English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Since there is rarely a social labeling consensus in the identification of odors, it would be better to assess whether participants identify an odor by the same name upon repeated presentation rather than by the name designated as 'correct' by the experimenter (veridical label) in identification tasks. To examine the relevance of this proposition, participants were asked to identify familiar odors both in a free and a multiple-choice task. The free task was replicated in order to determine the percentage of repeatable identification. Results showed that the difference between the percentage of correct identification in the multiple-choice task and the percentage of repeatable identification in the free task was small, and that participants often used a repeatable name which differed from the veridical label. Thus, it was suggested that allowing participants to give their own name to an odor when it is not present on a pre-developed list, and measuring whether participants repeat the same name in independent measurements, might improve the relevance of multiple-choice tasks.

Odor Naming Methodology: Correct Identification with Multiple-choice versus Repeatable Identification in a Free Task