Bibliographic record
Abstract
We perceive our environment via different sensory channels in a multisensory fashion. During multisensory integration, these channels can enhance or hinder each other depending on congruency. Here, we aimed to investigate how the congruency of gustatory and visual costimulation alter the perception of olfactory stimuli. We hypothesized that congruent costimulation enhances the perception of likeness, i.e. how well stimuli match a label, compared with no and to incongruent costimulation. We also aimed to quantify the effect of gustatory and visual costimulation. We tested 48 healthy young participants. We used retronasal olfactory stimuli (strawberry, cheese, lemon, and coffee) (i) alone or with congruent/incongruent costimulation ((ii) with congruent gustatory (sweet, salty, sour, and bitter), (iii) with congruent visual (images of strawberry, cheese, lemon, and coffee), (iv) with congruent visual and gustatory, (v) with congruent visual and incongruent gustatory, (vi) with congruent gustatory and incongruent visual, (vii) with incongruent visual and gustatory costimulations). Olfactory and gustatory stimuli were presented by means of droplets on the tongue, i.e. olfactory stimuli were delivered retronasally, while visual stimuli were presented on a computer screen. We asked participants to evaluate the solutions' likeness to the respective olfactory label on visual analog scales. We observed a significant effect of congruency on likeness (P < 0.001). Gustatory costimulation had a significantly stronger effect than visual costimulation (P = 0.02). Congruent costimulation enhances the evaluation of likeness while incongruent costimulation reduces it, with gustatory costimulation having significantly stronger effects than visual costimulation. This could be useful in multisensory olfactory training paradigms for olfactory loss.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".