Effects of Olfactory Stimulation on Short-Term Memory - Lab Report Example

  The try out was proposed at looking into effects possible of olfactory stimulation on short-term memory in new human information. This was a reverberation of earlier studies that ware done and documented. The freelance variable were odorants that were falsified and placed in covered jars, while the subject variable was evaluated from the number of words memorized by each participant. The research hypothesis portended that participants who were given odorants would recall more words than those who were not given. The research consisted of 24 participants (N=24) Condition #1 (experimental group) had to memorize words through odor smelling and condition #2 (control group) had to memorize words through smelling the jars without any odor. The result was varied than the expected. Control group recalled more words than experimental group. The original study results were unlike the experimental. In original study control group memorized fewer words than experimental group. 1. INTRODUCTION It is common when people participate in small daily routine task and they are suddenly bombarded with a past memory related to a specific smell. For instance, the smell of a specific perfume may bring memory of their deceased friend who used the same perfume. The smell of fresh flowers might bring memory of a place someone visited on vacation during child and possibly everything that happened in the occasion. It is logical to understand how the olfactory receptor evokes such an old and clear memory from the past on an individual. One account of the potent effect of olfactory system on memory is when the axons in the olfactory system terminate in the olfactory bulbs. The receptors get a prompt connection to the brain more than other cortical area (Engen and Ross). Essentially, system of human olfactory plays a special role. Therefore, it is evident that human olfactory receptors have fundamental interaction with human memory. 2. METHOD 2.2 Participants The experiment involved 24 participants between the ages of 40 to 45. The participants were selected through convenient sampling from a village near Tbilisi. Volunteers with allergies, cold symptoms and non-smokers were prohibited. The participants had to smell specific odors and memorize 10 words. This group of people had to be honest and follow the rules of the experiment to the latter.   2.3 Apparatus/Materials 60 pieces of fabric 60 plastic jars 5 different materials with the specific odor  Fresh powdered Ethiopian coffee  Powdered cinnamon sticks  Earl Gray tea  Rose petals mixed with Vanilla powder Coconut flakes mixed with cocoa powder  12 pieces of fabric to impede eyes  Stopwatch  2.4 Design and Procedure In the research, 60 plastic jars were painted in advance to avoid the transparent effect and to be totally dark to obviate visibility of the material or the substance inside. 60 jars belonged to 12 participants. Only 12 participants were taking place as group number 1 to test the materials by smelling them. Therefore, painted jars were used in this test. Group number 2 was composed of 12 people with same 60 painted jars. The jars were also opaque ones but without any material inside. Group number 2 were never informed that the jars had no material placed in them. However, they had to follow the instruction and smell each jar. At the same time, all the jars were covered with specific fabrics of the same color to avoid the possibility of observing materials by the target population.   The jars were labeled with numbers and each of the numbers referred to material giving the odor. All these materials were measured by 20 grams and placed into painted jars. Then 10 words were used for memorization and were to be related to the odors.  Consent forms were used to obtain the permission of the participants before the experiment began. The procedure of the experiment used a single variable between the group designs. The 24 participants were randomly allocated into an experimental group consisting of 12 participants or a control group consisting of 22 participants. In the freelance variable, the researcher manipulation was stimulated by the olfactory system of the participants. A fabric was placed on each jar so that the species placed in jars could not possibly be seen. A stopwatch was used for the tests to ensure accuracy of time between the pauses.     The study was gender sensitive. Therefore, the controlled group had female population. (N=24). Participants in experimental group had 5 jars filled with odor while participants in the control group had 5 empty jars. The subject variable was retention of memory. Participants were not allowed to have any view of the contents in the jars; they were only required to smell. The jars were randomly placed into various orders to wait the recall session. The participants who were both in the experimental and control group were tested in two different groups. Every participant was given instructions about the experiment one more time. When they were ready; their eyes were covered with fabrics after being shown the position of the jars. They were instructed to remove their fabrics and pick up the jars when they heard the word “start”. They were required to then smell the jar for 10 seconds. They were then to relate a word with each odor and repeat the word three times in five minutes. They would stop when they heard the word “stop” and return the jars in the initial place.   This process was to be repeated for all five jars with a10-second pause intervals. When this process was completed, the participants were given a five-minute break. This was accurately timed on a stopwatch by the researcher. Participants were not allowed to have any communication among them during the break.   N=24 Mean Standard Deviation Experimental Condition 4.25 1.22 Control Condition 4.51 1.36 Thereafter, the participants were to pick up the first jar and smell it for 10 seconds. However, this time round they were to write the words they memorized and stop when they heard the word “stop”. This process was again repeated for all the other four jars. When the experiment was completed, the participants’ responses were collected and each participants response was placed in a box. The experimental data response was placed in a different box from control group data to easily differentiate the two sets of data.   3. RESULTS The hypothesis of this experiment was intended to memorize more words by the experimental group that smelled the odor than the control group that did not smell any odor. The experimental independent samples used T-tests for comparison of the means (M = 4.25, SD = 1.36) and the control group (M = 6.75, SD = 1.22). The results of the T-test showed the difference of the experimental and control group in terms of mean score to be significant (t = 4.51, p =.0002). However, this was in the opposite direction of the original hypothesis. This helps in singling out the process for the intended accuracy of results. 4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The results produced from this research were genuine. Nevertheless, it never supported the original hypothesis that odors would enhance the memory of the participants memory. The final result was absolutely negative of the alternative hypothesis. While the proposed hypothesis is not supported by the findings of this research, the results support a hypothesis that states “participants will remember less with the support of smells than members with the help of no smells”. The previous research supported a hypothesis that smells are encoded as unitary perceptual events that immediate lower levels of quick retention. However, the smells held by an individual will be less inclined to twisting (Engen and Ross).  The past research hypothesis can assist clarify why the current research never supported the original hypothesis. Engen and Ross demonstrated prompt retention for smells was exceptionally poor. “This research experimentation required participants to quickly encode an odor in their memory and then relate this encoded odor with a word that was irregular.” (224)  As indicated by the previous two experiments done, the current experiment would not produce strong results. This is due to the fact that it required participants to manage the troublesome tasks of holding an odor immediately in their memory. According to research conducted by Davis, it additionally supported the aftereffects of this try out. Davis gave a research that backed the hypothesis that visual signs are far better than olfactory prompts in a combined affiliation task. This experiment according to Davis would not produce positive results. This is on the basis that it was endeavoring to utilize olfactory stimulation. This stimulation is known to be a poor association cue to help participants relate a word with an odor. (132-134)  Alongside the previous researches that support the conclusion of this research, there are numerous issues with the study that may have influenced different findings for both the internal and external validity. The primary and most obvious issue is the use of convenient sampling to find participants for this test. Convenience sampling sacrifices generalization thereof. This may not deliver adequate population representation  The other problem that may have led to the outcome of this result is the amount of time allocated to the participants to smell the odors. The time span was not adequate for the required relation with a word. The participants were allowed to smell each odor for just 15 seconds in this research. According to the original research and understanding, odors are not retained immediately. Nevertheless they may be retained over time. Therefore, this research could have produced good results in line with the original alternative hypothesis. This could be possible if the participants were allocated more time to encode the actual smells. They could be given longer time duration too to process the smells in their immediate memory.  The last shortcoming of this study is based on the gender of the participants. The gender was not properly controlled. Gender insensitivity might possibly have also altered the results because the research study had more females than males. According to Engine’s research, females performed much better than males on experiments. This is due to the supposed memorization of new odors hence gender insensitivity affected the results. Generally, it has been researched and found that male have less tendency to accurately recall much through smell than the female counterparts. Therefore the research results cannot be equated to give clear hypothesis with regard to gender. However it elaborated the best results for the male and the dynamics in the entire process. This is vital in order to do a thorough research that would provide accurate results in line with the intended purpose. Works Cited Davis, Richard G. "Acquisition of Verbal Associations to Olfactory Stimuli of Varying Familiarity and to Abstract Visual Stimuli." Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 1 (1975): 132-34. Print. Engen, Trygg, and Ross M. Brace. "Journal of Experimental Psychology.” Long-Term Memories of Odors with and Without Verbal Description1 (1973): 221-26. Web. 13 Nov. 2014. Engen, Trygg. Odor Sensation and Personality. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print. Engen, Trygg. Remembering Odors and Their Names. N.p.: American Scientist, 1987. Print. 487-503 Read More