Although people are poor at naming odors, naming a smell helps to remember that odor. Previous studies show wine experts have better memory for smells, and they also name wine and wine-related smells differently than novices. This leads us to ask whether wine experts’ odor memory is verbally mediated? In addition, does the odor memory advantage that experts have over novices generalize to all odors, or is it restricted to odors in their domain of expertise? Twenty-four wine experts and 24 novices smelled wines, wine-related odors and common odors, and were asked to remember these. Critically, half of the participants were asked to name the smells in addition to memorizing them, while the other half just remembered the smells. Wine experts had better memory for wines, but not for wine-related or common odors, indicating their memory is restricted to odors from their domain of expertise. Wine experts were also found to be more consistent and accurate than novices in their descriptions. But there was no relationship between experts’ ability to name odors and their memory for odors. This suggests experts’ odor memory advantage is not linguistically mediated, but may be the result of differential perceptual learning.

Odor naming is difficult for people, but recent cross-cultural research suggests this difficulty is culture-specific. Jahai speakers (hunter-gatherers from the Malay Peninsula) name odors as consistently as colors, and much better than English speakers (Majid & Burenhult, 2014). In Jahai the linguistic advantage for smells correlates with a cultural interest in odors. Here we ask whether sub-cultures in the West with odor expertise also show superior odor naming. We tested wine and coffee experts (who have specialized odor training) in an odor naming task. Both wine and coffee experts were no more accurate or consistent than novices when naming odors. Although there were small differences in naming strategies, experts and non-experts alike relied overwhelmingly on source-based descriptions. So the specific language experts speak continues to constrain their ability to express odors. This suggests expertise alone is not sufficient to overcome the limits of language in the domain of smell.

When interpreting our perceptual world, information from multiple perceptual modalities is often associated. Suchcrossmodal associations can arise from innate structural connections in the brain, statistical correlations in the environment, orthrough language. In a large group of participants across a wide age range and language background, we tested crossmodalassociations between pitch and 7 dimensions in comparison modalities. We found evidence supporting the existence of all 7types of associations, but the strength of association varied by dimension. Pitch-angularity and pitch-weight judgments werethe most robust associations. In general, strength of associations increased with age, with significant associations occurring inthe oldest age group (age 19+), consistent with experiential accounts of crossmodal associations.

Olfactory imagery is disputed to exist in novices, but is reported to be easier for smell experts. It plays an importantrole in wine expertise. Previous research shows experts’ superior cognitive abilities do not transfer beyond their domain ofexpertise. This leads to two questions: do wine experts have more vivid imagery for the multisensory experience of wine? Andhow general is wine experts’ olfactory imagery? Wine experts and novices completed a questionnaire measuring the vividnessof imagery for the color, smell, and flavor of wine. In addition, all participants completed a questionnaire on general smellimagery. Wine experts were better than novices at imagining wines in all modalities, but not better at imagining smells ingeneral. Novices reported the strongest imagery for the appearance of wine, but experts showed no difference between thesenses. So mental imagery becomes more vivid with expertise; but only for imagery directly expertise related.

In a preregistered, cross-sectional study, we investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19 using a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n = 4148) or negative (C19-; n = 546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified univariate and multivariate predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery. Both C19+ and C19- groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean ± SD, C19+: -82.5 ± 27.2 points; C19-: -59.8 ± 37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both univariate and multivariate models (ROC AUC = 0.72). Additional variables provide negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms (e.g., fever). Olfactory recovery within 40 days of respiratory symptom onset was reported for ~50% of participants and was best predicted by time since respiratory symptom onset. We find that quantified smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19 amongst those with symptoms of respiratory illness. To aid clinicians and contact tracers in identifying individuals with a high likelihood of having COVID-19, we propose a novel 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss, the ODoR-19. We find that numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4 < OR < 10). Once independently validated, this tool could be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.

Recent anecdotal and scientific reports have provided evidence of a link between COVID-19 and chemosensory impairments, such as anosmia. However, these reports have downplayed or failed to distinguish potential effects on taste, ignored chemesthesis, and generally lacked quantitative measurements. Here, we report the development, implementation, and initial results of a multilingual, international questionnaire to assess self-reported quantity and quality of perception in 3 distinct chemosensory modalities (smell, taste, and chemesthesis) before and during COVID-19. In the first 11 days after questionnaire launch, 4039 participants (2913 women, 1118 men, and 8 others, aged 19-79) reported a COVID-19 diagnosis either via laboratory tests or clinical assessment. Importantly, smell, taste, and chemesthetic function were each significantly reduced compared to their status before the disease. Difference scores (maximum possible change ±100) revealed a mean reduction of smell (-79.7 ± 28.7, mean ± standard deviation), taste (-69.0 ± 32.6), and chemesthetic (-37.3 ± 36.2) function during COVID-19. Qualitative changes in olfactory ability (parosmia and phantosmia) were relatively rare and correlated with smell loss. Importantly, perceived nasal obstruction did not account for smell loss. Furthermore, chemosensory impairments were similar between participants in the laboratory test and clinical assessment groups. These results show that COVID-19-associated chemosensory impairment is not limited to smell but also affects taste and chemesthesis. The multimodal impact of COVID-19 and the lack of perceived nasal obstruction suggest that severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus strain 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection may disrupt sensory-neural mechanisms.