Republic of the Philippines

Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

Tiffany M. Balde
BS Psychology 2B
Psyc 06 - Experimental Psychology

Sensory Perception Interference: Gustatory and Olfactory Stimuli Experiment

Tiffany M. Balde l Jannah Mae N. Dalaay l John Mark N. Opena

ABSTRACT

Brain receives signals from mouth and nose to recognize food. This experiment aims to

separate the sensations of taste and smell to learn how much each contributes to the recognition of

familiar food. This experiment tested if the olfactory sense can be used to identify food samples.

Two data analyses were made to interpret the results gathered from both groups and two trials. The

results showed that the 15 students of group 1 who completed the experiment using the olfactory

sense had a greater mean than the 15 students of group 2 who did not take the experiment using

the olfactory sense. However, the null hypothesis was not rejected. The experiment found that

blocking olfactory stimuli does not have an effect on flavor perception. Future studies should use

more varied stimuli and presentation methods to examine how the order of taste and smell affects

flavor perception.

1
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

INTRODUCTION

Every time you take a bite of food, receptors in your mouth called taste buds pick up the

taste of the food you are eating. These receptors are sensitive to five basic tastes: umami (a savory

flavor), salty, sweet, bitter and sour. But right above your mouth is your nose, which also plays a

part in how you experience food. The nose is equipped with millions of receptors for odor

molecules. While you are eating, your brain receives signals from both your mouth and nose,

allowing you to recognize whatever tasty treat you happen to be chewing. In this activity you'll

separate the sensations of taste and smell to learn how much each contributes to your recognition

of a familiar food. Flavors signal the identity and composition of foods and drinks and indicate

their potential harm or benefit. Flavor thereby plays an important role in the consumption of food

and drinks, thus in energy balance, fluid balance, and, ultimately, body weight. Although

sometimes perceived as unitary experiences, flavors nevertheless reflect the output of a dynamic

system that processes signals from gustation, olfaction, and somatosensation (Small and Prescott

2005), even vision and hearing (Auvray and Spence 2008), then combines the multisensory

information with knowledge and expectations developed through both recent and long-term

perceptual experiences.

In the present study, we ask how one kind of cognitive information, the linguistic label

given just before the subject samples each flavorant, affects the identification of that flavorant.

Both past experience and current context typically lead to expectations about the foods and

beverages we choose to eat and drink. When we are about to consume a soft drink, for example,

we generally know in advance whether it will be, say, a cola; and if we also know the brand of

cola, then we may well expect the flavor to have a particular level of sweetness or the presence of

2
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

perhaps a vanilla note. Prior knowledge can affect both expectations before eating or drinking and

judgments made after tasting, as evident in the following examples.

The studies reviewed above imply that information about a food stimulus that is provided

prior to sampling the stimulus can modify the overt response, possibly because the information

elicits expectations that, in turn, may modify the subsequent perception or at least modify the overt

response. The tendency to change expectations on the basis of prior information comes, no doubt,

from experiences in which the information is valid, at least probabilistically. Indeed, this is likely

the basis for learning the referents for words such as “sweet” and “salty.” If the label SUGAR

precedes flavorants that usually contain more sucrose than citral, and CITRUS precedes flavorants

that usually contain more citral, then subjects may pick up this information and use it to improve

the accuracy of identification. It is also possible, however, that labels simply increase the

probability that responses will match the labels. The present pair of experiments may shed light on

which of these processes (or both) underlies the responses of subjects to a well-defined set of

gustatory–olfactory flavorants. Both experiments used the same method but examined effects of

labeling on different sets of stimulus mixtures.

3
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

METHODOLOGY

Design

The researchers conducted quasi-experimental studies on gustatory and olfactory cues. The

purpose of this study is to see if suppressing olfactory cues has any influence on taste

discrimination. A research design based on independent measures was adopted, with two groups

of 15 participants each.

Participants

A total of thirty (30) second-year participants from Block A and B of Bachelor of Science

in Psychology of Bicol University - Daraga Campus, aged 19 - 21 were involved in the

experiment.

Materials

In this experiment, the materials used were Del Monte juice (pineapple and mango flavors),

blindfold, nose shaper clip, and plastic cups. In terms of statistical tools, the experimenters used

IBM SPSS Statistics, a software package used for the analysis of statistical data. The software is

used to determine the results of this experiment using the t-test for independent Measures, which

determines the significant difference between the means of two groups on a chosen variable of

interest.

4
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

Procedures

This type of experiment was conducted to test the students' senses in identifying food

samples using olfactory and gustatory interference to prove if there is a connection between sense

of taste and smell when eating a certain food. The duration of the experimental procedure took

about 2 hours which was participated by 30 students in total. The experiment was not timed so

students had to take their time to guess each food sample accurately, but the first guess was the

one to be recorded. In carrying out the experiment, the class was classified into 2 groups, the

controlled (with smell) and experimental group (without smell). Following the experimenters'

instructions, the 2 groups were assigned to stay outside the room to call each participant of the

group one by one to enter the room. The experiment started with the controlled group in which

each participant was blindfolded to avoid getting a hint of the food sample they were going to

taste. For the experimental group, they were tasked to cover up their nose using a nose shaper clip

to prevent smelling the food samples. The number of correct answers in the controlled group will

determine that sense of taste is important in identifying food samples while the number of wrong

answers in the experimental group will determine that sense of smell plays an important role in

identifying food samples.

5
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

RESULTS

This experiment aims to answer the research question, "Is there a significant difference

with the taste in identifying food samples if the olfactory sense is being blocked?” Moreover, two

data analyses are made to interpret the results gathered from both groups and from the two trials

of the experiment. The first trial (mango flavor) and second trial (pineapple flavor) are both

performed by two groups —control group (by smell only) and experimental group (without smell

or by taste). The interpretation and data analysis are separated due to the treatments applied in the

two groups.

The table below shows the raw scores obtained by each group that performed the experiment

which indicates the overall group performance and effort done.

Table 1.1: Raw Scores of each group in Mango

Participant Control (Group 1) Experimental (Group 2)

1 1 0

2 0 0

3 1 0

4 1 0

5 0 0

6 1 1

7 1 0

8 1 1

9 0 0

6
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

10 1 1

11 1 1

12 0 1

13 0 0

14 1 1

15 1 1

Total 10 7

Mean .67 .47

Table 1.2: Raw Scores of each group in Pineapple

Participant Control (Group 1) Experimental (Group 2)

1 0 1

2 1 0

3 1 0

4 1 1

5 0 1

6 1 1

7 0 1

8 0 1

9 1 0

10 0 1

11 1 0

7
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

12 1 1

13 0 1

14 0 1

15 0 1

Total 7 11

Mean .47 .73

The table below shows the data analysis from the data gathering procedure and its interpretation

of mango flavor using the t-test for Independent sample.

Table 2.1: Group Statistics

MANGO

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Mean (SEM)

Group 1 15 .67 .488 .126

(Control)

Group 2 15 .47 .516 .133

(Experimental)

8
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

Table 2.2: T-Test Independent Samples Test

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error

(2-tailed) Difference Difference
Equal
Variances 1.544 .224 1.090 28 .285 .200 .183
Assumed
Equal
Variances Not 1.090 27.911 .285 .200 .183
Assumed

Statistical Analysis

For the analysis of the research question, data were input into SPSS, utilizing T-Test for

Independent sample. This analysis was chosen since the study deals with one control group and

one experimental group with 30 respondents.

For the mango flavor, the 15 students of group 1 (controlled) who completed the

experiment using the olfactory sense has a greater mean (M= .67, SD = .488) compared to the 15

students of group 2 (experimental) who did not take the experiment using the olfactory sense (M

= .47, SD = .516). However, this difference is not significant because the null hypothesis is not

rejected, t(28)=-1.090, p(0.285) > 0.05. In other words, the experiment in the mango flavor

statistically has no significant effect or blocking olfactory stimuli does not have an effect to

distinguish the taste.

9
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

The table below shows the data analysis from the data gathering procedure and its interpretation

of pineapple flavor using the t-test for Independent sample.

Table 3.1: Group Statistics

PINEAPPLE

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

Mean (SEM)

Group 1 15 .47 .516 .133

(Control)

Group 2 15 .73 .458 .118

(Experimental)

Table 3.2: T-Test Independent Samples Test

F Sig. t df Sig. Mean Std. Error

(2-tailed) Difference Difference
Equal
Variances 3.646 .067 -1.497 28 .146 -.267 .178
Assumed
Equal
Variances -1.497 27.603 .146 -.267 .178
Not
Assumed

10
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

Statistical Analysis

For the analysis of the research question, data were input into SPSS, utilizing T-Test for

Independent sample. This analysis was chosen since the study deals with one control group and

one experimental group with 30 respondents.

For the pineapple flavor, the 15 students of group 1 who completed the experiment using

the olfactory sense has a lesser mean (M= .47, SD = .516) compared to the 15 students of group 2

who did not take the experiment using the olfactory sense (M = .73, SD = .458). However, this

difference is not significant because the null hypothesis is not rejected, t(28)=-1.497, p(0.146) >

0.05. In other words, the experiment in the mango flavor has no significant effect or blocking

olfactory stimuli does not have an effect to distinguish the taste.

11
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this experiment was to determine whether the relative order of taste

and smell aligned with guessing the right flavor. The results of Experiment 1, where the smell is

present, but not induced by taste: the participants' answer is based on their knowledge or familiarity

of the flavor. In addition, this was not observed in Experiment 2, in which olfactory stimuli were

separated from gustatory stimuli and presented with tasting in, revealed that the absence of

gustatory stimuli did not enhance the difference in determining the unguessed flavor. In other

words, the experiment using both mango and pineapple flavors had no significant effect or

blocking olfactory stimuli does not have an effect to distinguish the taste.

Flavor perception is known to be influenced by information cues provided before tasting.

However, this was not the case in the present study, because participants were not forewarned

about which stimuli they would experience, and the stimuli were presented in random order for

each session. It must be noted that it is possible that the halo-dumping effect affected the taste

enhancement observed in this study: the mango odor is well known as a sweet smell, and

participants may have awareness of the flavor. Thus, it remains unclear whether the current

findings are due to perceptual or cognitive processing. However, the results of this study cannot

be explained by the halo-dumping effects alone. In Experiment 2 of this study, although only the

order in which odor and taste were presented was switched compared with Experiment 1, taste

induced and the experimenter used different flavor. Therefore, it is not plausible that the taste

enhancement observed in Experiment 1 is simply due to the effects of halo dumping. Further

research should examine whether taste enhancement by odor as observed in our experiment is

12
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

caused by the halo-dumping effect or the integration of gustation and olfaction. In either case, it is

clear that a retronasal odor after drinking enhances the subjective intensity of taste. Our results

showed that participants’ ratings of the intensity of taste and smell were influenced by their

familiarity with the flavor. However, we did not find significant differences between the conditions

where the odor was presented before or after the taste, which suggests that the order of the odor

from both routes and the taste may not match a natural, everyday beverage-drinking scenario. To

better understand the interaction between odor timing and subjective taste, we recommend that

future research should use an olfactory device that can simulate more natural drinking conditions.

Based on our findings, we recommend that future studies should use more varied stimuli

and presentation methods to examine how the order of taste and smell affects flavor perception.

For example, different types of drinks, odors, and flavors could be used to test whether the results

are generalizable or specific to certain combinations. Moreover, future studies should control for

possible confounding variables, such as participants’ familiarity with the flavor, the halo-dumping

effect, and the perceptual or cognitive processing involved in flavor perception. For instance,

participants could be informed about the stimuli they would experience, the stimuli could be

presented in a fixed order, and participants could be asked to rate their confidence and awareness

of their responses. These measures could help to reduce the ambiguity and variability of the results

and to clarify the underlying mechanisms of taste enhancement by odor.

13
 Republic of the Philippines
Bicol University
College of Social Science and Philosophy
Department of Psychology
Daraga, Albay

REFERENCES

Small, D. and Prescott, J. (2005). Odor/taste integration and the perception of flavor. Retrieved

April 18, 2023, from Exp Brain Res. 166: 345–357

Auvray, M. and Spence, C. (2008). The multisensory perception of flavor. Retrieved April 18,

2023, from Conscious Cogn. 17: 1016–1031

Murphy, C. and Cain, WS. (1980). Taste and olfaction: independence vs interaction. Retrieved

April 18, 2023, from Physiol Behav. 24: 601–605

Lawless, H. (1991.) Context-dependent changes in the perception of odor quality. Retrieved April

18, 2023, from Chem Sens. 6: 349–360

14