILUTED IN WATER, ODOR QUALITIES, CONCENTRATION RANGES USED FOR
DETECTION THRESHOLD MEASUREMENTS, AND THE OLFACTORY ITEMS ASSOCIATED FOR THE OMI TRAINING CONDITIONS AND THE VISUAL
ITEMS USED FOR THE VMI
Compounds Smells
Diacetyl Butter
1-Octen-3-one Mushroom
Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD
evocation of olfactory images (Mainland and Sobel
2006).
VMI Group. Every day, the subjects spent 2 min visually
imagining objects corresponding to the odors used in
training.
Control Group without Training. During the first evalua-
tion session, they were simply informed that they would be
retested with the “butter” and “mushroom” odors during a
second session.
Odorant Training. The two odors, diacetyl and 1-octen-
3-one, and the corresponding pictures were used for
training (Table 1).
The participants trained once per day for 10 consecutive
days. The task was administered via Internet based on the
visual presentation of the photographs of mushrooms and
butter (Fig. 1). The photographs of odorant sources dis-
played on the screen were 17 × 22.7 cm in size (354 × 472
pixels). The pictures were used as support to generate both
olfactory and visual imageries. Each day, the two items were
presented in random order. Olfactory or visual imagery
training sessions lasted 2 min/day.
At the end of the training period, the individual detection
threshold measurements were repeated.
Data Analysis and Modeling
The detection threshold of the group, known as the absolute
threshold, was defined as the concentration at which the
spiked sample was detected correctly by 50% of the partici-
pants, corrected by chance. This statistical value was deter-
mined using an adaptation of the ASTM – E1432 method.
The psychometric concentration/response function fitted a
sigmoid curve (y = 1/(1 + e(–λx))). Detection probability was
corrected using the chance factor (1/3 for 3-AFC). Sigma
Plot (SYSTAT Software INC, London, United Kingdom)
software was used for graphic resolution and nonlinear
regression by analysis of variance (ANOVA) transform to
determine the threshold xo and a second criterion, the slope
b = 1/D. x = xo when P = 0.5. P was the predicted correct
response (Tempere et al. 2011). ANOVA was applied to sta-
tistical data using XL-STAT (Microsoft Excel, Addinsoft,
Paris, France). Duncan’s test was used as a comparison test
when samples were significantly different after ANOVA.
Published values of detection Our concentration
threshold in water ranges Pictures
5 μg/L (Lawless et al. 1994) 0.2–198.4 μg/L
7 ng/L (Buttery et al. 1990) 0.11–108.5 ng/L
437
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD S. TEMPERE ET AL.

FIG. 1. SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF A

TRAINING SESSION ADMINISTERED VIA
INTERNET
A series of screens were displayed at a con-
trolled speed showing digital images of
odorous objects at resolutions of 354 × 472
pixels (17 cm × 22.5 cm). Each day, the two
items were presented in random order.

438 Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
S. TEMPERE ET AL. MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD

However, a difference was observed in the training

RESULTS
The psychometric functions were plotted (Fig. 2) to evalu-
ate the impact of the training conditions – two types of
mental imagery and controls – on the detection threshold
for each compound tested. For diacetyl, pre- and post-
training performance did not differ significantly between
the OMI, VMI and control conditions (pre-training values:
xoOMI = 3.86 μg/L, xoVMI = 3.29 μg/L, xocontrol = 3.44 μg/L;
post-training values: xoOMI = 3.60 μg/L, xoVMI = 2.91 μg/L,
xocontrol = 7.49 μg/L). In contrast, OMI training was found to
have a significant impact on the detection threshold for
1-octen-3-one, which decreased by a factor of 9.4 (pre-
training values: xoOMI = 25.88 μg/L; post-training values:
xoOMI = 2.76 μg/L) (enhancement > intra-individual fluctua-
tion and to one-dilution step; P < 0.1)
groups’ initial sensitivity to 1-octen-3-one. The correspond-
ing sigmoid curves exhibit dissimilar slopes (bOMI = 1.14;
bVMI = 3.61; bcontrol = 2.62) and absolute thresholds
(xoOMI = 25.88 μg/L; xoVMI = 14.36 μg/L; xocontrol = 17.69 μg/
L). This difference may originate from sampling.
In view of the shape of the control curve, the robustness
of the results was checked on a smaller sample: the OMI
training group was reduced to 10 subjects (four less sensi-
tive subjects were eliminated). A comparison of the sigmoid
curves confirmed the improvement in performance follow-
ing OMI training (Fig. 3). These results confirmed that
OMI training affected the detection threshold. Indeed, the
OMI group’s absolute threshold for 1-octen-3-one was
reduced by a factor of 8.39 (enhancement > intra-individual
fluctuation and to one-dilution step; P < 0.05). In contrast,

FIG. 2. IMPACT OF TRAINING ON ABSOLUTE DETECTION THRESHOLDS

Curves represent the sigmoid modeling before (broken lines) and after (solid lines) training. The quality of the fit is given by R2. The detection
threshold was defined as the concentration at which the probability of detection was 50% (indicated by a dotted line at P = 0.5). Three training
groups were formed (14 subjects per group): olfactory mental imagery (OMI), visual mental imagery (VMI) and control. Concentration levels
(expressed as log10) are shown on the horizontal axis and the percentage of positive responses (corrected by chance) on the vertical axis. Upper
section (A): psychometric functions for diacetyl. Lower section (B): psychometric functions for 1-octen-3-one. OMI training had no impact on the
diacetyl curve but reduced the detection threshold of 1-octen-3-one.

Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 439
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD
FIG. 3. PSYCHOMETRIC FUNCTIONS FOR THE 10 OMI-TRAINED
SUBJECTS (OMI GROUP WAS REDUCED TO 10 SUBJECTS. FOUR LESS
SENSITIVE SUBJECTS WERE ELIMINATED)
Concentrations (expressed as log10) are shown on the horizontal axis
and the percentage of positive responses (corrected by chance) on the
vertical axis. The detection threshold was defined as the concentration
at which the probability of detection was 50% (indicated by a dotted
line at P = 0.5). Upper section (A): curves represent the sigmoid model
before training for total OMI group (dotted line), VMI group (broken
line) and control group (solid line). Lower section (B): curves represent
the sigmoid model for 1-octen-3-one before (broken lines) and after
(solid lines) OMI training for the 10 subjects selected.
no significant difference was found for the other trained
odor, diacetyl.
EXPERIMENT 2 – IMPACT OF
TRAINING ON OLFACTORY
IDENTIFICATION CAPACITIES
In this experiment, the olfactory identification ability of
novices and experts was measured and compared using a
forced-choice procedure using a tool with associations
between odors and photographic images which facilitate the
identification for the subjects (Gottfried and Dolan 2003).
To build this olfactory-visual test, three preliminary inde-
pendent experiments were proposed: (1) to characterize the
odorant samples (typicality, familiarity, pleasantness, etc.);
and (2) to associate odorants and images. The task associat-
ing odorant stimuli and images involved 105 participants.
Individually, they indicate the picture that would enable
them to imagine the odor of the object and represent the
440
S. TEMPERE ET AL.
emitting source most accurately. On the second time, they
performed a free association task between the suggested
target image and three other pictures presented on the
draughtboard. It was made clear to them that they had to
select the “nearest” images to the target and that they had to
organize their choice in a hierarchy by first indicating the
nearest image to the target, then the second, and then the
third. It was specified that there was no such thing as a right
or wrong answer. The pictures, which were not chosen for
each odorant, were then randomly selected to form a pair of
“unrelated” pictures for the target and for each odorant
stimulus of the test.
METHODS
Subjects
Two groups participated in the study: 20 novices (42 ± 10
years old) and 20 experts (47 ± 9 years old).
Each subject completed a form with regard to the main
criteria (age, gender, smoking habits and health status)
posited to have an influence on odor perception.
All experts had wine-tasting qualifications (DNO, Gradu-
ate Diploma in Oenology, or DUAD, a professional tasting
diploma) and the novices were recruited outside the wine
industry. None of the novices had any formal knowledge of
olfactory evaluation criteria. The two groups were sex
matched (11 women and 9 men). All novices and experts
reported a normal ability to smell, with no respiratory
infections or allergies.
Stimuli
Forty-seven everyday odors were tested. Some represent also
wine defects, key components of quality or typicality and
non-wine-specific compounds (Table 2).
Briefly, the odorants were diluted in 3 mL mineral oil
(Acros Organics, Geel, Belgium) at concentrations (10−2 to
10−5). Only (±)-geosmin was diluted in spring water to
obtain a higher diffusion (-log Kaw = 2.56). The quality of
the smells associated with the compounds did not deterio-
rate but remained stable during the testing period (pretest
in the laboratory with independent groups of novices and
experts). Each bottle contained a polypropylene pad
(Delahaye Industrie, Saint Aignan de Grand Lieu, France) to
absorb the liquid, prevent spilling and enlarge the odorant-
emitting surface, thus shortening bottle air saturation time.
In order to familiarize the subject with the procedure, five
supplementary odorants (Sigma Aldrich, Saint-Quentin
Fallavier, France) were prepared: D-limonene [5989-27-5]
(orange), ethyl cinnamate [103-36-6] (strawberry), ethyl
phenylacetate [557-48-2] (honey), trans-2-cis-6-nonadienal
[110-43-0] (cucumber) and heptan-2-one [107-97-3]
(Roquefort cheese-like odor).
Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
S. TEMPERE ET AL. MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD

TABLE 2. LIST OF ODORANTS USED IN THE IDENTIFICATION TEST

Familiarity Typicality
No. Odors Chemical names CAS number Suppliers (%) (scale/100) Sets
1 Almond Benzaldehyde 100-57-2 SA 85 45 –
3 Anise Anethol 104-46-1 M 85 53 –
4 Apple Ethyl 2-methylbutyrate 7452-79-1 SA 85 37 –
5 Banana Isoamyl acetate 123-92-2 SA 88 38 –
6 Bell pepper 2-Isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine 24683-00-9 SA 82 31 –
7 Butter Diacetyl 431-03-8 SA 72 31 2
8 Cabbage Methionol 74-93-1 SA 62 21 2
9 Camembert S-methylthiobutyrate 2432-51-1 SA 77 40 –
10 Caramel Furaneol 3658-77-3 F 63 29 –
11 Cinnamon Cinnamaldehyde 104-55-2 Sr 85 39 2
12 Cloves Eugenol 97-53-0 SA 57 39 –
13 Coconut Whiskey-lactone 39212-23-2 SA 83 42 –
14 Coffee Extract / V 83 33 2
15 Coriander Linalool 78-70-6 F 73 24 1
16 Cork taint 2,4,6-Trichloroanisole 87-40-1 SA 48 19 –
17 Crab stick Dimethylsulfide 75-18-3 SA 75 37 –
18 Earthy (±)-Geosmin 19700-21-1 Su 63 27 –
19 Eucalyptus 1,8-Cineol 470-82-6 SA 87 43 –
20 Feet Isovaleric acid 503-74-2 M 60 47 –
21 Fish 2-Butylamine 13952-84-6 SA 32 17 2
22 Grass Cis-3-hexenol 928-96-1 SA 88 43 –
2 Horse 4-Ethylphenol 123-07-9 L 53 21 –
23 Kiwi Ethyl butyrate 105-54-4 SA 75 29 –
24 Lavender Essential oil / Sn 93 57 –
25 Lemon Citral 5392-40-5 SA 88 52 –
26 Mint Essential oil / Sn 95 50 –
27 Mushroom 1-Octen-3-one 4312-99-6 L 67 36 1
28 Musk Omega-pentadecalactone 106-02-5 SA 57 27 –
29 Onion Ethanethiol 75-08-1 F 70 28 1
30 Orange blossom Methyl anthranilate 134-20-3 E 60 21 2
31 Peach γ-Undecalactone 706-14-9 SA 48 20 1
32 Pear Hexyl acetate 142-92-7 SA 93 45 –
33 Pineapple Allyl hexanoate 123-68-2 SA 68 31 2
34 Plastic Styrene 100-42-5 SA 78 34 2
35 Rose Phenylethanol 60-12-8 M 58 31 1
36 Rubber Benzothiazole 95-16-9 SA 55 31 1
37 Sea Calone 28940-11-6 C 38 19 1
38 Smokey 4-Ethylgaïacol 2785-89-9 L 63 26 1
39 Solvent Nail varnish remover / Re 88 71 –
40 Sweat 3-Sulfanylhexyle acetate 51755-83-0 IC 73 55 2
41 Thyme Thymol 89-83-8 SA 74 34 1
42 Toasted bread 2-Acetylthiazole 24295-03-2 SA 58 21 –
43 Vanilla Aroma / V 87 44 1
44 Vinegar White vinegar / Re 83 46 –
45 Violet β-Ionone 79-77-6 SA 55 25 –
46 Washing powder Aldehyde C12 112-54-9 SA 47 18 –
47 Woody Cedryl acetate P50 61789-42-2 SA 58 21 2

Note: Familiarity and typicality of the smells were measured in a control sample of 60 subjects. The table indicates the percentages of subjects who
considered that the smell was familiar. Typicality is represented by coordinates on an adapted green scale. These are 10-cm-long semilogarithmic
graduated scales annotated with descriptions ranging from “barely identifiable” to “the strongest ever” for intensity or from “very poorly” to “per-
fectly well” for typicality, with which participants checked their answers. Suppliers: Ca, Calchauvet; E, Eastman; F, Fluka; L, Lancaster; M, Merk; Re,
Repère; SA, Sigma Aldrich; Sn, Sanoflor; Sr, Sarsynthèse; Su, Supelco; V, Vahine.

Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 441
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD
Experimental Design
The experiment consisted of three phases: two identification
tests of odor samples separated by a 10-day mental imagery
training period.
The olfactory identification test was conducted with the
aid of a computer program to regulate the timing (Fig. 4).
Instructions and images were displayed on a computer
screen according to a regular schedule; the subjects’
responses were recorded via a keyboard. Subjects were
assisted by an operator, who presented the odor samples
under their nostrils. This procedure avoided contamination
of the odorized bottles (perfume, cigarette, etc.) and stan-
dardized the sampling condition. The 47 odors were pre-
sented in turn. After the initial sniffing phase, five pictures
of odorant sources appeared on the screen, including the
target (most probable odor source or correct answer), two
items similar to the target odor (= close answer, “nearby”
target) and two totally dissimilar items (= distracters).
Response time started when the picture was displayed
and was unlimited. It was ended by the participant’s
response on the keyboard and the elapsed time was
recorded as the response time. The software that supervised
the experiment processed the answers and determined the
scores – correct, close or wrong answers – and the response
time of each subject for each odor.
The five odors presented at the beginning of the experi-
ment to familiarize the subjects with the procedure were not
registered in the results.
The standardized odor samples were presented in one of
two sequences:
Order 1: pineapple – mushroom – lemon – caramel –
feet – apple – lavender – onion – coconut – mint – cabbage
– kiwi – washing powder – camembert – musk –
banana – vinegar – coriander – woody – horse – anise –
vanilla – earthy – peach – sea – cork taint – coffee –
eucalyptus – plastic – thyme – toasted bread – sweat – grass
442
S. TEMPERE ET AL.
– crab stick – solvent – rose – cloves – smokey – bell pepper
– almond – rubber – cinnamon – orange blossom – fish –
violet – butter – pear
Order 2: the reverse order
The test was individual and the presentation order of the
odors was randomized among the subjects in the first
session and repeated in the same order in the second
session.
After the first measurement session, each group of sub-
jects (novices and experts) was divided at random into three
training groups: an OMI group, a VMI group and a control
group.
The training procedure was identical to that used in
experiment 1 except for the length of training. Daily 10-min
sessions (1 minute per item) were guided by a series of
Internet-based interactive screens (Fig. 1). Novices and
experts were familiarized with olfactory imagery practice
using the sample given by the VOIQ and the VVIQ. Any
novice reported difficulty with imagery task.
Groups were divided into two subgroups using different
sets of 10 training items: set 1 and set 2 (Table 2). Items
were selected to balance the representativeness of the
samples. There was no difference between the mean famil-
iarity percentages of the two samples (U = 41; P = 0.52),
with means + SD of 63.3 ± 14.1% and 67.1 ± 15.4%, respec-
tively. There was no difference on typicality scales:
29.3 ± 7.6 mm and 30.3 ± 11.3 mm, respectively (U = 48.5;
P = 0.92).
Data Analysis
Duncan’s test was used as a comparison test when samples
were significantly different after ANOVA. In order to esti-
mate the efficiency of training, three independent variables
were tested: the subjects’ training conditions (OMI and
VMI), the type of items (trained and untrained) and the set
of trained items (set 1 or 2).
FIG. 4. SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF
IDENTIFICATION PROTOCOL
The test began with an initial sniffing phase.
Five pictures were then displayed on the com-
puter screen. The participant had to choose
the corresponding odor source from a set of
photos. For example, when the odorant
tested was ethyl 2-methylbutyrate, the correct
choice was the picture representing an apple.
The nearby responses were pear and peach
and the distracters were coffee and perfume.
Once the subject had entered an answer with
the computer’s numeric keypad, there was a
10-s pause before the next odorant was
presented.
Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
S. TEMPERE ET AL.
RESULTS
Initial Characteristics of the Training Groups
Factorial ANOVA was used to check whether the composi-
tion of each group of subjects (experts and novices) was
similar in terms of their initial correct identification ability,
total identification ability (sum of correct and close
responses) and response times. Independent variables were
the training conditions (OMI/VMI), the type of items
(trained/untrained items) and the set of trained items (set 1
or 2). Analysis revealed a significant difference in olfactory
identification scores between the types of items, F(1,
72) = 11.07; P < 0.01, as well as trained (correct identifica-
tions: 62.75 ± 2.24) and untrained (correct identifications:
72.03 ± 1.63) items (Fig. 5). Duncan post hoc analysis indi-
cated a significantly lower score for the trained items.
However, the test showed an interaction between the types
of items and the sets of trained items. Actually, the differ-
ence was only significant for set 2 (P < 0.05). As the initial
identification scores were lower in set 2, there was a slightly
larger potential for performance enhancement. No signifi-
cant difference in total scores was observed (P > 0.05)
irrespective of the factor.
FIG. 5. COMPARISONS OF THE INITIAL CORRECT IDENTIFICATION SCORES (A) OF STIMULI TO BE INCLUDED IN THE EXPERIMENT AND INITIAL
RESPONSE TIMES (B) ACCORDING TO THE TRAINING CONDITIONS (OMI/VMI), ITEM TYPES (TRAINED OR UNTRAINED) AND TRAINED ITEM SETS (1
OR 2)
Correct identification scores and response times differed between the trained and the untrained items. Asterisks indicate significant differences
(Duncan test; *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01).
Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD
In addition, the time of day of the test (morning versus
afternoon), the presentation order of stimuli and socio-
professional parameters (sex, age, expertise) had no impact
on scores (ANOVA; P > 0.05).
Impact of Mental Imagery on Olfactory
Identification Scores
Factorial ANOVA was used to assess the relative impact of
visual/olfactory training, trained/untrained subjects, trained
item sets, measurement sessions and subject groups
(novices or experts) on correct identification scores. The
results revealed that OMI training had a significant positive
effect, F(1, 128) = 4.97; P < 0.05. In addition, the analysis
revealed an interaction between the five independent vari-
ables, F(1, 128) = 7.98; P < 0.01. In fact, the increase in
correct identification scores for trained compounds was sig-
nificantly higher for experts trained with the items in set 2
only (Fig. 6). Interestingly, with the same set, the experts
recorded a significant decrease in identification of trained
stimuli after visual training. No training effect was detected
in novices.
Furthermore, the results revealed a difference between
the two sets of items used, i.e., a significant performance
443
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD S. TEMPERE ET AL.

FIG. 6. COMPARISON OF PRE- (GRAY) AND POST-TRAINING (BLACK) CORRECT IDENTIFICATION SCORES FOR TRAINED AND UNTRAINED ITEMS
AFTER VISUAL AND OLFACTORY TRAINING IN EXPERTS AND NOVICES
(% means ± standard errors). Asterisks indicate significant differences (Duncan test; *P < 0.05). OMI training had no effect on novices tested with
set 1. In contrast, identification of trained odors improved after OMI training, but only for experts. VMI training had a slight but significant nega-
tive impact on olfactory identification scores in the expert group only.

enhancement for sample set 2 in experts trained by OMI

concerning 7/10 items, but only 2/10 for set 1 (Fig. 7). In
the case of set 2, five items where scores improved were
identified by 50% or fewer subjects before training, while
two were identified correctly by 75% of participants: iden-
tification of coffee and pineapple was already high before
training. In set 1, the identification rate for coriander,
like that of fish and the sea, was very low before
training, below 30%, but only that of coriander improved
after training. These variations suggest that the starting
level does not play an important role, but rather the
quality of the items and, more specifically, their
imageability.
Measuring the Impact of Mental Imagery on
Response Times
The average response times for correct answers were ana-
lyzed for each experimental group (ANOVA). Training was
found to have a significant impact on response times, F(1,
128) = 8.4; P < 0.01, depending on the level of expertise.
The decrease was more marked for the experts, but their
response times in the pre-training phase, 8,126 ± 2,445 ms,
were longer than those of novices, 7,048 ± 2,520 ms. Post
hoc analysis revealed a significant decrease in the experts’
times with sample set 2, independent of the type of training
or item.

444 Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
S. TEMPERE ET AL. MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD

FIG. 7. ODOR-SPECIFIC EFFECT OF OMI

TRAINING ON EXPERTS’ CORRECT IDENTIFI-
CATION SCORES WITH TRAINED AND
UNTRAINED ITEMS FROM SETS 1 AND 2
(% means ± standard errors). The results
revealed a significant performance enhance-
ment mainly for experts trained by olfactory
mental imagery (enhancement for 7/10 items)
tested with sample set 2. “+” = items where
performance enhancement was recorded after
training.

ing protocol had lower detection thresholds afterward. No

DISCUSSION
This research investigated the possible impact of OMI train-
ing on two aspects of olfactory performance: detection and
identification. These results provide the first evidence of an
enhancement of olfactory performance following OMI
training. Moreover, the proposed training impacted both
aspects.
Olfactory Sensitivity and Mental Imagery
The first experiment revealed an enhanced ability to detect
one of the trained odorants: 1-octen-3-one, reminiscent of
mushrooms. Participants who followed the imagery train-
effect was detected with diacetyl, indicating that the increase
in sensitivity was dependent on the compound tested. The
difference may also have been due to the initial sensitivity
levels. A comparison of the initial diacetyl detection thresh-
olds (average 3 μg/L) with published data (12.4 μg/L;
Tempere et al. 2011), based on the same measurement
methodology, revealed that the participants were fairly sen-
sitive to this compound (a positive difference greater than
two dilution steps), thus leaving less scope for increasing
their sensitivity. Comparing the participants’ initial 1-octen-
3-one detection thresholds (on average 26 ng/L) with pub-
lished data (40.8 ng/L; Tempere et al. 2011) revealed a
difference smaller than one-dilution step.

Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 445
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD
Two alternative, but not mutually exclusive, hypotheses
may explain the discrepancy between odorants. First, the
perception of an object and the ability to imagine its prop-
erties depend on familiarity (Carrasco and Ridout 1993).
Diacetyl odor may be less familiar than that of 1-octen-3-
one and, consequently, more difficult to imagine. This is
unlikely, as the familiarity and typicality data for both
stimuli were at similar levels. Second, the odor sample may
not have been perfectly representative of the target item
(although it had previously been validated by 105 subjects).
Symmetrically, the imagined odor may have been different
from the one perceived in the detection test, with the result
that the repeated imagery did not provide effective training.
Finally, another possibility is that imagery was as good as
for 1-octen-3-one but without effect (induced no effect) on
diacetyl detection ability.
It is interesting to compare these results with the
improvement in the wine experts’ specific sensitivity follow-
ing repeated exposure to two different key wine com-
pounds: diacetyl and linalool (Tempere et al. 2012). In this
previous study, trained experts had to smell odor sample
bottles once a day for 1 month. As in the present study, the
impact of training on specific sensitivity was assessed by
measuring changes in olfactory detection thresholds. The
results showed a decrease in the olfactory detection thresh-
olds restricted to the trained compounds. While the subjects
tested had been selected as poorer performers using the
same method of detection threshold determination (abso-
lute threshold, ASTM – E1432 method), the gains observed
after perceptual and OMI training were similar, represent-
ing an average of four binary dilution steps.
It is thus possible to conclude that an increase in sensitiv-
ity after olfactory imaging sessions occurred, provided that:
(1) initial performance was poor; (2) OMI is inefficient for
diacetyl odor; and (3) the memory of the training com-
pound and the objective perception of the odorant stimulus
were consistent. From a physiological standpoint, it was
unlikely that more effective detection/identification was due
to an increase in the sensitivity of the olfactory mucosa
(Wang et al. 1993). Indeed, under OMI conditions, without
direct stimulation of the olfactory receptor layer, hypotheses
focus on either a top-down mechanism (Mainland et al.
2002) or a gain in sensitivity supported by central changes.
Note that the hypothesis of an influence on peripheral sen-
sitivity was not confirmed by recording electro-olfactogram
responses of the olfactory mucosa (Lapid and Hummel
2013).
Identification Ability and Imagery
Identification scores and accuracy were also enhanced by
OMI training, but only for experts. Indeed, the number of
correct identifications increased, but there was no variation
446
S. TEMPERE ET AL.
in total identification scores (correct responses plus close
responses). Some of the close responses became correct
responses. OMI training was expected to facilitate discrimi-
nation among odors in the same perceptual group (i.e.,
semantically related items).
As in the previous experiment on sensitivity perfor-
mance, the impact of OMI training depended on the
odorant chemical species: trained odorant sets 1 and 2 did
not produce equal results. As stated above, this variation
may be explained by differences in the quality of the images
representing the odorous materials, the quality of the odor-
ants or visual images used, or the varying difficulty of creat-
ing mental images corresponding to different odors.
The possibility of forming olfactory mental images has
been questioned (Crowder and Schab 1995; Herz and Engen
1996; Herz 2000). Criticisms of the paradigms used in OMI
studies have mainly argued that semantic information is
capable of influencing the odor imagery process (see Elmes
1998), implying that imagery may be strictly a sensory (or
depictive) representation. In this regard, it is important to
note that the experimental psychophysiological or neuro-
physiological manifestations of so-called “mental imagery”
correspond to the subject’s responses to requests for a
mental imagery. Tomiczek and Stevenson (2009) defined
olfactory imagery as the participant’s response to form a
percept-like representation. To refine this perspective, this
representation may or may not be conscious. Gilbert et al.
(1998) intended to “measure” this consciousness with the
VOIQ test, which mimics checking the quality of visual
mental images (Marks 1973). However, the consciousness of
VMI is consensually accepted but seems problematic in
olfaction. “Measurement” is a subjective concept, with no
clear definition of what is really evaluated by the partici-
pant. Olfactory imagery involves physical sensation, seman-
tic associations, knowledge (Tomiczek and Stevenson 2009)
and even motor representation (Mainland and Sobel 2006).
In addition, specific neurological objective perception struc-
tures are actually recruited during OMI experiences or
requested tasks, as demonstrated by neuroimaging studies
(Djordjevic et al. 2005; Bensafi et al. 2007; Plailly et al.
2012), thus reinforcing the concept that OMI is similar to
auditory or VMI (Kosslyn et al. 2001). One aspect that
offers promising material for future study is the clear dem-
onstration that some parts of the olfactory (network)
system operate subconsciously (Lorig 1994), suggesting that
parts of the olfactory mental representation may remain in
the subconscious.
This study provides an additional functional argument in
favor of OMI, as the expected effect of OMI was confirmed
in experts, i.e., it affected their objective olfactory percep-
tion. This difference between experts and novices is consis-
tent with the hypothesis that subjects are not equally able
to form olfactory mental images (Gilbert et al. 1998;
Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
S. TEMPERE ET AL.
Djordjevic et al. 2004a; Bensafi et al. 2005) and that experts’
OMI capabilities are greater than those of novices (Plailly
et al. 2012; Royet et al. 2013). These findings are also consis-
tent with the analysis of Bende and Nordin (1997), who
suggested that, in the objective olfactory perception condi-
tion, experts do not have a greater detection capacity than
novices, as they do not have specific experiences of the
detection task. On the contrary, discrimination or identifi-
cation tasks, which require higher level processing, are sen-
sitive to mental training. At the same time, some studies
(Djordjevic et al. 2005; Bensafi et al. 2007; Royet et al. 2013)
demonstrated that olfactory networks involving the primary
olfactory cortex were activated when novices were requested
to form odor mental images. Moreover, olfactory skills are
strongly related to wine professionals’ expertise. In this
experiment, their performance as experts was tested which
may induce motivational difference with novices.
The response times were relatively long: generally exceed-
ing 4 s. In this experiment, the response time included a
visual task and a decision guided by olfactory perception.
Each participant scanned the five visual items while remem-
bering the olfactory sensation or associated perceptive rep-
resentation of the odorant object, and, finally, made a
decision. According to a standard hypothesis, the resulting
response time is the sum of the reaction times for each step
(Sternberg 1969). Olfactory features, or object cueing, thus
represented only one part of the task. In fact, response times
have rarely been measured in the olfaction field. They vary
according to the experimental paradigm ranging from
600 ms in a detection task (Chen and Dalton 2005) to 1–2 s
in a discrimination task (Boesveldt et al. 2010) and 6–10 s
in a retrieval task (Jehl et al. 1997). Nevertheless, it is sug-
gested here that the longer response times of wine experts
were consistent with the idea that they applied an analytical
process to the olfactory identification task, while the novices
adopted a heuristic approach. Familiarization with testing
conditions may explain the general effect of the session
factor observed for novices and experts.
One unexpected finding of the study was that VMI train-
ing resulted in lower olfactory identification scores.
Although this effect was of low amplitude and item specific,
it deserves a short comment. In this study, olfactory training
and testing involved both olfactory and visual stimuli. At
first glance, the rich data corpus on sensory cross-modal
interactions may provide an explanation of the incidental
result. Reasoning that had mainly been based on visual/
auditory/touch cross talk between modalities (e.g., Shaw
1982; Eimer et al. 2002; Sinnett et al. 2008) was recently
supplemented by functional data, indicating the occurrence
of perceptual visual-olfactory interactions (Jadauji et al.
2012), as well as anatomical or even functional data con-
firming links between olfactory and visual systems in object
perception (Gottfried and Dolan 2003; Wesson and Wilson
Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD
2010; Wilson and Rennaker 2010). However, it should be
stressed that both types of stimuli are also involved in atten-
tion processes (e.g., Foxe et al. 2005; Johnson and Zatorre
2005; Ciaramitaro et al. 2007). In this case, visual pictures
were introduced as mental imagery support in the training
procedure and as identifiers of odorant objects used in the
olfactory ability test. In this protocol, therefore, the pictures
themselves constituted learning targets and acquired certain
properties as perceived objects. These properties may
include the establishment of attentional cueing (or tagging)
in a specific sensory modality (Mattler 2004). Indeed, when
a participant is shown a photograph of an object and
instructed to form a perceptual copy of that object in his/
her mind, the attentional effort may be expected to result in
a suppression of activity or deactivation in brain areas sup-
porting nonrelevant sensory modalities (Laurienti et al.
2002; Johnson and Zatorre 2005). Processing a stimulus in
one sensory modality may result in the suppression of other
sensory-specific activity (e.g., Kawashima et al. 1995;
Laurienti et al. 2002; Mozolic et al. 2008). One hypothesis
arising out of the results presented here is that visual atten-
tion may be able to mask an object’s olfactory cues even
during mental imagery tasks. This may make it more diffi-
cult to associate subsequent objective odor perception with
a VMI-trained pictorial identifier.
Our results may be related to mindfulness. This kind of
training is a procedure in which participants simply focus
on a task for a few minutes in silence. This focused attention
is sufficient to show large effects on a wide range of physical
and cognitive tasks (Hölzel et al. 2011). However, the use of
different items and the comparison with a control or a VMI
group indicate the low relation between simple mindfulness
training and the effects found after OMI training. Thus, the
present results depend on the olfactory imaging work
request during OMI. An attention voluntarily oriented on
olfactory percepts, on the hedonic characteristic or other
olfactory qualities of odorous objects, seems responsible for
the enrichment of the olfactory representation.
CONCLUSION
The operationality of mental sensory representations in
olfaction is supported by our functional experimental data.
However, the difference detected between novice and expert
skills reflected a point raised recurrently in the literature.
The sensitivity of undergraduate oenology students to
OMI-trained samples was enhanced, but, unlike wine
experts, the novices did not increase their identification
scores following OMI training. This suggests that the
novices lacked a skill that they subsequently acquired. One
pragmatic goal for future study could be: “How to teach
novices to learn to use olfactory imaging?”
447
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
S. Tempere was supported by a PhD fellowship from the
Conseil Interprofessionnel du Vin de Bordeaux (Bordeaux,
France). M.L. Hamtat was supported by a PhD fellowship
from the Fondation Edmond Roudnitska (Paris, France).
The authors would like to thank these sponsors for their
financial support.
REFERENCES
ALEMAN, A., NIEUWENSTEIN, M.R., BÖCKER, K.B.E. and
de HAAN, E.H.F. 2000. Music training and mental imagery
ability. Neuropsychologia 38, 1664–1668.
ALGOM, D. and CAIN, W.S. 1991. Remembered odors and
mental mixtures: Tapping reservoirs of olfactory knowledge. J.
Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 17, 1104–1119.
ANEMA, H.A., de HAAN, A.M., GEBUIS, T. and DIJKERMAN,
H.C. 2012. Thinking about touch facilitates tactile but not
auditory processing. Exp. Brain Res. 218, 373–380.
BENDE, M. and NORDIN, S. 1997. Perceptual learning in
olfaction: Professional wine tasters versus controls. Physiol.
Behav. 62, 1065–1070.
BENSAFI, M., PORTER, J., POULIOT, S., MAINLAND, J.,
JOHSON, B., ZELANO, C., YOUNG, N., BREMNER, E.,
AFRAMIAN, D., KHAN, R. et al. 2003. Olfactomotor activity
during imagery mimics that during perception. Nat. Neurosci.
6, 1142–1144.
BENSAFI, M., POULIOT, S. and SOBEL, N. 2005.
Odorant-specific patterns of sniffing during imagery
distinguish “bad” and “good” olfactory imagers. Chem. Senses
30, 521–529.
BENSAFI, M., SOBEL, N. and KHAN, R.M. 2007.
Hedonic-specific activity in piriform cortex during odor
imagery mimics that during odor perception. J. Neurophysiol.
98, 3254–3262.
BLÄSING, B. and SCHACK, T. 2012. Mental representation of
spatial movement parameters in dance. Spat. Cogn. Comput.
12, 111–132.
BOESVELDT, S., FRASNELLI, J., GORDON, A.R. and
LUNDSTRÖM, J.N. 2010. The fish is bad: Negative food
odors elicit faster and more accurate reactions than other
odors. Biol. Psychol. 84, 313–317.
BUTTERY, R.G., TERANISHI, R., LING, L.C. and
TURNBAUGH, J.G. 1990. Quantitative and sensory studies on
tomato paste volatiles. J. Agric. Food Chem. 38, 336–340.
CARRASCO, M. and RIDOUT, J.B. 1993. Olfactory perception
and olfactory imagery: A multidimensional analysis. J. Exp.
Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 19, 287–301.
CHEN, D. and DALTON, P. 2005. The effect of emotion and
personality on olfactory perception. Chem. Senses 30,
345–351.
CIARAMITARO, V.M., BURACAS, G.T. and BOYNTON, G.M.
2007. Spatial and cross-modal attention alter responses to
448
S. TEMPERE ET AL.
unattended sensory information in early visual and auditory
human cortex. J. Neurophysiol. 98, 2399–2413.
CROWDER, R.G. and SCHAB, F.R. 1995. Imagery for odors. In
Memory for Odors (F.R. Schab and R.G. Crowder, eds.) pp.
93–107, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
DJORDJEVIC, J., ZATORRE, R. and JONES-GOTMAN, M.
2004a. Effects of perceived and imagined odors on taste
detection. Chem. Senses 29, 199–208.
DJORDJEVIC, J., ZATORRE, R., PETRIDES, M. and
JONES-GOTMAN, M. 2004b. The mind’s nose: Effects of
odor and visual imagery on odor detection. Psychol. Sci. 15,
143–148.
DJORDJEVIC, J., ZATORRE, R., PETRIDES, M., BOYLE, J.A.
and JONES-GOTMAN, M. 2005. Functional neuroimaging of
odor imagery. Neuroimage 24, 791–801.
EIMER, M., van VELZEN, J. and DRIVER, J. 2002. Cross-modal
interactions between audition, touch, and vision in
endogenous spatial attention: ERP evidence on preparatory
states and sensory modulations. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 14,
254–271.
ELMES, D.G. 1998. Is there an inner nose? Chem. Senses 23,
443–445.
FOXE, J.J., SIMPSON, G.V., AHLFORS, S.P. and SARON, C.D.
2005. Biasing the brain’s attentional set: I. Cue driven
deployments of intersensory selective attention. Exp. Brain
Res. 166, 370–392.
GILBERT, A.N., AVERY, N., CROUCH, M. and KEMP, S.E.
1998. Olfactory and visual mental imagery. J. Ment. Imagery
22, 137–146.
GOTTFRIED, J.A. and DOLAN, R.J. 2003. The nose smells what
the eye sees: Crossmodal visual facilitation of human
olfactory perception. Neuron 39, 375–386.
HERZ, R.S. 2000. Verbal coding in olfactory versus nonolfactory
cognition. Mem. Cognit. 28, 957–964.
HERZ, R.S. and ENGEN, T. 1996. Odor memory: Review and
analysis. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 3, 300–313.
HÖLZEL, B.K., CARMODY, J., VANGEL, M., CONGLETON,
C., YERRAMSETTI, S.M., GARD, T. and LAZAR, S.W. 2011.
Mindfulness practice leads to increases in regional brain gray
matter density. Psychiatry Res. 91, 36–43.
ISO 13301 2002. Sensory analysis – methodology – general
guidance for measuring odour, flavour and taste detection
thresholds by a three-alternative forced-choice (3-AFC)
procedure.
JADAUJI, J.B., DJORDJEVIC, J., LUNDSTRÖM, J.N. and PACK,
C.C. 2012. Modulation of olfactory perception by visual
cortex stimulation. J. Neurosci. 32, 3095–3100.
JEHL, C., ROYET, J.P. and HOLLEY, A. 1997. Role of verbal
encoding in short- and long-term odor recognition. Percept.
Psychophys. 59, 100–110.
JOHNSON, J.A. and ZATORRE, R.J. 2005. Attention to
simultaneous unrelated auditory and visual events: Behavioral
and neural correlates. Cereb. Cortex 15, 1609–1620.
JONES, L. and STUTH, G. 1997. The uses of mental imagery in
athletics: An overview. Appl. Prev. Psychol. 6, 101–115.
Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
S. TEMPERE ET AL.
KAWASHIMA, R., O’SULLIVAN, B.T. and ROLAND, P.E. 1995.
Positron-emission tomography studies of cross-modality
inhibition in selective attentional tasks: Closing the “mind’s
eye”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92, 5969–5972.
KOSSLYN, S.M. and SHWARTZ, S.P. 1977. A simulation of
visual imagery. Cogn. Sci. 1, 265–295.
KOSSLYN, S.M., GANIS, G. and THOMPSON, W.L. 2001.
Neural foundations of imagery. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2,
635–642.
LAPID, H. and HUMMEL, T. 2013. Recording odor-evoked
response potentials at the human olfactory epithelium
(Review). Chem. Senses 38, 3–17.
LAURIENTI, P.J., BURDETTE, J.H., WALLACE, M.T., YEN, Y.F.,
FIELD, A.S. and STEIN, B.E. 2002. Deactivation of
sensory-specific cortex by cross-modal stimuli. J. Cogn.
Neurosci. 14, 420–429.
LAWLESS, H.T., ANTIMONE, M.J., LEDFORD, R.A. and
JOHNSTON, M. 1994. Olfactory responsiveness to diacetyl.
J. Sensory Studies 9, 47–56.
LEVY, L.M., HENKIN, R.I., LIN, C.S., HUTTER, A. and
SCHELLINGER, D. 1999. Odor memory induces brain
activation as measured by functional MRI. J. Comput. Assist.
Tomogr. 23, 487–498.
LORIG, T.S. 1994. EEG and ERP studies of low-level odor
exposure in normal subjects. Toxicol. Ind. Health 10, 579–586.
LYMAN, B.J. and MCDANIEL, M.A. 1990. Memory for odors
and odor names: Modalities of elaboration and imagery.
J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 16, 656–664.
MAINLAND, J. and SOBEL, N. 2006. The sniff is part of the
olfactory percept. Chem. Senses 31, 181–196.
MAINLAND, J.D., BREMNER, E.A., YOUNG, N., JOHNSON,
B.N., KHAN, R.M., BENSAFI, M. and SOBEL, N. 2002.
Olfactory plasticity: One nostril knows what the other learns.
Nature 419, 802.
MARKS, D. 1973. Visual imagery differences in the recall of
pictures. Brit. J. Psychol. 64, 17–24.
MATTLER, U. 2004. Combined expectancy effects are
modulated by the relation between expectancy cues. Q. J. Exp.
Psychol. 57A, 193–221.
MOZOLIC, J.L., JOYNER, D., HUGENSCHMIDT, C.E.,
PEIFFER, A.M., KRAFT, R.A., MALDJIAN, J.A. and
LAURIENTI, P.J. 2008. Cross-modal deactivations during
modality-specific selective attention. BMC Neurol. 8, 35–45.
OHAYON, M.M. 2000. Prevalence of hallucinations and their
pathological associations in the general population. Psychiatry
Res. 97, 153–164.
PARR, W.V., WHITE, K.G. and HEATHERBELL, D. 2004.
Exploring the nature of wine expertise: What underlies wine
experts’ olfactory recognition memory advantage? Food Qual.
Pref. 15, 411–420.
Journal of Sensory Studies 29 (2014) 435–449 © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
MENTAL IMAGERY: A NEW OLFACTORY TRAINING METHOD
PASCUAL-LEONE, A., NGUYET, D., COHEN, L.G.,
BRASIL-NIETO, J.P., CAMMAROTA, A. and HALLETT, M.
1995. Modulation of muscle responses evoked by transcranial
magnetic stimulation during the acquisition of new fine
motor skills. J. Neurophysiol. 74, 1037–1045.
PLAILLY, J., DELON-MARTIN, C. and ROYET, J.P. 2012.
Experience induces functional reorganization in brain regions
involved in odor imagery in perfumers. Hum. Brain Mapp.
98, 3254–3262.
ROYET, J.P., DELON-MARTIN, C. and PLAILLY, J. 2013. Odor
mental imagery in non-experts in odors: A paradox? Front.
Hum. Neurosci. 7, 1–6. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00087;
eCollection 2013.
SHAW, M.L. 1982. Attending to multiple sources of
information: The integration of information in decision
making. Cogn. Psychol. 14, 353–409. 1980.
SINNETT, S., SOTO-FARACO, S. and SPENCE, C. 2008. The
co-occurrence of multisensory competition and facilitation.
Acta. Psychol. 128, 153–161.
STERNBERG, S. 1969. The discovery of processing stages:
Extensions of Donders’ method. Acta. Psychol. 30,
276–315.
STEVENSON, R.J. and CASE, T.I. 2005. Olfactory imagery: A
review. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 12, 244–264.
SUGIYAMA, H., AYABE-KANAMURA, S. and KIKUCHI, T.
2006. Are olfactory images sensory in nature? Perception 35,
1699–1708.
TEMPERE, S., CUZANGE, E., MALAK, J., BOUGEANT, J.C.,
de REVEL, G. and SICARD, G. 2011. The training level of
experts influences their ability to detect some wine key
compounds. Chemosens. Percept. 4, 99–115.
TEMPERE, S., CUZANGE, E., BOUGEANT, J.C., de REVEL, G.
and SICARD, G. 2012. Explicit sensory training improves the
olfactory sensitivity of wine experts. Chemosens. Percept. 5,
205–213.
TOMICZEK, C. and STEVENSON, R.J. 2009. Olfactory imagery
and repetition priming – the effect of odor naming and
imagery ability. Exp. Psychol. 56, 397–408.
VERAKSA, A. and GOROVAYA, A. 2012. Imagery training
efficacy among novice soccer players. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
33, 338–342.
WANG, H.W., WYSOCKI, C.J. and GOLD, G.H. 1993.
Induction of olfactory receptor sensitivity in mice. Science
260, 998–1000.
WESSON, D.W. and WILSON, D.A. 2010. Smelling sounds:
Olfactory-auditory sensory convergence in the olfactory
tubercle. J. Neurosci. 30, 3013–3021.
WILSON, D.A. and RENNAKER, R.L. 2010. Activity evoked by
odors. In The Neurobiology of Olfaction (A. Menini, ed.) CRC
Press, Boca Raton, FL.
449