Content area
Odor naming is considered a particularly challenging cognitive test, but the underlying cause of this difficulty is unknown. People often fail to report any source label to identify common odors, resulting in omissions (i.e., a lack of response). Here, with the support of a computational model, we offer a hypothesis about the neural network mechanisms underlying odor naming omissions. Based on an evaluation of behavioral data from almost 40,000 odor naming attempts, we suggest that high omission rates are driven by odors that are referred to by multiple linguistic labels. To explain this observation at the systems level, where olfactory perception and language (semantic) processing are produced by interacting cortical systems, we developed a computational model consisting of two associatively coupled attractor memory networks (odor and language networks), and investigated the effect of Hebbian-like learning on the simulated task performance. We used distributed network representations for the odor percepts and word label mental objects, and accounted for their statistical inter-relationships (correlations) extracted from collected data on odor perceptual similarity, and from a large Swedish odor language corpus, respectively. We evaluated a novel hypothesis, that Bayesian-Hebbian synaptic plasticity mechanisms can explain behavioral omissions in odor naming tasks, casting new light on the underlying mechanisms of this frequently observed memory phenomenon. Due to the nature of Bayesian-Hebbian associative learning connecting the two networks, there was a progressively weaker coupling for odors paired with multiple different labels in the encoding process (one-to-many mapping). Thus, when the model was cued with perceptual odor stimuli that established multiple word label associations (one-to-many mapping), the olfactory language network often produced subthreshold network responses, resulting in elevated omissions (opposite to one-to-few mapping scenario that led to improved performance scores). Our results are of theoretical interest, as they suggest a biologically plausible mechanism to explain a common, but poorly understood, behavioral phenomenon.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.