ArticleCognitive science2018
An Exception to Mental Simulation: No Evidence for Embodied Odor Language.
Article in Cognitive science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Impact of Verb Speed on the Processing of Goal-Oriented Visual Scenes.Journal of cognition · 2026Article
- Dissociating voluntary mental imagery and mental simulation: Evidence from aphantasia.Memory & cognition · 2025Article
- Olfactory abstraction: a communicative and metacognitive account.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Ecological Meanings: A Consensus Paper on Individual Differences and Contextual Influences in Embodied Language.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- Dutch sensory modality norms.Behavior research methods · 2022Article
- Linguistic features of fragrances: The role of grammatical gender and gender associations.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Do we mentally simulate olfactory information? We investigated mental simulation of odors and sounds in two experiments. Participants retained a word while they smelled an odor or heard a sound, then rated odor/sound intensity and recalled the word. Later odor/sound recognition was also tested, and pleasantness and familiarity judgments were collected. Word recall was slower when the sound and sound-word mismatched (e.g., bee sound with the word typhoon). Sound recognition was higher when sounds were paired with a match or near-match word (e.g., bee sound with bee or buzzer). This indicates sound-words are mentally simulated. However, using the same paradigm no memory effects were observed for odor. Instead it appears odor-words only affect lexical-semantic representations, demonstrated by higher ratings of odor intensity and pleasantness when an odor was paired with a match or near-match word (e.g., peach odor with peach or mango). These results suggest fundamental differences in how odor and sound-words are represented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.