Selecting food. The contribution of memory, liking, and action.

The goal of the present experiment was twofold: identifying similarities and differences between flavour memory and visual memory mechanisms and investigating whether kinematics could serve as an implicit measure for food selection. To test flavour and visual memory an 'implicit' paradigm to represent real-life situations in a controlled lab setting was implemented. A target, i.e., a piece of cake shaped like either an orange or a tangerine, covered with either orange- or a tangerine-flavoured icing, was provided to participants on Day 1. On Day 2, without prior notice, participants were requested to recognize the target amongst a set of distractors, characterized by various flavours (orange vs. tangerine) and/or sizes (orange-like vs. tangerine-like). Similarly, targets and distractors consisting of 2D figures varying in shape and size were used to assess visual memory. Reach-to-grasp kinematics towards the targets were recorded and analysed by means of digitalization techniques. Correlations between kinematic parameters, memory and liking for each food item were also calculated. Results concerned with memory recollection indices provided evidence of different key mechanisms which could be based either on novelty of flavour memory or visual memory, respectively. To a moderate extent, kinematics may serve as an implicit index of food selection processes.

Do age differences in odour memory depend on differences in verbal memory?

Studies of human odour memory have in most cases been obscured by the experimental designs utilised, in which verbal memory played a crucial role in the subjects' performance. Previously, attempts have been made to minimise verbal mediation in the assessment of odour memory by the use of incidental or implicit learning, which is how odours are learned in everyday life; it is still under debate whether this form of learning is age-dependent or not. In this experiment we make use of very uncommon odours and show that incidental learning of odours is as good in elderly people as in the young, whereas intentional learning is better in young people.

Incidental and intentional flavor memory in young and older subjects.

Incidental and intentional learning and memory for 2 novel flavors were compared in young and elderly subjects. Incidental and intentional learning groups rated 2 new soups on acceptability for different occasions and were tested for memory the next day. On the first day, only the intentional group was asked to memorize the stimuli. With incidental learning, elderly and young were equally good, but the young performed better with intentional than with incidental learning, whereas the elderly did not. There were no age-related differences in perceptual discrimination. When comparing perceived flavor with the memory of it, the elderly tend to overrate intensities of remembered flavor attributes, whereas the young tend to underrate them. Memory was not related to flavor pleasantness or neophobia. Like memory for taste and texture, flavor memory seems to be mainly tuned at detecting changes and based on "feelings of not knowing" rather than on precise identification and recognition of previously encountered stimuli.

Proactive and retroactive interference in implicit odor memory.

To test the hypothesis that longevity of odor memory is due to strong proactive interference (reduction of new learning by prior learning) and to absence of retroactive interference (reduction of prior memory by new learning), subjects, matched in age and gender with those of a previous experiment, were unknowingly exposed in two sessions to the weak concentrations of lavender or orange used before. Implicit odor memory was later tested in a separate experiment. Comparison of the results with those of the previous experiment showed that both proactive and retroactive interference occurred. These results have implications for the general theory about implicit memory for new associations, which may have to be amended when non-verbal material is used. The longevity of odor memory should be explained by the improbability of occurrence of incidences that provoke retroactive interference rather than by the absence of the retroactive interference itself.