What Makes a Scent Trigger a Memory? A Cognitive Decomposition of Odor-Evoked Retrieval
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A single scent can unlock vivid memories. This study investigates the factors that make some odors more evocative than others. We examined odor-evoked episodic memory in 106 participants who experienced odors embedded in distinct visuospatial contexts, and whose memory was tested 24–72 hours later. The protocol empirically dissociates odor recognition (“I’ve already smelled this scent”) and associative memory (“It evokes a memory”) processes. Using machine learning with SHapley Additive exPlanations, we identified distinct predictors for each process. Recognition was driven by emotional strength, especially for unpleasant odors, and the richness of verbal descriptions. Associative memory followed a U-shaped relationship with familiarity and was strongly influenced by semantic distinctiveness – how uniquely each odor was described. Together, these findings reveal that odor memorability depends not only on its emotional salience, but also on how specifically it is conceptualized and how familiar we are with it.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".