Perception, 2011, volume 40, pages 598 ^ 607
doi:10.1068/p6972
Labeling, identification, and recognition of wine-relevant odorants in expert sommeliers, intermediates, and untrained wine drinkers Gesualdo M Zucco, Aurelio Carassai, Maria Rosa Baroni
Dipartimento di Psicologia Generale, via Venezia 8, 35100 Padua, Italy; e-mail:
[email protected]
Richard J Stevenson
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia Received 29 March 2011, in revised form 6 May 2011; published online 14 June 2011
Abstract. In this study we examined the development of wine expertise. We asked four groupsö untrained wine drinkers, second- and third-level trainee sommeliers, and professional sommeliersöto engage in a range of olfactory tasks to assess perceptual and semantic aspects of expertise. These tasks included identification, recognition, and description of a range of domainspecific and common odour stimuli, including wines. Trainee sommeliers were significantly poorer at identification of wine-relevant odours than untrained wine drinkers and professional sommeliers. Trainee and professional sommeliers were, however, significantly better than untrained wine drinkers in a delayed matching-to-sample wine-recognition task, but not in the case of other odorous stimuli. The wine-description task demonstrated a degree of skill, in terms of specificity and quantity of wine-relevant descriptors, as a function of expertise. These results, of one of the first studies of examining wine expertise by a cross-sectional developmental approach, indicate that perceptual aspects of expertise are probably rapidly acquired, being present even in the secondand third-level trainees, while semantic expertise is slower to develop, and may incur time for the identification of wine-specific odorants during training.
1 Introduction While many studies have explored performance differences between trained wine experts and non-experts (eg Noble 1987; Solomon 1990, 1997; Melcher and Schooler 1996; Bende and Nordin 1997; Gawel 1997; Hughson and Boakes 2001, 2002; Parr et al 2002), very few have examined the development of expertise itself. In fact, the only studies that come close to this explored whether brief exposure to wine of naive participants led to a later benefit in discriminative capacity, which they did (Walk 1966; Owen and Machamer 1979; Hughson and Boakes 2009). The benefits of wine exposure parallel effects in the olfactory domain, and with other flavour stimuli, such as beer, where a brief exposure to a set of stimuli acts to enhance their discriminability (eg Peron and Allen 1988; Rabin 1988; Jehl et al 1995). While exposure may represent one method of gaining olfactory perceptual expertise, wine training involves mastering at least two cognitive skills, both of which involve explicit learning (Hughson and Boakes 2002). The first is acquiring formal names of the odour components that are relevant for describing wine. Acquiring this skill, hand in hand with exposure, may further enhance a person's discriminative capacity for such stimuli (eg Rabin 1988), but not all studies concur (eg Peron and Allen 1988). The second skill, which has been only more recently explored, is the development of wine-relevant schemas that represent the unique set of features that define each particular variety of wine (Hughson and Boakes 2001; Ballester et al 2008). It would seem then that both perceptual (via passive exposure), and cognitive (name learning, schema development) changes should accompany the development of wine expertise. We adopted a unique cross-sectional approach to studying such changes, having recruited regular wine drinkers, two groups of participants in various stages of wine training, and expertsöprofessional sommeliers. As noted above, olfactory perceptual
Recognition of wine-relevant odorants in trained and untrained wine drinkers
599
learning is likely to be a function of frequency and variety of exposure, occurring passively and quickly. In contrast, cognitive expertise is probably acquired far more slowly and gradually. On this basis, we drew the following hypotheses about the skills that our four groups would show: (i) regular wine drinkers would have some perceptual expertise but limited cognitive expertise; (ii) trainee wine drinkers would have well-developed perceptual expertise from frequent and varied wine exposure, but only developing cognitive expertise, and (iii) professional sommeliers would have well-developed perceptual and cognitive expertise. These four groups were compared on a range of olfactory tasks designed to test perceptual and cognitive expertise, both within the domain of wine and outside of it, to ensure that trainees and experts (professional sommeliers) did not have some more general olfactory ability relative to untrained participants. All participants completed an identification task for wine-relevant and common odorants; a recognition task, this time both for wine-relevant and common odorants, as well as for actual wines (sniffing); and a verbal fluency task, in which participants were asked to describe each wine-relevant odorant, with descriptions scored for number of responses and domainspecific pertinence. We made several predictions based upon our hypothesised pattern of expertise development. First, we expected that identification of wine-relevant odorants would be better in professional sommeliers than in regular wine drinkers, but no difference would emerge for non-relevant odorants. Second, as tasks that involve explicit labeling of stimuli may be prone to interference if the knowledge base upon which they depend is unstable (eg Melcher and Schooler 1996), we hypothesised that something similar might happen with the identification of wine-relevant odorants by trainee sommeliers. Trainees who are in the process of learning and consolidating formal wine labels for such odorants should have a less stable knowledge base than professional sommeliers and regular wine drinkers, as neither of these groups have been in the course of learning labels. Also, as none of the four groups should be involved with common odorants, no difference should emerge here. Third, we predicted that in the recognition task, which did not demand the use of any explicit label, perceptual expertise should be at the fore, and thus for wine recognition (see Solomon 1990), and possibly for wine-relevant odorants, but not for common odorants, performance of the trainee and professional sommeliers should be similar and exceed that of the regular wine drinkers. Fourth, on the verbal fluency task, which should be dependent upon cognitive expertise (ie knowing wine-relevant labels and schemas), we predicted that performance, especially for pertinent wine-relevant descriptors, would increase progressively with training. 2 Methods 2.1 Participants Four groups took part in the experiment, varying in their level of expertise. These were: (1) twelve untrained wine drinkers aged on average 33.1 (SD) 9.1 years (range, 23 ^ 51 years), with no formal wine training; (2) twelve second-year students attending sommelier classes, aged on average 35.8 (SD) 7.6 years (range, 22 ^ 50 years); (3) twelve third-year students attending sommelier classes, aged on average 41.1 (SD) 9.4 years (range, 31 ^ 57 years); and (4) twelve professional sommeliers aged on average 49.2 (SD) 9.7 years (range, 34 ^ 61 years), with at least 3 years of practice. In all groups both sexes were represented but smokers were excluded. None of the participants exhibited an acute or chronic impairment in olfactory function prior to the study. All gave their informed consent to take part in the study. The experimental procedures were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki for experimentation with human subjects.
600
G M Zucco, A Carassai, M R Baroni, R J Stevenson
2.2 Materials A total of 50 suprathreshold olfactory stimuli of medium and comparable subjective intensities were used. Some of them were common household odorants (eg shoecream, coffee) while others were essences and essential oils (Kart laboratories, Lausanne, Switzerland; Sigma ^ Aldrich, Milan, Italy). The odorants were neat, or dissolved in mineral oil or distilled water, and contained in small test glasses (height 15 cm) fitted with rubber lids connected to a cotton swab wrapped around the end of a stick. Test tubes were covered with white paper to prevent participants from having visual cues. The odorants were replaced weekly, so that their concentration was kept under control. Forty black and white wines were also used. The wines consisted of 10 varieties of Italian wine, these being used as the targets with an additional 30 serving as distractors. The target red wines were: Cannonau, Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Refosco, Sangiovese; and the target white wines were Arneys, Grey Pinot, Sauvignon, Verdicchio, White Pinot. 10 out of the 50 odorants were compounds typically found in wine with established veridical names according to the literature (cf Lenoir 1995; AIS 2001; Parr et al 2002), representing categories of wine, such as primary characters (those related to the grape: cloves, lemon, orange), secondary characters (those related to fermentation: banana, peppermint, rose), and age characters (those related to maturation: cinnamon, leather, liquorice, tobacco). 10 odorants were common substances not found in wine. The last 30 odorants served as distractors (see the Appendix for a complete list of the odorants used). 2.3 Procedure The experiment comprised six olfactory tasks: wine-relevant odorant identification; common odorant identification; multiple choice wine-relevant odorant recognition; multiple choice common odorant recognition; multiple choice wine recognition; and verbal fluency. On the identification task, the participant had to smell for about 4 s an odorant randomly selected from the set of 10, while the examiner read aloud 4 alternative verbal labels. Each participant had to identify the correct label for the odorant. On the recognition task, each trial comprised the presentation of a target odorant and a recognition set of 4 odorants. Each participant smelled for about 4 s the target randomly chosen from the set of 10. A few seconds after that, the participant was presented, one at a time, with 4 test tubes, one of which contained the previously sniffed odorant, and he/she was asked to recognise the target. The stimuli added to the target for each recognition trial were randomly selected from the set of 30 distractors. 6 s interstimulus intervals between odour presentations were used to avoid carry-over adaptation effects. A 20 ^ 25 s rest was provided between trials. In the actual wine recognition task, the only difference from the procedure outlined above was that the stimuli were presented to the participants in the standard glasses for wine tasting (ISO glass). This task involved just sniffing the wine. On the verbal fluency task, the participants were asked to smell each of the 10 winerelevant odorants and to try to describe them as precisely and in as much detail as possible. Unrelated examples were provided to the participants (eg ``if you are requested to describe the sun, you could, for example, say that it is: warm, yellow, round, dry, burning''). Responses were categorised in two classes, by three experts who were blind as to the condition assigned to each participant: the first class was termed total descriptions (the total number of terms each participant used to name the 10 stimuli) and the second pertinent descriptions (the number of appropriate termsöaccording to the existing literatureöeach participant used to describe the 10 stimuli; see Lenoir 1995; AIS 2001; but also Noble 1987; Solomon 1990; Melcher and Schooler 1996; Hughson and Boakes
Recognition of wine-relevant odorants in trained and untrained wine drinkers
601
2001). As an example, a pertinent description for the wine-relevant stimulus `orange' is citrus, fresh, fruity; while earthy, resinous, spicy is not. The experiment took place in the headquarters of the AIS (Italian Association for Sommeliers), in well-ventilated rooms with an ambient temperature between 18 8C and 22 8C. Participants were tested individually. During the tasks they were required to close their eyes. The odorants were kept approximately 2 cm in front of both nostrils. The tasks were performed in 4 sessions held 1 week apart, to avoid learning effects, in the following order: first session: verbal fluency task; second session: wine-relevant and common odorant recognition; third session: wine-relevant and common odorant identification; fourth session: wine recognition. Second and third session tasks were counterbalanced among participants. Responses were scored for accuracy. 3 Results Figures 1 ^ 3 show identification, recognition, and verbal fluency scores and standard deviations (SDs) for the 4 groups of participants. The age and gender of the participants were not included as variables in the following analyses, since they had no influence on test performance as ascertained by an (unreported) set of prior analyses.
Mean correct identifications
10
9.00
7.83
1
2
7.75
8.92
3
4
8.83
9.08
1
2
9.00
8.92
3
4
8 6 4 2 0
(a)
Group
(b)
Group
Figure 1. Wine-relevant (a) and common (b) odorants identifications scores (mean SD) as a function of expertise. 1: Untrained wine drinkers; 2: second-level trainee intermediates; 3: thirdlevel trainee intermediates; 4: professional sommeliers. Significances ( p 5 0:05): group 1 versus group 2; group 1 versus group 3; group 4 versus group 3; group 4 versus group 2 (these effects refer to wine-relevant odorant identification score comparisons; common odorants identification scores do not differ significantly from each other.
Mean correct recognitions
10
9.33
9.08
1
2
9.00
9.67
3
4
9.08
9.08
1
2
9.58
9.67
3
4
8 6 4 2 0
(a)
Group
(b)
Group
Figure 2. Wine-relevant (a) and common (b) odorant recognition scores (mean SD) as a function of expertise. Legend as in figure 1.
602
G M Zucco, A Carassai, M R Baroni, R J Stevenson
Mean correct recognitions
10
7.50
8.50
8.67
8.58
8 6
Figure 3. Wine recognition scores (mean SD) as a function of expertise. Legend as in figure 1. Significances ( p 5 0:01): group 1 versus all the other three groups (these last do not differ significantly from one another).
4 2 0
1
2
3
Group
4
The number of correct responses for identification was analysed with 2 one-way
ANOVAs; the first on the wine-relevant odorant identification scores and the second
on the common odorant identification scores (see figures 1a and 1b). The factor groups (untrained controls versus second-level intermediates versus third-level intermediates versus expert sommeliers) reached significance (F3, 44 4:10, p 5 0:02) only in the ANOVA on wine-relevant odorants. Multiple a-posteriori comparisons using LSD test ( p 5 0:05) showed poorer olfactory identification of wine-relevant odorants by second- and thirdlevel trainee intermediates (which did not differ significantly from one another) than by sommeliers and untrained controls. This effect of poorer identification of just winerelevant odours in the trainee sommeliers would suggest that the performance decrement in the trainees is specific to wine-relevant odorants as a direct result of their progressive acquisition of wine-relevant knowledge. The two ANOVAs on wine-relevant and common odorant recognition scores did not reach a significant level (see figures 2a and 2b). The ANOVA on wine-recognition scores reached significance with a main effect of groups (F3, 44 6:99, p 5 0:001). The expert sommeliers and the second- and third-level trainee intermediates performed almost equally on the recognition of actual wines, and showed a better performance than untrained controls ( p 5 0:01, according to LSD multiple a-posteriori test); see figure 3. The total number of verbal descriptions and the number of pertinent descriptions for the wine-relevant odorants were analysed by 2 one-way ANOVAs. Both analyses reached a significant level. For the total number of descriptions, there was a main effect 23.33
21.92
28.42
33.50
1
2
3
4
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0
(a)
16.33
16.33
23.08
28.92
3
4
Mean pertinent descriptions
Mean total descriptions
40
Group
1
(b)
2
Group
Figure 4. Wine-relevant odorants number of total (a) and pertinent (b) descriptions (mean SD) as a function of expertise. Legend as in figure 1. Significances ( p 5 0:001 and p 5 0:0001, respectively, for wine-relevant odorant total and pertinent number of description comparisons): group 3 versus group 1; group 3 versus group 2; group 4 versus group 1; group 4 versus group 2; group 4 versus group 3.
Recognition of wine-relevant odorants in trained and untrained wine drinkers
603
of groups (F3, 44 23:45, p 5 0:0001). Multiple a-posteriori comparisons with the LSD test ( p 5 0:001) showed that sommeliers and third-level trainee intermediates described wine-relevant odorants with a significantly larger number of terms than second-level trainee intermediates and untrained controls (who did not differ significantly from one another). Also, sommeliers exhibited a performance significantly better than the third-level trainee intermediates (see figure 4a). For pertinent descriptions, there was also a main effect of groups (F3, 44 31:80, p 5 0:0001). Multiple a-posteriori comparisons using the LSD test ( p 5 0:0001) showed the same results as those relative to the total description analyses (see figure 4b), suggesting that performance would increase progressively with training. Although we did not take into account the consistency in the pertinent descriptions used either within or across groups, on visual inspection it appears to be higher within group consistency in the trainees and sommelier groups than in the naive group, with sommeliers showing highest across-group consistency. 4 Discussion We set out to examine the development of wine expertise using a cross-sectional developmental approach. We hypothesised that perceptual-based benefits, accrued through frequent and varied exposure to wine varieties would be evident in both trainee and professional sommeliers, and we found strong support for this notion, although we did not observe any benefit in the case of wine-relevant odorants. We also hypothesised that cognitively based wine-relevant skills would present the most apparent difference across the four groups, and this too was confirmed, stressing again the importance of cognitive factors in wine expertise (Hughson and Boakes 2002). In particular, the total number of descriptors increased with the level of training, as did pertinent descriptors, where the effect was even greater. The effects of cognitively based training were also evident in the identification test, but not wholly in the manner we expected. While we did observe a decrement in identification performance for wine-relevant odorants in trainee sommeliers, we did not find any overall difference between novices and experts (ie groups 1 and 4), as we predicted we would. The failure to find a difference here may in part be due to the relative familiarity of the wine-relevant odorant set, which would act to minimise any specific benefit of learning labels (ie labels are likely to be known to novices as well as experts). Indeed, it may be that larger differences between groups would have been apparent if the recognition tests had been harder; however, for reasons we discuss below, data from other studies (eg Lawless 1984; Ballester et al 2008) seem to concur with our findings of only modest perceptual benefits due to wine expertise. Three conclusions emerge from our data. First, wine expertise is domain-specific, and does not appear to extend beyond wine and wine-relevant odorants. Not all studies have reached this conclusion, as Bende and Nordin (1997) found some evidence of generally better odour identification by wine experts. However, Parr et al (2002) did not find any difference in identification ability, even for wine-relevant odorants, as in the case of our findings here. This variability between studies would seem to suggest, at best that, if there are general olfactory benefits outside of the wine domain, they are probably not large, and this would seem to concur roughly with research in other domains of expertise (see Goldstone 1998). The second conclusion relates to the effect of perceptual learning, which was inferred from our wine and odorant recognition tests. Although these tests used a delay which may have enabled participants to verbally label the stimuli, this would seem unlikely because previous studies which have explored the effect of verbal interference (eg articulatory suppression) on similar tasks, to minimise labeling, have not shown any detrimental effects (eg Stevenson and Oaten 2008; Stevenson et al 2007). Nonetheless, it may be that professional and trainee sommeliers augmented their performance
604
G M Zucco, A Carassai, M R Baroni, R J Stevenson
with the use of verbal labels, although we think that this is unlikely. Several human olfactory studies indicate that passive exposure to odours is domain-specific (ie relevant to the argument above), rapid, and results in improvements in participants' capacity to discriminate odours just in the exposed set (eg Rabin 1988; Jehl et al 1995). Our findings here would seem to concur with this. Professional sommeliers and trainees were all significantly better in the wine-recognition task, a task that involved forming a stable representation of the target wine and discriminating it from the distractor set. However, these experts were not better in the wine-relevant odorant recognition task, and there may be two reasons for this. First, and as figure 2 suggests, performance may be near ceiling for all groups on the wine-relevant odours, perhaps reflecting the fact that these odorants were familiar and therefore readily discriminable to all groups and a better test may have involved less familiar wine-relevant odorants. Second, it may be that the principal perceptual benefit of wine expertise is in learning synthetic wine `objects'öeach representing a different type of wine. This form of perceptual expertise would then not transfer readily to a test of wine `parts'. Although the data here cannot detect which of these two possibilities is correct, it certainly would be important to know what form of training is optimal for wine expertise, and this does not appear to have been systematically explored. A further and related question concerns the effect of exposure to a variety of wines. While regular wine drinkers may consume similar quantities of wine to trainees and experts, it is very likely that the variety of wines experienced would differ markedly between these groups. Although we assumed this was the case here, this individual difference, which is arguably highly relevant for perceptual learning in this domain, does not seem to have been explored in the wine literature. If exposure to a variety of wines is important (and perhaps not recognised as such in training programmes), this may be because it enables the olfactory system to learn a wide range of varietal `objects' (ie constellations of features unique to particular varieties of wine). This would then enable more accurate discrimination between a greater number of varieties than would be achieved by non-experts, with more limited varietal exposure. A further issue, noted above, concerns the magnitude of the perceptual benefit of the wine recognition task. As found by Solomon (1990), although experts were significantly better than novices on a similar recognition task, performance was nowhere near ceiling, as with our data. This may suggest some form of `performance anxiety' due to the heavy burden of expectation produced by their status as `experts', which would then adversely affect their performance. A further possibility is that the magnitude of expertise in the wine domain is only modest. Indeed, in relation to this latter point, it is worth reflecting on the much larger effects seen with other (non-olfactory) forms of expertise, be it chicken sexing, chess, or interpretation of x-ray images (see Biederman and Shiffrar 1987; Myles-Worsley et al 1988; Vicente and Wang 1998). Of course, it may be that this is an unfair comparison, because the tests of expertise lack ecological relevance; however, even when tests are used that clearly have relevance, the effects are still modest (eg Lawless 1984; Ballester et al 2008). This apparently limited capacity for perceptual expertise in the olfactory domain could reflect some more fundamental capacity limit for this sense (eg ability to link olfaction with cognition, detect component odours in mixtures, etc) and may be a further indication of the rather unique nature of this sensory modality (eg Engen 1991; Herz and Engen 1996; Stevenson and Boakes 2003; Zucco 2003, 2011; Wilson and Stevenson 2006). The third conclusion concerns the development of cognitive aspects of wine expertise. This generated the largest differences between groups and, as we suggested in section 1, this was likely, given that the acquisition of this type of information is likely to be slow and effortful, and perhaps especially so in the case of odours (Davis 1975, 1977). Two issues here warrant comment. One concerns the effect observed in identification of wine-relevant
Recognition of wine-relevant odorants in trained and untrained wine drinkers
605
odorants in the trainee sommeliers. We suggested that this might arise from the instability of the knowledge base upon which these identifications would have to be based, a consequence of the training process. In particular, this sort of effect could arise in several ways. For example, a wine-relevant odorant may acquire two competing labels during training (eg a naive label and a formal label), and this type of response competition is known to impair performance in other domains (eg Pineno and Matute 2005). On the other hand, experts with well-developed formal knowledge probably have access to both types of labels (non-expert labels and wine-relevant labels) and can use both without affecting their performance. Similarly, no confusion would arise in naive wine drinkers who have only access to their ordinary labels. Alternatively, the odours used as exemplars in the wine training of sommeliers for particular labels could have been different to those we used here, again producing interference in generating a correct label. Whatever its cause, these findings demonstrate that cognitive-related training in the short term may impair aspects of performance that relate directly to that training. A second issue concerns confidence in one's expertise. Naive participants certainly believe that they will be able to name most odours (Cain 1982), and they are surprised when they find they cannot (Jonsson and Olsson 2003). We tentatively suggest that the verbal skills, which are developed around wine, perhaps lead to a somewhat similar overestimation of confidence in expertise, an expertise which is rarely objectively tested. This expression of confidence may lead others to believe in the apparently superior powers displayed by these experts, such as being able to specify the valley-side from which a wines vine grew or discern between Madeira taken from the top or bottom half of the bottle (Gibson 1953). Again, as far as we are aware, this interesting issue has not been explored. In conclusion, we provide the first cross-sectional developmental study of wine expertise. Perceptual expertise, as indexed by a wine recognition test, presumably based upon exposure to a wine variety was significantly better in trainees and professional sommeliers than in novices. Cognitive expertise was found to be far more varied between groups, presumably reflecting the slower and more effortful acquisition of this type of skill. Overall, and as with other studies in this area, expertise tended to be modest in extent and domain-specific. Acknowledgments. We thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper and Patrizio Tressoldi for statistical support. References AIS, 2001 Il Piacere del Vino (Rome: Slow Food Press) Ballester J, Patris B, Symoneaux R, Valentin D, 2008 ``Conceptual vs. perceptual wine spaces: Does expertise matter?'' Food Quality and Preference 19 267 ^ 276 Bende M, Nordin S, 1997 ``Perceptual learning in olfaction: Professional wine tasters versus controls'' Physiology and Behavior 62 1065 ^ 1070 Biederman I, Shiffrar M M, 1987 ``Sexing day-old chicks: a case study and expert system analysis of a difficult perceptual-learning task'' Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 13 640 ^ 645 Cain W S, 1982 ``Odor identification by males and females: predictions vs performance'' Chemical Senses 7 129 ^ 142 Davis R G, 1975 ``Acquisition of verbal associations to olfactory stimuli of varying familiarity and to abstract visual stimuli'' Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 1 134 ^ 142 Davis R G, 1977 ``Acquisition and retention of verbal associations to olfactory and abstract visual stimuli of varying similarity'' Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 3 37 ^ 51 Engen T, 1991 Odor Sensation and Memory (New York: Praeger) Gawel R, 1997 ``The use of language by trained and untrained experienced wine tasters'' Journal of Sensory Studies 12 267 ^ 284
606
G M Zucco, A Carassai, M R Baroni, R J Stevenson
Gibson E J, 1953 ``Improvement in perceptual judgments as a function of controlled practice or training'' Psychological Bulletin 50 401 ^ 431 Goldstone R L, 1998 ``Perceptual learning'' Annual Reviews of Psychology 49 585 ^ 612 Herz R, Engen T, 1996 ``Odor memory: review and analysis'' Psychonomic Bulletin Review 3 300 ^ 313 Hughson L, Boakes R, 2001 ``Perceptual and cognitive aspects of wine expertise'' Australian Journal of Psychology 53 103 ^ 108 Hughson L, Boakes R, 2002 ``The knowing nose: the role of knowledge in wine expertise'' Food Quality and Preference 13 463 ^ 472 Hughson L, Boakes R, 2009 ``Passive perceptual learning in relation to wine: short-term recognition and verbal description'' Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 62 1 ^ 8 Jehl C, Royet J P, Holley A, 1995 ``Odor discrimination and recognition memory as a function of familiarization'' Perception & Psychophysics 57 1002 ^ 1011 Jonsson F, Olsson M J, 2003 ``Olfactory metacognition'' Chemical Senses 28 651 ^ 658 Lawless H T, 1984 ``Flavor description of white wine by `expert' and non-expert wine consumers'' Journal of Food Science 49 120 ^ 123 Lenoir J, 1995 Le nez du vin (Carnoux-en-Provence: Editions Jean Lenoir) Melcher J, Schooler J, 1996 ``The misremembrance of wines past: verbal and perceptual expertise differentially mediated verbal overshadowing of taste memory'' Journal of Memory and Language 35 231 ^ 245 Myles-Worsley M, Johnston W A, Simons M A, 1988 ``The influence of expertise on X-ray image processing'' Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14 553 ^ 557 Noble A, 1987 ``Modification of a standardized system of wine aroma terminology'' American Journal of Enology and Viticulture 38 143 ^ 146 Owen D H, Machamer D, 1979 ``Bias-free improvement in wine discrimination'' Perception 8 199 ^ 209 Parr W, Heatherbell D, White G, 2002 ``Demystifying wine expertise; olfactory threshold, perceptual skill, and semantic memory in expert and novice wine judges'' Chemical Sense 27 747 ^ 755 Peron R M, Allen G L, 1988 ``Attempts to train novices for beer flavor discrimination: a matter of taste'' Journal of General Psychology 115 403 ^ 418 Pineno O, Matute H, 2005 ``Outcome similarity modulates retroactive interference between cues trained apart'' Psicologica 26 281 ^ 292 Rabin M D, 1988 ``Experience facilitates olfactory quality discrimination'' Perception & Psychophysics 44 532 ^ 540 Solomon G, 1990 ``Psychology of novice and expert wine talk'' American Journal of Psychology 105 495 ^ 517 Solomon G, 1997 ``Conceptual change and wine expertise'' Journal of the Learning Sciences 6 41 ^ 60 Stevenson R J, Boakes R, 2003 ``A mnemonic theory of odor perception'' Psychological Review 2 340 ^ 364 Stevenson R J, Oaten M, 2008 ``The effect of appropriate and inappropriate stimulus color on odor discrimination'' Perception & Psychophysics 70 640 ^ 646 Stevenson R J, Sundqvist N, Mahmut M, 2007 ``Age-related changes in discrimination of unfamiliar odors'' Perception & Psychophysics 69 185 ^ 192 Vicente K J, Wang J H, 1998 ``An ecological theory of expertise effects in memory recall'' Psychological Review 105 33 ^ 57 Walk R D, 1966 ``Perceptual learning and discrimination of wine'' Psychonomic Science 5 57 ^ 58 Wilson D A, Stevenson R J, 2006 Learning to Smell: Olfactory Perception from Neurobiology to Behavior (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press) Zucco G M, 2003 ``Anomalies in cognition: olfactory memory'' European Psychologist 8 2 77 ^ 86 Zucco G M, 2011 ``Olfactory performance assessed via a new odour recognition test: Reliability and normative data'' Journal of Cognitive Psychology 23 1 ^ 7
Recognition of wine-relevant odorants in trained and untrained wine drinkers
607
Appendix Table A1. Odorants used. Targets
Distractors
wine-relevant
common
Banana Cinnamon Cloves Leather Lemon Liquorice Orange Peppermint Rose Tobacco
boot grease camphor fish ink garlic gasoline oregano pineapple shoecream turpentine
almond anchovy paste barley camomile coconut coffee fennel glue honey jasmine
juniper lavender mustard nutmeg onion paint pine rosemary rum soap
strawberry suntan cream tar tea thyme tomato vanilla vinegar violet yeast
ß 2011 a Pion publication
ISSN 0301-0066 (print)
ISSN 1468-4233 (electronic)
www.perceptionweb.com
Conditions of use. This article may be downloaded from the Perception website for personal research by members of subscribing organisations. Authors are entitled to distribute their own article (in printed form or by e-mail) to up to 50 people. This PDF may not be placed on any website (or other online distribution system) without permission of the publisher.
