Cargando…

Is Novelty Detection Important in Long-Term Odor Memory?

Memory for odors is believed to be longer-lasting than memory for visual stimuli, as is evidenced by flat forgetting curves. However, performance on memory tasks is typically weaker in olfaction than vision. Studies of odor memory that use forced-choice methods confound responses that are a result o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cameron, E. Leslie, Köster, E. P., Møller, Per
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8470488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34573167
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091146
_version_ 1784574212450549760
author Cameron, E. Leslie
Köster, E. P.
Møller, Per
author_facet Cameron, E. Leslie
Köster, E. P.
Møller, Per
author_sort Cameron, E. Leslie
collection PubMed
description Memory for odors is believed to be longer-lasting than memory for visual stimuli, as is evidenced by flat forgetting curves. However, performance on memory tasks is typically weaker in olfaction than vision. Studies of odor memory that use forced-choice methods confound responses that are a result of a trace memory and responses that can be obtained through process of elimination. Moreover, odor memory is typically measured with common stimuli, which are more familiar and responses may be confounded by verbal memory, and measure memory in intentional learning conditions, which are ecologically questionable. Here we demonstrate the value of using tests of memory in which hit rate and correct rejection rate are evaluated separately (i.e., not using forced-choice methods) and uncommon stimuli are used. This study compared memory for common and uncommon odors and pictures that were learned either intentionally (Exp. 1) or incidentally (Exp. 2) and tested with either a forced-choice or a one-stimulus-at-a-time (“monadic”) recognition task after delays of 15 min, 48 h or 1 week. As expected, memory declined with delay in most conditions, but depended upon the particular measure of memory and was better for pictures than odors and for common than uncommon stimuli. For common odors, hit rates decreased with delay but correct rejection rates remained constant with delay. For common pictures, we found the opposite result, constant hit rates and decreased correct rejection rates. Our results support the ‘misfit theory of conscious olfactory perception’, which highlights the importance of the detection of novelty in olfactory memory and suggests that olfactory memory should be studied using more ecologically valid methods.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8470488
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84704882021-09-27 Is Novelty Detection Important in Long-Term Odor Memory? Cameron, E. Leslie Köster, E. P. Møller, Per Brain Sci Article Memory for odors is believed to be longer-lasting than memory for visual stimuli, as is evidenced by flat forgetting curves. However, performance on memory tasks is typically weaker in olfaction than vision. Studies of odor memory that use forced-choice methods confound responses that are a result of a trace memory and responses that can be obtained through process of elimination. Moreover, odor memory is typically measured with common stimuli, which are more familiar and responses may be confounded by verbal memory, and measure memory in intentional learning conditions, which are ecologically questionable. Here we demonstrate the value of using tests of memory in which hit rate and correct rejection rate are evaluated separately (i.e., not using forced-choice methods) and uncommon stimuli are used. This study compared memory for common and uncommon odors and pictures that were learned either intentionally (Exp. 1) or incidentally (Exp. 2) and tested with either a forced-choice or a one-stimulus-at-a-time (“monadic”) recognition task after delays of 15 min, 48 h or 1 week. As expected, memory declined with delay in most conditions, but depended upon the particular measure of memory and was better for pictures than odors and for common than uncommon stimuli. For common odors, hit rates decreased with delay but correct rejection rates remained constant with delay. For common pictures, we found the opposite result, constant hit rates and decreased correct rejection rates. Our results support the ‘misfit theory of conscious olfactory perception’, which highlights the importance of the detection of novelty in olfactory memory and suggests that olfactory memory should be studied using more ecologically valid methods. MDPI 2021-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8470488/ /pubmed/34573167 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091146 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Cameron, E. Leslie
Köster, E. P.
Møller, Per
Is Novelty Detection Important in Long-Term Odor Memory?
title Is Novelty Detection Important in Long-Term Odor Memory?
title_full Is Novelty Detection Important in Long-Term Odor Memory?
title_fullStr Is Novelty Detection Important in Long-Term Odor Memory?
title_full_unstemmed Is Novelty Detection Important in Long-Term Odor Memory?
title_short Is Novelty Detection Important in Long-Term Odor Memory?
title_sort is novelty detection important in long-term odor memory?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8470488/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34573167
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11091146
work_keys_str_mv AT cameroneleslie isnoveltydetectionimportantinlongtermodormemory
AT kosterep isnoveltydetectionimportantinlongtermodormemory
AT møllerper isnoveltydetectionimportantinlongtermodormemory