玫瑰的另一个名字?气味命名错误与语言特性有关。

IF 2.3 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL
Thomas Hörberg, Murathan Kurfalı, Maria Larsson, Erika Jonsson Laukka, Pawel Herman, Jonas K. Olofsson
{"title":"玫瑰的另一个名字?气味命名错误与语言特性有关。","authors":"Thomas Hörberg,&nbsp;Murathan Kurfalı,&nbsp;Maria Larsson,&nbsp;Erika Jonsson Laukka,&nbsp;Pawel Herman,&nbsp;Jonas K. Olofsson","doi":"10.1111/cogs.70003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Naming common odors is a surprisingly difficult task: Odors are frequently misnamed. Little is known about the linguistic properties of odor misnamings. We test whether odor misnamings of old adults carry information about olfactory perception and its connection to lexical-semantic processing. We analyze the olfactory–semantic content of odor source naming failures in a large sample of older adults in Sweden (<i>n</i> = 2479; age 58–100 years). We investigate whether linguistic factors and semantic proximity to the target odor name predict how odors are misnamed, and how these factors relate to overall odor identification performance. We also explore the primary semantic dimensions along which misnamings are distributed. We find that odor misnamings consist of surprisingly many vague and unspecific terms, such as category names (e.g., <i>fruit</i>) or abstract or evaluative terms (e.g., <i>sweet</i>). Odor misnamings are often strongly associated with the correct name, capturing properties such as its category or other abstract features. People are also biased toward misnaming odors with high-frequency terms that are associated with olfaction or gustation. Linguistic properties of odor misnamings and their semantic proximity to the target odor name predict odor identification performance, suggesting that linguistic processing facilitates odor identification. Further, odor misnamings constitute an olfactory–semantic space that is similar to the olfactory vocabulary of English. This space is primarily differentiated along pleasantness, edibility, and concreteness dimensions. Odor naming failures thus contain plenty of information about semantic odor knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":48349,"journal":{"name":"Cognitive Science","volume":"48 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70003","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Rose by Another Name? Odor Misnaming is Associated with Linguistic Properties\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Hörberg,&nbsp;Murathan Kurfalı,&nbsp;Maria Larsson,&nbsp;Erika Jonsson Laukka,&nbsp;Pawel Herman,&nbsp;Jonas K. Olofsson\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cogs.70003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Naming common odors is a surprisingly difficult task: Odors are frequently misnamed. Little is known about the linguistic properties of odor misnamings. We test whether odor misnamings of old adults carry information about olfactory perception and its connection to lexical-semantic processing. We analyze the olfactory–semantic content of odor source naming failures in a large sample of older adults in Sweden (<i>n</i> = 2479; age 58–100 years). We investigate whether linguistic factors and semantic proximity to the target odor name predict how odors are misnamed, and how these factors relate to overall odor identification performance. We also explore the primary semantic dimensions along which misnamings are distributed. We find that odor misnamings consist of surprisingly many vague and unspecific terms, such as category names (e.g., <i>fruit</i>) or abstract or evaluative terms (e.g., <i>sweet</i>). Odor misnamings are often strongly associated with the correct name, capturing properties such as its category or other abstract features. People are also biased toward misnaming odors with high-frequency terms that are associated with olfaction or gustation. Linguistic properties of odor misnamings and their semantic proximity to the target odor name predict odor identification performance, suggesting that linguistic processing facilitates odor identification. Further, odor misnamings constitute an olfactory–semantic space that is similar to the olfactory vocabulary of English. This space is primarily differentiated along pleasantness, edibility, and concreteness dimensions. Odor naming failures thus contain plenty of information about semantic odor knowledge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"volume\":\"48 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cogs.70003\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cognitive Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70003\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognitive Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cogs.70003","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为常见的气味命名是一项出人意料的艰巨任务:气味经常被错误命名。人们对气味错误命名的语言特性知之甚少。我们测试了老年人的气味错误命名是否包含嗅觉感知信息及其与词汇语义加工的联系。我们分析了瑞典老年人大样本(n = 2479;年龄 58-100 岁)中气味源命名失败的嗅觉语义内容。我们研究了语言因素和与目标气味名称的语义接近程度是否能预测气味是如何被错误命名的,以及这些因素与整体气味识别成绩之间的关系。我们还探讨了错误命名分布的主要语义维度。我们发现,气味错误命名中包含了大量模糊和不具体的术语,如类别名称(如水果)或抽象或评价性术语(如甜味),这一点令人惊讶。气味的错误命名往往与正确的名称紧密联系在一起,捕捉其类别或其他抽象特征等属性。人们还偏向于用与嗅觉或味觉相关的高频词汇对气味进行错误命名。气味错误命名的语言特性及其与目标气味名称的语义接近程度可预测气味识别成绩,这表明语言处理有助于气味识别。此外,气味误称构成了一个嗅觉语义空间,与英语的嗅觉词汇相似。这个空间主要根据愉悦性、可食性和具体性维度进行区分。因此,气味命名失败包含了大量有关气味语义知识的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Rose by Another Name? Odor Misnaming is Associated with Linguistic Properties

A Rose by Another Name? Odor Misnaming is Associated with Linguistic Properties

Naming common odors is a surprisingly difficult task: Odors are frequently misnamed. Little is known about the linguistic properties of odor misnamings. We test whether odor misnamings of old adults carry information about olfactory perception and its connection to lexical-semantic processing. We analyze the olfactory–semantic content of odor source naming failures in a large sample of older adults in Sweden (n = 2479; age 58–100 years). We investigate whether linguistic factors and semantic proximity to the target odor name predict how odors are misnamed, and how these factors relate to overall odor identification performance. We also explore the primary semantic dimensions along which misnamings are distributed. We find that odor misnamings consist of surprisingly many vague and unspecific terms, such as category names (e.g., fruit) or abstract or evaluative terms (e.g., sweet). Odor misnamings are often strongly associated with the correct name, capturing properties such as its category or other abstract features. People are also biased toward misnaming odors with high-frequency terms that are associated with olfaction or gustation. Linguistic properties of odor misnamings and their semantic proximity to the target odor name predict odor identification performance, suggesting that linguistic processing facilitates odor identification. Further, odor misnamings constitute an olfactory–semantic space that is similar to the olfactory vocabulary of English. This space is primarily differentiated along pleasantness, edibility, and concreteness dimensions. Odor naming failures thus contain plenty of information about semantic odor knowledge.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cognitive Science
Cognitive Science PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
8.00%
发文量
139
期刊介绍: Cognitive Science publishes articles in all areas of cognitive science, covering such topics as knowledge representation, inference, memory processes, learning, problem solving, planning, perception, natural language understanding, connectionism, brain theory, motor control, intentional systems, and other areas of interdisciplinary concern. Highest priority is given to research reports that are specifically written for a multidisciplinary audience. The audience is primarily researchers in cognitive science and its associated fields, including anthropologists, education researchers, psychologists, philosophers, linguists, computer scientists, neuroscientists, and roboticists.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信