ArticleCognitive science2020
Expertise Shapes Multimodal Imagery for Wine.
Article in Cognitive science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Auditory perceptual expertise: Amplitude modulation rate discrimination near the threshold for detection.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Water Is and Is Not HCognitive science · 2025Article
- The geo domain: a review on the conceptualization of geographical and geopolitical entities.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Using crossmodal correspondences as a tool in wine communication.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Ecological Meanings: A Consensus Paper on Individual Differences and Contextual Influences in Embodied Language.Journal of cognition · 2023Article
- Determinants of Choice and Wine Consumption Behaviour: A Comparative Analysis between Two Counties of Romania.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Cognitive Keys in Psychophysical Estimation of Chemosensory Perception in University Students.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- A Method for Computerized Olfactory Assessment and Training Outside of Laboratory or Clinical Settings.i-PerceptionArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although taste and smell seem hard to imagine, some people nevertheless report vivid imagery in these sensory modalities. We investigate whether experts are better able to imagine smells and tastes because they have learned the ability, or whether they are better imaginers in the first place, and so become experts. To test this, we first compared a group of wine experts to yoked novices using a battery of questionnaires. We show for the first time that experts report greater vividness of wine imagery, with no difference in vividness across sensory modalities. In contrast, novices had more vivid color imagery than taste or odor imagery for wines. Experts and novices did not differ on other vividness of imagery measures, suggesting a domain-specific effect of expertise. Critically, in a second study, we followed a group of students commencing a wine course and a group of matched control participants. Students and controls did not differ before the course, but after the wine course students reported more vivid wine imagery. We provide evidence that expertise improves imagery, exemplifying the extent of plasticity of cognition underlying the chemical senses.
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.