Effects of Perceived and Imagined Odors on Taste Detection
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed the influence of different odors on detection of a sweet tastant, and the ability of imagined odors to elicit the same effects as perceived odors on taste perception. The tastant used was sucrose, and the two odorants were strawberry and ham. In the first experiment, participants either smelled or imagined one of two odors during taste detection tasks (between-subject design), whereas in the second one, subjects completed both the odor imagery and perception conditions with taste detection tasks (within-subject design). The effect was odorant-specific: detection of sucrose was significantly better when subjects smelled strawberry than when they smelled ham. Furthermore, imagined odors influenced taste perception in the same way as did perceived odors. We concluded that the odor-specific effect on taste perception is an authentic perceptual phenomenon. Our results also support the notion that odor-induced changes in taste perception are mediated centrally. Finally, our findings are in agreement with reports supporting the existence of odor imagery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it