↓ Skip to main content

Proust nose best: Odors are better cues of autobiographical memory

Overview of attention for article published in Memory & Cognition, June 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
230 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
221 Mendeley
Title
Proust nose best: Odors are better cues of autobiographical memory
Published in
Memory & Cognition, June 2002
DOI 10.3758/bf03194952
Pubmed ID
Authors

Simon Chu, John J. Downes

Abstract

The Proust phenomenon is an enduring piece of folk wisdom that asserts that odors are particularly powerful autobiographical memory cues. We provide a more formal exposition of this phenomenon and test it in two experiments, using a novel double-cuing methodology designed to negate less interesting explanations. In both studies, recall of an autobiographical event was initially cued by a verbal label (an odor name) for a fixed period, following which a second, extended recall attempt was cued by the same verbal label, the relevant odor, an irrelevant odor, or a visual cue. The focus of Experiment 1 was participants' ratings of the emotional quality of their autobiographical memories. In Experiment 2, content analysis was employed to determine the quantity of information in participants' recollections. Results revealed that odor-cued autobiographical memories were reliably different in terms of qualitative ratings and reliably superior in the amount of detail yielded. Moreover, visual cues and incongruent olfactory cues appeared to have a detrimental effect on the amount of detail recalled. These results support the proposal that odors are especially effective as reminders of past experience.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 221 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Poland 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 211 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 20%
Student > Master 40 18%
Student > Bachelor 34 15%
Researcher 25 11%
Professor 16 7%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 35 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 80 36%
Neuroscience 19 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 9 4%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Other 40 18%
Unknown 48 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 November 2021.
All research outputs
#671,776
of 22,789,566 outputs
Outputs from Memory & Cognition
#51
of 1,569 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#485
of 120,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Memory & Cognition
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,789,566 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,569 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 120,113 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them