Moss Andrew, Miles Christopher, Elsley Jane, Johnson Andrew
a Department of Psychology, Faculty of Science & Technology , Cognition and Cognitive Neuroscience Research Centre, Bournemouth University , Poole , UK.
Memory. 2018 Apr;26(4):468-482. doi: 10.1080/09658211.2017.1369546. Epub 2017 Aug 28.
We examine item-specific olfactory proactive interference (PI) effects and undertake comparisons with verbal and non-verbal visual stimuli. Using a sequential recent-probes task, we show no evidence for PI with hard-to-name odours (Experiment 1). However, verbalisable odours do exhibit PI effects (Experiment 2). These findings occur despite above chance performance and similar serial position functions across both tasks. Experiments 3 and 4 apply words and faces, respectively, to our modified procedure, and show that methodological differences cannot explain the null finding in Experiment 1. The extent to which odours exhibit analogous PI effects to that of other modalities is, we argue, contingent on the characteristics of the odours employed.
我们研究了特定项目的嗅觉前摄干扰（PI）效应，并与言语和非言语视觉刺激进行了比较。使用序列近期探测任务，我们没有发现难以命名的气味存在PI效应的证据（实验1）。然而，可言语化的气味确实表现出PI效应（实验2）。尽管两项任务的表现均高于随机水平且具有相似的序列位置函数，但仍出现了这些结果。实验3和实验4分别将单词和面孔应用于我们修改后的程序，并表明方法上的差异无法解释实验1中的零结果。我们认为，气味表现出与其他模态类似的PI效应的程度取决于所使用气味的特征。
