Loading question...
You are in free guest mode. Timed Practice Revision List Attempt History Progress Tracking Create a free account to unlock these tools
Next
IELTS Practice Reading: Choose Single Answer ID: #58036 Easy Yellow 16
Instructions ›
Choose the correct option for the following.
Tap any word for its meaning

Smell and Memory- Smells like yesterday

Why does the scent of a fragrance or the mustiness of an old trunk trigger such powerful memories of childhood? New research has the answer, writes Alexandra Witze.

A. You probably pay more attention to a newspaper with your eyes than with your nose. But lift the paper to your nostrils and inhale. The smell of newsprint might carry you back to your childhood, when your parents perused the paper on Sunday mornings. Or maybe some other smell takes you back- the scent of your mother’s perfume, the pungency of a driftwood campfire. Specific odours can spark a flood of reminiscences. Psychologists call it the “Proustian phenomenon “,after French novelist Marcel Proust. Near the beginning of the masterpiece In Search of Lost Time, Proust’s narrator dunks a madeleine cookie into a cup of tea – and the scent and taste unleash a torrent of childhood memories for 3000 pages.

B. Now, this phenomenon is getting the scientific treatment. Neuroscientists Rachel Herz, a cognitive neuroscientist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, have discovered, for instance, how sensory memories are shared across the brain, with different brain regions remembering the sights, smells, tastes and sounds of a particular experience. Meanwhile, psychologists have demonstrated that memories triggered by smells can be more emotional, as well as more detailed, than memories not related to smells. When you inhale, odour molecules set brain cells dancing within a region known as the amygdala,a part of the brain that helps control emotion. In contrast, the other senses, such as taste or touch, get routed through other parts of the brain before reaching the amygdala. The direct link between odours and the amygdala may help explain the emotional potency of smells. “There is this unique connection between the sense of smell and the part of the brain that processes emotion,” says Rachel Herz.

C. But the links don’t stop there. Like an octopus reaching its tentacles outward, the memory of smells affects other brain regions as well. In recent experiments, neuroscientists at University College London (UCL) asked 15 volunteers to look at pictures while smelling unrelated odours. For instance, the subjects might see a photo of a duck paired with the scent of a rose, and then be asked to create a story linking the two. Brain scans taken at the time revealed that the volunteers’ brains were particularly active in a region known as the olfactory cortex, which is known to be involved in processing smells. Five minutes later, the volunteers were shown the duck photo again, but without the rose smell. And in their brains, the olfactory cortex lit up again, the scientists reported recently. The fact that the olfactory cortex became active in the absence of the odour suggests that people’s sensory memory of events is spread across different brain regions. Imagine going on a seaside holiday, says UCL team leader, Jay Gottfried. The sight of the waves becomes stored in one area, whereas the crash of the surf goes elsewhere, and the smell of seaweed in yet another place. There could be advantages to having memories spread around the brain. “You can reawaken that memory from any one of the sensory triggers,” says Gottfried. ’’Maybe the smell of the sun lotion, or a particular sound from that day, or the sight of a rock formation.” Or – in the case of an early hunter and gatherer (out on a plain – the sight of a lion might be trigger the urge to flee, rather than having to wait for the sound of its roar and the stench of its hide to kick in as well.

D. Remembered smells may also carry extra emotional baggage, says Herz. Her research suggests that memories triggered by odours are more emotional than memories triggered by other cues. In one recent study, Herz recruited five volunteers who had vivid memories associated with a particular perfume, such as opium for Women and Juniper Breeze from Bath and Body Works. She took images of the volunteers’ brains as they sniffed that perfume and an unrelated perfume without knowing which was which. (They were also shown photos of each perfume bottle.) Smelling the specified perfume activated the volunteers’ brains the most particularly in the amygdala, and in a region called the hippocampus, which helps in memory formation. Herz published the work earlier this year in the journal Neuropsychologia.

E. But she couldn’t be sure that the other senses wouldn’t also elicit a strong response. So in another study Herz compared smells with sounds and pictures. She had 70 people describe an emotional memory involving three items – popcorn, fresh-cut grass and a campfire. Then they compared the items through sights, sounds and smells. For instance, the person might see a picture of a lawnmower, then sniff the scent of grass and finally listen to the lawnmower’s sound. Memories triggered by smell were more evocative than memories triggered by either sights or sounds.

F. Odour-evoked memories may be not only more emotional, but more detailed as well. Working with colleague John Downes, psychologist Simon Chu of the University of Liverpool started researching odour and memory partly because of his grandmother’s stories about Chinese culture. As generations gathered to share oral histories, they would pass a small pot of spice or incense around; later, when they wanted to remember the story in as much detail as possible, they would pass the same smell around again. “It’s kind of fits with a lot of anecdotal evidence on how smells can be really good reminders of past experiences,” Chu says. And scientific research seems to bear out the anecdotes. In one experiment, Chu and Downes asked 42 volunteers to tell a life story, then tested to see whether odours such as coffee and cinnamon could help them remember more detail in the story. They could.

G. Despite such studies, not everyone is convinced that Proust can be scientifically analysed. In the June issue of Chemical Senses, Chu and Downes exchanged critiques with renowned perfumer and chemist J. Stephan Jellinek. Jellinek chided the Liverpool researchers for, among other things, presenting the smells and asking the volunteers to think of memories, rather than seeing what memories were spontaneously evoked by the odours. But there’s only so much science can do to test a phenomenon that’s inherently different for each person, Chu says. Meanwhile, Jellinek has also been collecting anecdotal accounts of Proustian experiences, hoping to find some there is a case to be made that surprise may be a major aspect of the Proust phenomenon,” he says. “That’s why people are so struck by these memories” No one knows whether Proust ever experienced such a transcendental moment. But his notions of memory, written as fiction nearly a century ago, continue to inspire scientists of today.

1
What is the outcome of experiment conducted by Chu and Downes?
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.

Question Focus: Detail question - asks what Herz's experiment shows about the brain

Correct Answer: D

Why this is correct: This answer is correct because Herz's experiment shows that smelling a meaningful perfume activates the amygdala and the hippocampus, which are brain areas linked to emotion and memory. This proves the amygdala is involved when smell-related memories are processed.

Passage Reference: Smelling the specified perfume activated the volunteers' brains the most particularly in the amygdala, and in a region called the hippocampus, which helps in memory formation. Herz published the work earlier this year in the journal Neuropsychologia.

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'activated the volunteers' brains ... in the amygdala ... which helps in memory formation' = Option: 'Amygdala is part of brain that stores processes memory'

Tips: When an option sounds very general like 'more important', check if the passage really makes such a strong claim.

Why the other options are wrong:

  • A: Students may pick this because the experiment mentions Opium for Women. However, the passage never talks about addiction or medicine. This is a Not Given trap.
  • B: This sounds attractive because smell is described as powerful. However, the passage never says smell is superior to all other senses in the brain. It only explains a specific emotional connection. This is a Paraphrase trap.
  • C: This uses extreme wording like more important, which the passage does not say. The writer compares effects, not importance. This is an Extreme language trap.

Key Vocabulary:

  • amygdala = part of the brain controlling emotion
  • hippocampus = part of the brain that forms memories

Question Focus: Inference question - asks what the second experiment suggests

Correct Answer: B

Passage Reference: But she couldn't be sure that the other senses wouldn't also elicit a strong response. So in another study Herz compared smells with sounds and pictures. Memories triggered by smell were more evocative than memories triggered by either sights or sounds.

Why this is correct: This is correct because the second experiment confirms the first one. It shows again that smell triggers stronger memories than other senses, supporting Herz's earlier findings.

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'memories triggered by smell were more evocative' = Option: 'result of her first experiment is correct'

Tips: If a later experiment repeats an idea, it usually supports earlier results, not rejects them.

Why the other options are wrong:

  • A: Students may think two experiments mean different results. However, the second study actually supports the first. This is a Contradiction trap.
  • C: The passage clearly says smell is more evocative than sights or sounds, not equal. This is a Contradiction trap.
  • D: The lawnmower is just an example, not the conclusion of the experiment. This is a Context shift trap.

Key Vocabulary:

  • evocative = strongly bringing back memories
  • elicit = cause or bring out

Question Focus: Detail question - asks about the outcome of Chu and Downes' experiment

Correct Answer: C

Passage Reference: Chu and Downes asked 42 volunteers to tell a life story, then tested to see whether odours such as coffee and cinnamon could help them remember more detail in the story. They could.

Why this is correct: This is correct because the experiment shows that certain smells help people remember more details when telling stories. The passage clearly states that the odours assisted memory.

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'odours such as coffee and cinnamon could help them remember more detail' = Option: 'smells of certain odours assist story tellers'

Tips: Watch out for answers that add numbers or comparisons not stated in the passage.

Why the other options are wrong:

  • A: Chinese tradition is only background motivation, not the experiment result. This is a Wrong section trap.
  • B: The passage never says half of the volunteers did this. This number is invented. This is a Not Given trap.
  • D: The passage mentions coffee and cinnamon together but never compares their strength. This is a Partial truth trap.

Key Vocabulary:

  • anecdotal = based on personal stories
  • bear out = prove to be true

Question Focus: Detail question - asks about Jellinek's comment

Correct Answer: C

Passage Reference: Jellinek chided the Liverpool researchers for, among other things, presenting the smells and asking the volunteers to think of memories, rather than seeing what memories were spontaneously evoked by the odours.

Why this is correct: This is correct because Jellinek criticised the experiment for not allowing spontaneous memories to appear. He suggested their method limited understanding of which specific memories were truly triggered.

Paraphrasing: Passage: 'rather than seeing what memories were spontaneously evoked' = Option: 'no further clue of what specific memories aroused'

Tips: When a question asks about criticism, focus carefully on what exactly the person disagreed with.

Why the other options are wrong:

  • A: He criticised the method, but he did not say the research was unscientific. This is an Overstatement trap.
  • B: Liverpool is mentioned only as the researchers' location, not as a problem. This is a Context shift trap.
  • D: Jellinek criticised the study but did not explain how to fix it. This is a Not Given trap.

Key Vocabulary:

  • chided = criticised
  • spontaneously = naturally, without prompting

General Tips:

  • MCQ questions follow passage order, so later questions usually come from later paragraphs.
  • Be careful with strong words like 'only', 'equal', or 'more important'. They are common traps.
  • Always separate examples from conclusions. Examples support ideas but are not the main answer.
  • Choose answers based only on what the passage says, not on real world knowledge.

The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.

Sign in to read the full explanation

With a free account: Retry and compare every attempt.
Saving...