Fifth of eight reports in the MME Sensory Design Research Series
The physiological path smell travels is unlike any other sense. When an odorant molecule enters the nasal cavity, it dissolves in the mucus layer overlying the olfactory epithelium — a small patch of specialized neuroepithelial tissue at the roof of the nasal cavity, roughly the surface area of a postage stamp. There, olfactory receptor neurons, whose cilia extend into the mucus, bind to the odorant and fire an electrochemical signal. This signal travels along the olfactory nerve (cranial nerve I) directly to the olfactory bulb, a paired structure that sits just beneath the frontal lobe of the brain on either side of the cribriform plate.
From the olfactory bulb, the signal goes immediately to the piriform cortex, the amygdala, and the hippocampus. This pathway is the anatomical fact that makes smell categorically different from every other sense. Sight, hearing, touch, and taste all pass through the thalamus — the brain’s sensory relay station — before reaching the cortex where conscious perception is constructed. Smell bypasses the thalamus entirely. It arrives at the amygdala (the brain’s primary emotional processor) and the hippocampus (the primary site of episodic memory encoding) before it reaches conscious awareness. The emotional response to a smell is not a reaction to the perception of the smell; in neurological time, it precedes it. This is not metaphor. It is the wiring.
The Proustian memory phenomenon — involuntary, vivid autobiographical memory triggered by a specific odor — is the experiential surface of this anatomy. The phenomenon is documented with specificity. Research by David Rubin, John Aggleton, and colleagues, as well as subsequent replication work by Johan Lundström’s group at the Monell Chemical Senses Center, has consistently found that odor-evoked autobiographical memories are, on average, older than memories evoked by verbal or visual cues — typically clustering in the first decade of life — more emotionally intense, more vivid, and substantially more likely to be rated by the subject as involving genuine re-experiencing rather than mere recollection. The term the clinical literature uses is “reliving.” The proposed mechanism is that olfactory memories formed during early childhood, when the hippocampal-amygdala complex is still highly plastic, are encoded with unusual emotional specificity and resistance to interference from later experience.
Johan Lundström’s fMRI studies have documented that odor-evoked autobiographical memories show significantly higher amygdala activation than equivalent memories evoked by object photographs or verbal cues, even when the memories themselves are matched for emotional valence and intensity. The amygdala connection is not incidental to the emotional character of these memories; it is the mechanism. A smell does not remind you of an emotion — it reinstates the emotion in the body before the conscious mind has time to process what it is smelling.
Olfactory adaptation is the critical practical constraint for any designed smell environment, and it is underappreciated by almost every institution that has attempted olfactory design. When an odorant is present continuously, olfactory receptor neurons habituate: their firing rate drops in response to sustained stimulation. The perceived intensity of an odor falls sharply within the first sixty seconds of exposure and approaches functional imperceptibility within three to five minutes. Adaptation is not the same as the smell disappearing — the molecules are still present and measurable in the air; the sensory system has simply downregulated its response. This has a specific and underappreciated consequence for museum olfactory design: any ambient scent introduced into a gallery space will be perceptible to a visitor entering the space for the first few minutes, then will functionally vanish for that same visitor as the visit continues. There is no stable olfactory atmosphere in a sustained-occupancy environment in the way there is a stable acoustic environment or a stable visual field. This is not a solvable engineering problem. It is physiology.
Individual variation in olfactory experience is significantly wider than for any other sense and is rarely accounted for in institutional design. Approximately 1 in 5,000 people has congenital anosmia — complete absence of smell from birth. Acquired anosmia, from viral infection, head trauma, or neurological disease, is substantially more common; the COVID-19 pandemic brought public awareness of anosmia to a level unprecedented in recent decades. Partial anosmia and specific anosmia — the inability to perceive individual odor categories, such as the well-documented androstenone anosmia that affects roughly 50% of the population to varying degrees — further widen the distribution. At the opposite end, hyperosmia — heightened olfactory sensitivity, frequently associated with migraine, pregnancy, anxiety disorders, or sensory processing conditions — affects a population for whom designed odor environments may be overwhelming, dysregulating, or physically harmful. These are not edge cases. They represent substantial percentages of any museum visitor population.
The chemical environment of a museum is itself an olfactory environment, regardless of any intentional design. The characteristic smell that many people recognize in certain museums — clean, slightly chemical, air-conditioned, faintly musty with undertones of print and lacquer — is produced by a combination of: off-gassing from paints, varnishes, frame materials, and mounting adhesives; HVAC filtration systems and the ductwork they run through; cleaning products applied to flooring, vitrines, and surfaces; archival materials including acid-free boards and papers; the off-gassing of printing inks and reproductions; and the bodies of visitors in enclosed spaces. This baseline is not neutral, and it is not natural. It is a designed smell by accumulation — produced by institutional decisions about materials, operations, and systems, without any conscious olfactory intention. For many visitors, the “museum smell” is itself a memory trigger, encoding previous museum visits with whatever emotional register attended them. Whether to treat this baseline as a design resource or as a problem to be managed is an analytical choice, not a given.
The best cases in institutional olfactory design are concentrated in a small number of deliberately designed environments. The design professions that address sound (acoustic consultants) and light (lighting designers) have no direct equivalent in smell for most institutional contexts. The field is genuinely thin, which means the most instructive examples are not all from mainstream museum practice; dark horse cases from sacred architecture, clinical settings, and olfactory art are as relevant as anything from the museum sector.
The Jorvik Viking Centre in York is among the earliest and most ambitious experiments in olfactory design in a cultural institution. Opened in 1984 by the York Archaeological Trust on the site of a major Viking-age excavation, Jorvik was designed to reconstruct the experience of a tenth-century settlement using the actual archaeology recovered from the site. The olfactory element was deliberate and extensive: smells including woodsmoke, animal dung, fish, decaying organic matter, and cooked food were introduced into the visitor experience as part of the environmental simulation. The mechanism engaged was temporal transportation — the attempt to produce a sense of being-in-the-past through multi-sensory environmental simulation rather than visual display alone.
What Jorvik achieved, and what its sustained operation over four decades confirms, is that smell is a uniquely powerful anchor for spatial and temporal dislocation. Visitors consistently report that the olfactory elements — more than the visual reconstructions, more than the audio, more than the physical scale of the recreation — produce a physical sensation of presence, of being somewhere other than a museum. The olfactory argument for Jorvik is not decorative. The medium is the message: you cannot intellectually reconstruct what it was like to live in a tenth-century settlement; you can only, partially, sense it. Smell is the instrument that gets closest to the body.
What Jorvik also revealed is the authenticity trap, which is addressed in full in Section II-B. The smell of a Viking settlement in 975 CE was not pleasant by contemporary standards. The question that designed odor environments must answer is not “what would this have smelled like?” but “what olfactory experience serves the visitor’s understanding and emotional engagement?” These are different questions with different answers. Jorvik has navigated this by calibrating the intensity and the specific notes deployed, but the underlying tension — between historical fidelity and visitor receptivity — has no resolution that satisfies both simultaneously.
The Museum of Ice Cream’s use of scent is less sophisticated from a historical or scholarly standpoint than Jorvik’s, but more sophisticated from an Experium design standpoint. Maryellis Bunn’s design philosophy centers on the full sensory activation of a specific positive emotional state — the pleasure and nostalgia associated with ice cream — and smell is one of several instruments in that activation. Scents calibrated to specific flavor themes are designed to reinforce the visual and tactile experience of each room. The mechanism is emotional amplification: smell is used to deepen and extend an already established emotional frame, not to introduce a frame that is not otherwise present.
The Museum of Ice Cream’s approach is worth noting for what it does not attempt. It does not use smell as a primary vehicle for education, for temporal transportation, or for any function requiring sustained olfactory presence. The experiences are short-duration and high-activation, and the adaptation problem is partially managed by moving visitors through spatially distinct environments. The olfactory design is entirely additive — nothing about the physical experience of ice cream is intrinsic to the museum’s built environment — and it is calibrated for a population that has opted into a maximally pleasurable, deliberately unchallenging sensory experience.
The strongest cases of olfactory design in historical interpretation are in house museums and living history sites where the materials and processes generating the smell are physically present. Beeswax polish on period furniture, woodsmoke from working fireplaces, wool and linen in active use, herbs grown in kitchen gardens, hot iron on an open forge — these are intrinsic olfactory elements produced by historical processes that are actually occurring in the space. Plimoth Patuxent, Colonial Williamsburg, Beamish Museum (County Durham), and the Weald and Downland Living Museum (West Sussex) all generate olfactory environments this way.
The distinction from additive design is critical and recurs throughout this report: these smells are not introduced from outside; they arise because the thing that makes the smell is present and active. This is categorically different from introducing a “colonial-era kitchen” scent through a diffuser. The cognitive and emotional response to intrinsic smells — smells arising from actual processes — is different from the response to additive smells simulating those processes. Visitors can generally sense the difference, even if they cannot articulate the mechanism. The credibility of the experience depends on the authenticity of the source.
The Osmothèque in Versailles is the world’s principal archive of perfumes, including extinct fragrances. As an institution, it is unusual in that smell is the primary curatorial medium — not secondary to visual or spatial experience, but the object of scholarship and presentation. The curatorial challenges are substantial: smell degrades with time, formulas change as raw materials become unavailable or restricted, and the olfactory experience of a reconstructed historical fragrance depends critically on who is smelling, under what conditions, and with what prior knowledge and cultural context.
The Osmothèque’s institutional existence demonstrates something important: when smell is treated as a primary medium requiring scholarship, conservation, and curatorial argument, the infrastructure required is as demanding as that for any other medium. There is no casual way to present smell seriously. The fragrance archiving field also produces the most rigorous research on odor degradation, molecular stability, and the reconstruction of extinct smells from historical records — work directly relevant to the MME’s relationship with the olfactory traditions of the cultures its galleries represent.
The retail olfactory design literature documents that ambient scent in commercial environments increases dwell time, perceived product quality, and, in certain conditions, purchase behavior. The principal researchers in this area include Eric Spangenberg (Washington State University), whose studies on ambient scent congruence in retail settings established that scents matched to product categories produce stronger effects than incongruent ones; and Alan Hirsch (Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation), whose early Las Vegas casino studies established that ambient scent increased time-on-machine and money spent. The Journal of Retailing and the Journal of Consumer Research carry the bulk of this literature.
This research is relevant to the MME’s revenue design — specifically to The Afterglow and to any retail or ticketing environments — but carries a significant caveat for exhibit design: the behavioral effects documented in retail research are calibrated for transactional contexts where the visitor is making decisions about purchase during a short-duration encounter. A museum visit is two to four hours of varied emotional and cognitive states, with a designed progression. The same ambient scent that elevates purchase probability in a twenty-minute retail encounter functions very differently in a sustained visit — primarily through adaptation, which eliminates it, and through emotional flattening, which works against the designed emotional score.
Botanical gardens represent the most natural case of designed olfactory environments in public experience institutions. Planting decisions are inherently olfactory decisions: roses, jasmine, herbs, citrus blossom, night-blooming flowers, and conifer plantings all produce specific olfactory signatures, and skilled botanical garden designers plan for seasonal olfactory sequences alongside visual ones. The Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew, the Montreal Botanical Garden, and Singapore’s Gardens by the Bay all include documented multi-sensory design thinking that addresses olfactory experience specifically.
The mechanism that designed outdoor environments engage is the well-documented stress-reduction effect of natural odors. Qing Li at the Nippon Medical School has produced the most cited body of research on shinrin-yoku (forest bathing), documenting measurable reductions in cortisol, blood pressure, and sympathetic nervous system activity following exposure to forest environments. The specific volatile compounds implicated include α-pinene and β-pinene (from conifers), limonene (from citrus and some conifers), and linalool (from lavender and many flowering plants). Petrichor — the distinctive smell of rain on dry earth, produced primarily by geosmin from soil actinobacteria — has separately documented stress-reduction and positive affect associations. These are relevant to the olfactory design of the Garden of Egress and are addressed in Section IV.
The best-practice cases in Section II are the exception. They are exceptions because the conditions that produced them — long analytical lead time, budget for genuine development, willingness to treat smell as a design medium requiring expertise — are rarely assembled in institutional practice. The dominant pattern is failure. These failures are not obscure; they are the default outcome of treating olfactory design as an afterthought, an atmosphere generator, a novelty, or as someone else’s problem. They belong in the research alongside the successes because they are what the MME is building against, and naming them precisely is more useful than the general instruction to “do smell thoughtfully.”
The most common failure in institutional olfactory design is the deployment of smell as novelty — a sensory element added to an exhibition because it is unexpected and might generate press coverage, social media engagement, or visitor mention, without any analysis of what olfactory mechanism it engages or what it is meant to produce in the visitor. The reasoning behind these decisions is recognizable: “wouldn’t it be interesting if this smelled like X?” The result is a scent that sits in a gallery doing nothing analytically coherent, and that most visitors adapt to within three minutes and then forget.
The novelty failure is compounded by the adaptation problem: the very quality that generates novelty — the surprise of an unexpected sensory element — is the quality that disappears fastest. Once the smell has been noticed, its work as a novelty is done. If there is no deeper mechanism — no memory trigger, no emotional amplification, no material argument — there is nothing left. The institution has imposed accessibility risk on its visitors in exchange for a sensory effect that lasted three minutes. This is not an argument for discarding the ambition; it is an argument for requiring a mechanism before deploying the instrument.
A related but distinct failure is the deployment of ambient scent throughout gallery spaces or throughout a museum without spatial specificity, without calibration to the visitor arc, and without consideration of the adaptation timeline. Institutions that have adopted “signature scents” — a single ambient fragrance applied uniformly throughout the visitor experience, sometimes through the HVAC system — have committed a category error borrowed from hotel and retail design. A hotel lobby scent works because the visitor passes through it briefly and repeatedly; the encounters are short, the adaptation is interrupted by absence. A museum signature scent applied uniformly across a two-hour visit is imperceptible to anyone who has been in the building for more than five minutes.
The indiscriminate application failure also eliminates the possibility of olfactory contrast — the ability to use a specific smell in a specific space to mark a transition, open a memory, or change an emotional register. If everything smells the same, smell is doing nothing. The most sophisticated olfactory design in public environments uses smell with spatial precision: a specific threshold, a specific gallery, a specific moment in the visitor arc. Indiscriminate application wastes the instrument by deploying it everywhere and nowhere.
Many institutions that have recognized the accessibility risks of synthetic fragrance have attempted to address them by substituting “natural” alternatives: essential oils, botanical diffusers, plant-based scent systems, beeswax candles. The reasoning is intuitively appealing and analytically wrong. Natural fragrances contain the same categories of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) as synthetic fragrances. Linalool, present in lavender, bergamot, rosewood, and many other botanical sources, is one of the most frequently identified triggers of chemical sensitivity reactions. Limonene, present in citrus peels and many plant-based cleaning products, is similarly documented as a sensitivity trigger.
Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) and fragrance sensitivity are physiological responses to VOC exposure, not to the synthetic or natural origin of the compounds. An institution that replaces synthetic scent diffusers with “natural” botanical diffusers and considers the accessibility problem addressed has misunderstood both the problem and the population. The people who are harmed by ambient scent — migraineurs, asthmatics, people with MCS, people with hyperosmia — are harmed by the molecules in the air, not by the label on the bottle. “Natural” is a marketing category. It is not an accessibility category.
Odor associations are not universal. They are partly physiological — there is limited evidence for some cross-cultural consistency in basic hedonic valence for a small number of odorants — and substantially cultural. The associations that olfactory marketing research documents as “pleasant” or “calming” are calibrated almost entirely on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) samples. The lavender that reads as calming in a Northern European and North American cultural context has no such universal status. Cinnamon, widely used in US-context olfactory marketing as a “warm and welcoming” scent, carries very different associations in contexts where it is primarily a medicinal odor or a funerary one.
The cultural translation failure is particularly acute in museums whose gallery programs span multiple traditions and geographies — which is to say, most research museums and many specialty institutions. A museum that applies Western-coded hedonic associations to galleries representing Byzantine, Islamic, Buddhist, or Indigenous traditions is not designing for its visitors; it is designing for an imagined visitor who shares the designer’s cultural background. The MME’s gallery program, which represents traditions across multiple continents and millennia, makes the cultural translation failure especially consequential. Any olfactory design decision that applies an ambient scent to a gallery representing a specific tradition must account for what that scent means in that tradition — not what it means in the designer’s default cultural frame.
The Jorvik case introduces a failure mode that the living history sector has encountered repeatedly: the decision to prioritize historical accuracy in olfactory reconstruction over visitor receptivity and instructional effectiveness. The logic is straightforward and wrong: if we are reconstructing a historical environment, we should make it smell as it actually would have smelled. The result, in cases where historical accuracy is pursued without filtering for visitor impact, is an olfactory environment that produces aversion, disgust, or physical discomfort — responses that close down cognitive and emotional engagement rather than opening it.
The authenticity trap is particularly visible in reconstructions of pre-modern urban environments, working class history, and agricultural history, where the authentic smells — open sewage, animal waste, tallow, unwashed bodies, organic decay — are by contemporary standards aversive. The institution has produced an accurate smell and a bad experience. The failure is not in the aspiration to authenticity; it is in the conflation of historical accuracy with interpretive effectiveness. The olfactory design question is not “what would this have smelled like?” but “what olfactory experience produces the understanding and emotional engagement the exhibit is designed to create?” These questions have different answers, and the second is the right one.
The most pervasive failure in institutional olfactory practice is simply the absence of any analysis of who is being excluded. When an institution introduces ambient scent into its spaces — whether through deliberate design or through uncritical acceptance of cleaning product fragrance, air fresheners in restrooms, or food smells from an adjacent café — it is making a decision that affects visitors with fragrance sensitivity, asthma, migraine, and hyperosmia without any awareness that it is making a decision at all. The harm is invisible to the people causing it.
Anne Steinemann’s 2019 national survey, published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, found that approximately 26% of US adults report fragrance sensitivity, with 19% reporting health effects from fragrances in public places. These figures are consistent with earlier survey data and with European epidemiological estimates. One in four potential museum visitors. The accessibility invisibility failure is not a technical failure — it is a failure of institutional attention. The people who are harmed typically do not complain; they leave, or they do not come, and the institution reads their absence as data-free.
A specific variant of the indiscriminate application failure is the uncritical importation of retail and hospitality olfactory design strategies into museum contexts. Hotel signature scents, casino ambient fragrance, retail olfactory marketing — these are designed for environments with specific behavioral targets (purchase, return visit, brand loyalty) in short-duration, high-throughput encounters. The research literature that documents their effectiveness is calibrated to those contexts. Museum visit structure is categorically different: longer duration, varied cognitive and emotional registers across spaces, a designed arc with consolidation and departure phases.
An institution that hires a retail fragrance consultant to develop its “museum scent” and applies it uniformly has imported a set of assumptions — about visit duration, about visitor purpose, about what behavioral outcome smell is being asked to produce — that do not hold in a museum context. The resulting smell is doing retail work in an exhibit space, which is the wrong work. The failure is category confusion: borrowing a tool from a context without asking whether the context’s assumptions transfer.
Not every olfactory failure is the result of an active decision. The passive accumulation failure is the absence of any olfactory design policy — the institution that smells the way it smells because no one has ever asked what it smells like or why. In these institutions, the olfactory environment is produced by the intersection of cleaning products, HVAC systems, food service operations, building materials, and visitor bodies, none of which have been specified with any olfactory intention. The result is an olfactory baseline that the institution has not examined, cannot describe, and does not know how it registers emotionally for visitors.
The passive accumulation failure is the default condition of most cultural institutions. It represents a missed opportunity at minimum and an active harm at worst. If the baseline smell includes VOCs from synthetic cleaning products, aggressive air fresheners in restrooms, or food odors that permeate gallery spaces, it is producing olfactory effects on visitors without institutional awareness. The first step in any olfactory design program is not to add smell; it is to inventory and assess what smell the institution is already producing and what it is doing.
A failure mode specific to institutions whose gallery programs include sacred traditions is the use of incense or liturgical fragrance as atmospheric decoration. The reasoning is that Byzantine Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, or Islamic sacred spaces were olfactorily defined by specific fragrance traditions — frankincense, myrrh, sandalwood, oud, specific floral offerings — and that reproducing those odors in gallery spaces representing those traditions serves interpretive authenticity.
This reasoning makes two errors. The first is the cultural translation error: in these traditions, incense is not decoration. It is liturgical action. Burning frankincense in an Orthodox Christian context is a specific sacramental act; using it as atmosphere in a gallery about Byzantine mosaics is a category confusion that practitioners of those traditions may experience as trivializing or offensive. The second error is the accessibility error: incense, whether liturgical or synthetic, is one of the most reliably documented fragrance sensitivity triggers. The institution has chosen to impose a liturgical atmosphere on visitors who did not consent to it and cannot escape it without leaving the gallery. This is simultaneously an interpretive failure and an accessibility failure.
The field of institutional olfactory design is thin on evidence in part because the failures are not written up. When an ambient scent installation produces complaints, health incidents, or accessibility complaints, the institutional response is typically to remove the scent and not document what happened. When a smelled environment fails to achieve any measurable effect on visitor experience, there is no mechanism for that null result to enter the institutional record. The result is a knowledge base that is curated toward success cases — the institutions willing to publicize what worked — and mute on failure.
This documentation failure compounds every other failure mode: institutions make the same errors repeatedly because the errors are not visible in the sector’s shared knowledge. The MME’s commitment to honest institutional documentation — one of the principles of its founding methodology — should extend to olfactory design decisions: what was tried, what the reasoning was, what it produced, and what needed to change. This is not a minor procedural note. It is a contribution to a field that needs it.
Two unconventional examples of olfactory design in public-experience contexts illuminate principles that the mainstream museum cases do not reach.
The clinical use of familiar smells to retrieve autobiographical memory in patients with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias represents the most rigorous demonstration of the olfactory-memory connection in applied settings. Research by Johan Lundström, David Wilson, and clinical teams at multiple memory care centers has documented that olfactory memory is among the last forms of autobiographical recall to degrade in advanced dementia — the direct limbic pathway may be more resistant to the neurodegeneration that attacks hippocampal-dependent explicit memory systems. The clinical translation is significant: familiar smells — a specific soap, a food from childhood, a perfume associated with a partner — can open brief windows of recognition, orientation, and emotional contact in patients for whom verbal and visual cues have become inadequate.
The principle this work demonstrates has direct bearing on olfactory design in any context that aims to produce a sense of presence or temporal location. Smell has deeper access to archived experience than any other sense — not because it is more powerful in general, but because the pathway it takes to memory is more direct and more resistant to interference. The clinical dementia application is the extreme case of a principle that operates across the full range of human olfactory experience: smells do not merely remind; they retrieve. This is the mechanism that makes the Visible Studio’s fresh-cut stone smell an argument, not an atmosphere.
Incense, specific resins (frankincense, myrrh, oud, sandalwood), beeswax, and floral offerings are liturgical instruments in Byzantine Christianity, Buddhist and Hindu temple traditions, and Islamic ceremonial practice. Their use is not decorative and was never intended as atmosphere in the contemporary institutional sense. These are instruments of sacred time and space — technologies for marking the threshold between ordinary duration and ritual time, between exterior and interior, between the profane and the sanctified.
The olfactory design of incense in sacred architecture demonstrates something that secular institutions have rarely achieved: smell as temporal and spatial architecture. Incense alters the perception of a space because it changes the medium through which light and sound move. It produces a visible medium — the slight haze of incense smoke in the upper volumes of a church or temple — through which light behaves differently. The smell itself functions as a temporal marker that extends beyond the ritual’s formal boundaries: the smell of incense in a church on a Thursday is an echo of the Sunday liturgy. These are multi-century experiments in multi-sensory design conducted by traditions with sophisticated understandings of what smell does to human experience.
The principle this case demonstrates is not that the MME should use incense in its relevant galleries — for reasons argued in Section IV, it should not. The principle is that smell’s most sophisticated historical deployment has been as a temporal instrument: a way of marking time, of distinguishing sacred from ordinary duration, of extending a designed experience beyond its formal boundaries into the hours and days that follow. The designer who understands this is working with a much richer tool than the designer who understands smell as atmosphere.
Sissel Tolaas, Norwegian smell artist and scientific researcher, has developed a practice that treats smell as primary medium with the same seriousness that painters treat paint. Her “The Fear of Smell — The Smell of Fear” (2007), developed in collaboration with International Flavors and Fragrances, presented microencapsulated samples of fear-sweat from men with documented phobias on the walls of a gallery at the MoMA PS1 context. Visitors physically activated the samples by scratching gallery-wall surfaces and inhaling directly. The project collapsed the distance between documentation and bodily transmission in a way that no visual presentation of the same material could have achieved. Knowing that someone experienced agoraphobia is one kind of knowing; inhaling the physiological product of their fear is another kind entirely.
Daisy Ginsberg’s “Resurrecting the Sublime” (2019), developed in collaboration with Tolaas and International Flavors and Fragrances, reconstructed the smells of three extinct flowers: the Orbexilum stipulatum of the central United States, the Hibiscadelphus woodii of Hawaii, and the Cuban Buxus cubensis. Molecular reconstruction was performed from genetic material preserved in herbarium specimens; the reconstructed scent molecules were produced by IFF and presented in a darkened gallery with botanical projection and field recording sound. The project makes an argument about extinction loss that no visual or textual presentation achieves with equivalent specificity: what is gone includes its olfactory presence in the world, and that absence is legible to the body in a way that herbarium specimens and taxonomic descriptions are not.
The principle both cases demonstrate is that smell can function as primary evidentiary medium — not illustration, not atmosphere, but argument. The fear-sweat project presents physiological documentation. The extinction project presents loss. In both cases, smell makes a claim on the visitor’s body that other media cannot make with the same precision. This is the register in which the Visible Studio’s olfactory experience belongs: not atmosphere, but evidence.
The MME’s case is structurally unusual in the olfactory design literature. The primary medium of the institution — mosaic — is, as a finished object, largely odorless. Stone, glass, and tile in completed works do not smell. The olfactory design problem for the MME is therefore not “how do we bring out the intrinsic sensory qualities of our medium?” — the question that applies to institutions presenting wine, wood, leather, bronze, or natural fiber — but “where, if anywhere, do additive olfactory elements serve the visitor arc, and where do they impose unnecessary risk?”
This is a harder analytical question. It requires first establishing what additive olfactory design could produce that no other design instrument can produce, then testing each proposed application against that standard with the accessibility burden of proof established in Section V holding throughout. The analysis must also account for what olfactory design the institution is already doing passively — the accumulated baseline of materials, HVAC, cleaning products, and F&B operations — before considering any deliberate additions.
Four arguments, taken together, constitute a decisive case against additive olfactory design as a general practice in MME gallery spaces. They are not in tension with each other; they reinforce each other.
The accessibility argument is primary and is addressed in full in Section V. The short version: chemical sensitivity, asthma, migraine, and hyperosmia collectively affect a substantial percentage of any museum visitor population — estimates consistent across multiple national surveys place fragrance-sensitive people at roughly 25% of adults. Additive olfactory elements cannot be made accessible to this population in the way that visual elements can be made accessible through tactile or audio alternatives. There is no olfactory ramp. If a scent is in the air of a gallery, every person in the gallery is exposed to it. The burden of proof for any additive element imposing this risk must be high: the olfactory design must contribute something that cannot be achieved by other means and cannot be safely reduced below the threshold of harm.
The adaptation argument eliminates the primary justification for additive smell in gallery spaces: that it contributes to sustained ambient atmosphere. It does not. Any ambient scent introduced into a gallery space will be perceptible to visitors entering the space for approximately three minutes and then functionally absent for those who remain. An ambient scent that is a design element for three minutes and then invisible for the remainder of the visit is not contributing to the visitor’s experience of the gallery; it is contributing to the first moment of entrance and nothing after. For that three-minute contribution, the institution has imposed accessibility risk on every visitor who entered the space.
The cultural specificity argument: the MME’s gallery program represents traditions across multiple continents, multiple millennia, and multiple cultural frameworks for olfactory association. There is no ambient scent that functions as emotionally coherent across Byzantine Christianity, Buddhist and Hindu temple traditions, Islamic architecture, Roman imperial culture, and contemporary installation art. Any attempt to introduce ambient scent in a gallery representing a specific tradition will encode the wrong associations for some significant portion of the visitors for whom that tradition is not an abstraction but a living context.
The interference argument: every additive olfactory element introduced into gallery spaces interferes with the visitor’s experience of the institution’s single strongest olfactory argument — the Visible Studio. The working studio’s fresh-cut stone smell, which visitors should carry through the museum as a physical memory of encountering the medium in process, is undermined by competing additive odors in adjacent spaces. The olfactory experience is not modular; what you smell in one space modifies what you smell in the next, and what you remember smelling across an arc.
Fresh-cut stone smells specific. Mosaicists who work with vitreous glass, smalti, marble, limestone, and ceramic tile know this smell intimately: the sharp mineral edge of scored glass, the dusty intimacy of cut marble, the particular chemical smell of tile adhesive and grout. It is not a decorative smell. It is the smell of the medium in process, and it is unavailable anywhere in the world except where mosaicists are working.
For visitors who enter the Visible Studio — who encounter the working artist, the scored tiles, the adhesive-covered backerboard, the dust of cut material — the olfactory experience is intrinsic evidence. It makes an argument that no label text and no printed reproduction can make: this is what mosaic smells like when it is being made. The smell encodes the visit at the neurological level at which smell encodes experience — in the amygdala and hippocampus, with emotional specificity that will be retrievable years later when something else triggers it. A visitor who has been in a working mosaic studio does not forget what it smelled like.
This smell should not be aggressively filtered. The ventilation design of the Visible Studio must address genuine health risks — stone dust and adhesive VOCs are not harmless, and the working artist’s occupational health is the first priority — but the olfactory result of that ventilation design should be the safe working studio smell, not the sterile gallery smell. The institution should treat the Visible Studio’s olfactory environment as exhibit content, and it should tell visitors what they are smelling and why.
The Garden of Egress is the institution’s planned outdoor environment with a consolidation function: it is the space between the museum experience and the return to the world, designed to allow the emotional and cognitive experience of the visit to settle before the visitor departs. Olfactory design in the Garden is not additive in the usual sense — it is horticultural. Plant selection determines the smell of the space.
The relevant planting choices for the Garden’s consolidation function are those documented to produce the stress-reduction and cognitive restoration effects associated with natural botanical odors. In the Lisbon microclimate, these include lavender (linalool, documented anxiolytic and cortisol-reduction effects), rosemary (pinene compounds, associated with cognitive alertness and positive affect), citrus (limonene, positive hedonic valence across multiple cultural samples), jasmine (linalool and jasmone, positive hedonic and mild sedative associations), and stone pine (pinene, forest-bathing associations, appropriate to the Portuguese landscape context). The presence of water features adds the possibility of petrichor responses and the masking of urban acoustic intrusion.
The olfactory design of the Garden should be produced in collaboration with a landscape architect with specific expertise in sensory garden design. The choices are simultaneously horticultural, ecological (appropriate to the Lisbon microclimate), and functional (producing the documented restoration effects). This is a design brief, not an atmosphere brief.
The Afterglow — the restaurant, café, and bar — will smell of food and drink. This is intrinsic to any F&B environment and is not a design choice; it is a consequence of operation. The design question is whether the food and drink smells should be contained within The Afterglow through architectural separation from the Garden of Egress, or allowed to permeate into the Garden as an olfactory transition element.
The research on food smell and hedonic state provides a specific argument for partial permeation. The anticipatory response to food smell — salivation, increased appetite, elevation of hedonic state — is documented in the literature on cephalic phase responses, which are physiological preparations for eating that are triggered by sensory cues including smell. A low level of food aroma extending from The Afterglow into the transition space between the Garden and the F&B environment functions as an olfactory invitation — a designed transition from the contemplative register of the Garden into the social and gustatory register of The Afterglow. This serves both visitor experience and revenue. The design requirement is that the permeation be low-level and directional: the smell of good food should be perceptible in the transition threshold, not throughout the Garden.
Several of the MME’s historic gallery programs represent traditions where incense was and is a liturgical instrument: Byzantine Christianity (Into the Basilica, The Gold Ground), Buddhist and Hindu temple traditions (The Glass Temple), and Islamic ceremonial practice (Pattern Without End, Courts of Glazed Brick). The question of whether any olfactory reference to these traditions in their respective galleries is appropriate is asked and answered here.
The answer is no. The reasoning is threefold. First: the accessibility argument holds absolutely in this application. Incense — whether liturgically authentic or synthetically produced — is among the most consistently documented fragrance sensitivity and asthma triggers in the clinical literature. The institution cannot justify imposing this risk in enclosed gallery spaces. Second: incense is not decoration in these traditions and treating it as such is a category confusion that the MME’s interpretive framework should resist on the same grounds it resists presenting mosaic as decoration. The liturgical olfactory tradition of Byzantine Christianity or Buddhist temple practice can be addressed interpretively through text, audio, and curatorial argument without being enacted atmospherically on visitors who did not consent. Third: the interference argument applies with particular force in these galleries, where the visual and spatial argument is complex and demands full cognitive attention. An olfactory element that competes for sensory attention — or triggers a physiological reaction — is an active harm to the exhibit’s function.
This position does not foreclose the possibility of an olfactory education element in these galleries. A touchable sample — a sealed vessel that visitors can choose to open and smell — is a fundamentally different design decision from atmospheric incense. It is opt-in, bounded, and accessible in a way that ambient scent is not. This is a specific, separate design question that may be addressed in the curatorial phase.
This section is the highest-stakes accessibility analysis in the sensory design series. Olfactory accessibility failures are invisible to the people causing them, affect a larger percentage of any museum population than any other sensory accessibility failure, and cannot be mitigated after deployment by alternative format. If you scent a gallery, everyone in the gallery breathes it. There is no equivalent of audio description, tactile alternative, or visual enlargement. The analysis here must be thorough because the design discipline it informs is not optional.
Chemical sensitivity (CS) and multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) are patterns of physiological symptoms — headache, cognitive impairment sometimes described as “brain fog,” respiratory distress, nausea, dizziness, skin reactions — triggered by exposure to chemical compounds including volatile organic compounds (VOCs) present in most synthetic and many natural fragrances. MCS is not a single condition with a single mechanism; it is a symptom cluster with multiple proposed physiological explanations, including limbic sensitization, conditioned response, and toxic injury. The diagnostic disagreement does not affect the design implication: these visitors are harmed by VOC exposure, and the harm is real, documented, and disabling.
Anne Steinemann’s 2019 national survey of US adults found that 26% reported fragrance sensitivity, 19% reported health effects from fragrances in public spaces, and 13% reported respiratory problems specifically from other people’s fragranced personal care products. Comparable figures have been reported in Australian, European, and Swedish studies using similar methodologies. These are not negligible populations. They are one in four visitors. An institution that introduces ambient scent into gallery spaces is selecting against this population at the door.
Asthma affects approximately 8% of the US adult population and a higher percentage of children under 18. Fragrance-associated VOCs — including the terpenes common in both synthetic and natural fragrances — are documented asthma triggers. The Visible Studio presents a specific and distinct respiratory risk: stone dust (silica particulates from marble and stone cutting) and adhesive off-gassing are occupational health concerns under OSHA and equivalents in Portuguese regulatory frameworks. This risk applies to the working artist and to visitors with respiratory conditions. The ventilation design for the Visible Studio is not a discretionary design element; it is a legal and ethical obligation.
The distinction between the Visible Studio’s respiratory risk and that of ambient fragrance in gallery spaces is important. The Visible Studio’s risk is intrinsic to the work being performed and is managed through ventilation design, air exchange rates, and visitor dwell time parameters. Ambient fragrance in gallery spaces presents a risk that is entirely avoidable and has no interpretive justification sufficient to override it.
Migraine affects approximately 12% of the global population, with significantly higher prevalence in women. Olfactory triggers are among the most consistently reported migraine precipitants: in clinical surveys of migraineurs, 50 to 70% report specific odors as reliable triggers. The odors most frequently named include perfume and fragrance products, cigarette smoke, cleaning products, and gasoline — categories that overlap directly with the compounds used in ambient scent design. A museum that introduces ambient fragrance into gallery spaces is a documented migraine trigger environment for a substantial portion of its visitor population.
The migraine accessibility failure is particularly invisible institutionally because migraineurs who encounter a trigger do not typically report to staff and request an accommodation; they leave. The institution sees no incident report and receives no complaint. The visitor does not return. The harm is real; the institutional record is empty. This is the practical consequence of the documentation failure identified in Section II-B: the institution cannot learn from harm it cannot see.
Hyperosmia — heightened olfactory sensitivity producing overwhelming or painful responses to odor intensities that are neutral for most people — is associated with migraine (interictal hyperosmia is documented between migraine episodes, not only during them), pregnancy, anxiety disorders, post-COVID conditions, autism spectrum conditions, and sensory processing disorders. For visitors with hyperosmia, an ambient scent designed to be mild and unobtrusive may be physically painful. The dosing that passes below the threshold of notice for a normosmic visitor is above the threshold of harm for a hypersmic one.
Given the breadth and severity of these accessibility risks, the burden of proof for any additive olfactory element in MME spaces must be high. An additive olfactory element is justified only when it meets all three of the following conditions: it contributes something that cannot be achieved by any other design instrument; it can be operated at levels demonstrably below the threshold of harm for the most sensitive visitor populations; and the interpretive or experiential benefit is proportionate to the access restriction it imposes. In practice, no additive olfactory element in enclosed MME gallery spaces meets these conditions. The Garden of Egress and The Afterglow meet them in their respective modes (horticultural and culinary, respectively). The Visible Studio meets them because its olfactory environment is intrinsic and managed through ventilation. No other MME space does.
The ventilation and HVAC design of the Visible Studio is an accessibility specification, not merely an industrial hygiene one. The architectural brief for the Lisbon build-out must specify air exchange rates sufficient to maintain stone dust at levels below occupational exposure limits for silica particulates, adhesive VOC concentrations below OSHA permissible exposure limits, and total VOC levels compatible with the needs of visitors with respiratory conditions and chemical sensitivity. This specification must be in the building program from the earliest design phases; it cannot be retrofitted.
The same ventilation logic applies to The Afterglow and its relationship to the Garden of Egress. If the design decision is to allow low-level food aroma to permeate into the transition threshold, the directionality and intensity of that permeation must be designed through air handling, not left to the physics of open-air diffusion. Intentional ventilation design can produce controlled, low-intensity olfactory transition without the full F&B smell load that would be harmful to sensitive visitors.
The MME should adopt a formal fragrance-free policy covering all indoor public and gallery spaces. The policy covers: diffused fragrance in any form (diffusers, atomizers, scented candles, HVAC-introduced fragrance); cleaning products (fragrance-free specifications required for all maintenance contracts); air fresheners in all public restrooms; and personal fragrance for staff in public-facing roles (framed as a request under a disability accommodation framework, not a mandate, consistent with legal requirements in most jurisdictions). The policy does not cover: cooking and food service smells from The Afterglow; the Visible Studio’s working-studio environment; or outdoor planting in the Garden of Egress.
A fragrance-free policy is a public document. It should be on the MME’s website, in its visitor guide, and posted at entry points. Visitors with fragrance sensitivity make institutional decisions based on whether institutions have documented their commitment. The policy’s public presence is itself an accessibility statement. It tells sensitive visitors that the institution is aware of their existence and has made a design decision in their interest rather than against it.
The MME’s relationship to smell is defined primarily by what it will not do. This is not a failure of sensory ambition. It is the result of honest analysis. The intrinsic/additive distinction establishes that mosaic, as a finished medium, does not smell — and that any olfactory design element introduced into a gallery space is therefore additive by definition and carries the full accessibility burden that additive design imposes. The adaptation problem establishes that sustained ambient odor design cannot produce the atmospheric effect that justifies its accessibility cost. The cultural specificity problem establishes that no ambient scent functions as emotionally coherent across the full range of traditions the MME’s gallery program represents. Together, these arguments produce a clear institutional position: additive olfactory elements in gallery spaces are not appropriate for the MME.
The exceptions to this position are not compromises. They are the genuine olfactory program of the institution, and they are stronger arguments than ambient gallery scent would be.
The Visible Studio’s fresh-cut stone smell is the institution’s single strongest olfactory argument. It is intrinsic, unreproducible by other means, and it makes a claim on the visitor’s body that no label, no reproduction, and no curatorial text can make: this is what mosaic smells like when it is being made. The working studio produces the olfactory signature of the medium in process. For a visitor who has spent an hour with printed gallery immersives, scale models, and documentary footage, entering the Visible Studio and encountering the smell of scored glass and adhesive is a physical argument. The medium is here. It is being made. This is what it takes.
The olfactory program of the Garden of Egress is a horticultural design problem, not an exhibit design problem, but it is no less deliberate. The Garden’s function is consolidation: giving the visitor’s emotional and cognitive experience time to settle before departure. The plant selection that serves this function produces the documented restoration effects of natural botanical odors — lavender, rosemary, jasmine, stone pine, citrus — appropriate to the Lisbon microclimate and the Mediterranean botanical tradition. This is not neutral landscaping. It is sensory design with a specific function.
The Afterglow’s food and drink aromas are intrinsic to its operation. The design question is architectural: how much of that aroma permeates into the Garden, and how. The argument for controlled low-level permeation into the transition threshold — not throughout the Garden, but at the specific moment of transition from outdoor consolidation space to F&B environment — is both experiential and commercial. The anticipatory effect of food smell on hedonic state is documented. A visitor who smells The Afterglow before entering is already in the preparatory physiological state for eating and socializing. That is a revenue argument with an experience argument inside it.
Smell’s primary failing as an institutional design instrument is not its power but its indiscipline. It cannot be visually bounded. It cannot be contained to those who opt into it. It cannot be turned off for one visitor while remaining available to another. Every deployment of additive smell in a shared enclosed space is a collective imposition, and the people most harmed by it are least visible to the institution. The MME’s olfactory program is narrow by design, and narrow is correct.
| Principle | Application |
|---|---|
| No additive fragrance in gallery spaces | Diffusers, scent systems, signature scents, and ambient fragrance have no place in MME galleries, corridors, or enclosed public spaces. This is not a provisional position; it is a founding design standard. |
| The Visible Studio’s olfactory environment is exhibit content | Intrinsic to the work being performed. Not aggressively filtered; managed for occupational health and visitor respiratory safety through specified air exchange rates. |
| Interpretive labeling in the Visible Studio | Visitors are told what they are smelling. The interpretive program names the specific materials — vitreous glass, marble, adhesive, grout — and the processes that produce the smell, as part of the gallery’s argument about labor and materiality. |
| Ventilation as accessibility infrastructure | Specified from the earliest architectural design phase. Air exchange rates address VOC and particulate exposure at levels protective for visitors with respiratory conditions and chemical sensitivity. |
| Formal fragrance-free policy | Covers all indoor public and gallery spaces: fragrance-free cleaning products, no diffused fragrance in any form, staff fragrance guidance framed as disability accommodation. Publicly documented on the MME website and at entry points. |
| “Natural” does not mean safe | The fragrance-free policy covers natural botanical fragrances and essential oils on the same terms as synthetic fragrances. No marketing category overrides the chemical and physiological analysis. |
| Garden of Egress olfactory design is a horticultural decision | Produced in collaboration with a landscape architect with documented experience in sensory garden design. Plant selection prioritizes documented stress-reduction and cognitive restoration effects appropriate to the Lisbon microclimate. |
| The Afterglow aromas are intrinsic to F&B operations | Not subject to the fragrance-free policy. Architectural separation from the enclosed gallery circuit is the default. Controlled low-level permeation into the transition threshold between the Garden of Egress and The Afterglow is acceptable; uniform permeation throughout the Garden is not. |
| The incense question is resolved in the negative | For all enclosed gallery spaces, including those representing traditions with significant liturgical fragrance practice. Olfactory references are addressed interpretively. Opt-in sealed sensory samples may be evaluated in the curatorial phase as a distinct question. |
| All olfactory design decisions are documented | What was designed, the reasoning, what it produced, and what required revision — including null results and failures. This is a contribution to a field that needs the evidence. |
Smell does not operate in isolation. Its effects on memory, emotion, and spatial perception are consistently mediated by the sensory environment it shares. The cross-sensory portrait for smell is particularly complex because smell’s pre-cognitive operation means it is shaping the context in which all other sensory inputs are processed, not merely existing alongside them.
The relationship between smell and visual memory is asymmetric and important. Smell encodes visual experience: environments with distinctive odors are remembered more specifically and with greater emotional intensity than visually equivalent odorless environments. Research by Rachel Herz and Jonathan Schooler published in the journal Memory has documented that the presence of a contextually congruent odor during learning enhances subsequent recall of visual information presented in the same context. The mechanism is state-dependent memory: the reinstatement of the olfactory context at retrieval cues the associated visual memory.
For the MME, this has a specific implication. The Visible Studio’s olfactory environment — the smell of the working studio — encodes the visual experience of watching the artist work, seeing the tiles in process, encountering the tools and materials. When a visitor subsequently smells fresh-cut stone — on a building site, in a sculptor’s studio, anywhere the smell recurs — the visual memory of the Visible Studio visit may be retrieved involuntarily. This is the Proustian mechanism operating in the service of the institution’s interpretive mission: the memory of having seen mosaic being made is stored with unusual retrievability. The olfactory signature of the working studio is an institutional argument that continues after the visit ends.
The distinction between orthonasal and retronasal olfaction is foundational for understanding the relationship between smell and taste — and for designing The Afterglow. Orthonasal olfaction is smell in the conventional sense: odorant molecules entering the nasal cavity from outside, through the nostrils. Retronasal olfaction is the detection of volatile compounds released from food in the mouth, traveling up through the nasopharynx to the olfactory epithelium. What we colloquially call “taste” is substantially retronasal olfaction: the flavor complexity of food — the difference between a Bordeaux and a Beaujolais, between ripe mango and green mango — is carried almost entirely by volatile compounds detected retronasally, not by the five basic tastes (sweet, salty, sour, bitter, umami) detected by the tongue.
Gordon Shepherd’s work at Yale, published in his book Neurogastronomy (2012) and in subsequent peer-reviewed research, has established that flavor is primarily a brain construction assembled from retronasal olfactory input — a finding with significant implications for food service design. The Afterglow’s food program, menu design, and service environment are not merely gastronomic decisions; they are sensory design decisions that operate through the same limbic pathways as the gallery program. This is worth naming explicitly in the design brief for The Afterglow: the experience of eating there is a continuation of the sensory arc, not a commercial appendage to it.
Smell significantly modifies the subjective experience of space. Research by Johan Lundström and colleagues has documented that ambient odors alter perceived room size, perceived ceiling height, and perceived distance to objects within a space. Pleasant ambient odors tend to expand perceived space; aversive odors tend to compress it. More significantly, distinctive odors anchor spatial memory: environments with characteristic smells are navigated and recalled with greater spatial specificity than odorless environments. The characteristic smell of a place is part of what makes it a place — distinguishable from other places, locatable in memory.
For the MME, this has implications for how the working studio’s olfactory environment functions as a spatial anchor. Visitors who have been in the Visible Studio will have encoded its location and spatial character partly through its olfactory signature. The transition from the odorless gallery spaces into the working studio is a perceptible threshold event — a spatial announcement as well as a sensory one. The institution should be aware that this threshold is doing design work whether it is explicitly designed or not.
The interaction between olfactory and acoustic experience in shaping ambient emotional atmosphere is documented in multi-sensory research by Charles Spence at the University of Oxford’s Crossmodal Research Laboratory. Spence’s work has shown that congruent combinations of smell and sound — for example, pine odor with the sound of wind through trees, or citrus odor with upbeat music — produce stronger affective responses than either element alone, and that incongruent combinations produce negative affect or cognitive conflict. The semantic relationship between the odor and the sound is what determines congruence or incongruence; the visitor constructs the emotional response from the combination, not from either input independently.
For the MME, the practical implication is that the Garden of Egress’s acoustic design (water features, the ambient soundscape of outdoor Lisbon) and its olfactory design (plant selection) should be considered in relation to each other. The combination of specific botanical odors — lavender, rosemary, stone pine — with the acoustic qualities of a quiet enclosed garden and water features is not additive in its effect on visitor state; it is multiplicative. The consolidation function of the Garden is served more powerfully by congruent multi-sensory design than by either acoustic or olfactory design alone.
The cross-sensory analysis of smell has four direct implications for EXP-26. First: taste, as conventionally experienced, is substantially retronasal olfaction, and the design of The Afterglow’s food program is an olfactory design decision as much as a culinary one. Second: the transition between the Garden of Egress and The Afterglow is an olfactory transition that activates anticipatory appetite responses before the visitor reaches the table; this transition should be designed, not left to ambient physics. Third: the multi-sensory congruence research suggests that the sound and visual environment of The Afterglow will modify the perceived flavor of what is served there, and vice versa — flavor is partly context. Fourth: the MME’s treatment of The Afterglow as an extension of the institutional experience rather than a commercial appendage is supported by the neuroscience of flavor, which places eating firmly within the same limbic and cortical systems that process the gallery experience.
Herz, R.S., & Schooler, J.W. (2002). A naturalistic study of autobiographical memories evoked by olfactory and visual cues: Testing the Proustian hypothesis. The American Journal of Psychology, 115(1), 21–32. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1423455
Lundström, J.N., & Olsson, M.J. (2010). Functional neuronal processing of human body odors. Vitamins and Hormones, 83, 1–23. Monell Chemical Senses Center — Johan Lundström
Rubin, D.C., Groth, E., & Goldsmith, D.J. (1984). Olfactory cuing of autobiographical memory. The American Journal of Psychology, 97(4), 493–507.
Steinemann, A. (2019). National prevalence and effects of multiple chemical sensitivities. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 60(3), e152–e156. https://journals.lww.com/joem/abstract/2018/03000/national_prevalence_and_effects_of_multiple.15.aspx
Steinemann, A. (2016). Fragranced consumer products: Exposures and effects from emissions. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health, 9, 861–866. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11869-016-0442-z
Spangenberg, E.R., Crowley, A.E., & Henderson, P.W. (1996). Improving the store environment: Do olfactory cues affect evaluations and behaviors? Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 67–80. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/002224299606000205
Hirsch, A.R. (1995). Effects of ambient odors on slot-machine usage in a Las Vegas casino. Psychology & Marketing, 12(7), 585–594.
Li, Q. (2010). Effect of forest bathing trips on human immune function. Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine, 15, 9–17. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12199-008-0068-3
Li, Q. Forest Bathing: How Trees Can Help You Find Health and Happiness. Viking, 2018. Publisher page
Spence, C. (2015). On the nose: The relative weighting of the chemical senses in multisensory flavour perception. Chemosensory Perception, 8, 68–84. Crossmodal Research Laboratory, University of Oxford. https://www.psy.ox.ac.uk/research/crossmodal-research-laboratory
Shepherd, G.M. Neurogastronomy: How the Brain Creates Flavor and Why It Matters. Columbia University Press, 2012. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/neurogastronomy/9780231159111
Jorvik Viking Centre, York. York Archaeological Trust. https://www.jorvikvikingcentre.co.uk/
Osmothèque, Versailles. World archive of perfumes and extinct fragrances. https://www.osmotheque.fr/en/
Monell Chemical Senses Center, Philadelphia. Independent scientific institute dedicated to research on taste and smell. https://www.monell.org/
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. https://www.kew.org/
Sissel Tolaas. “The Fear of Smell — The Smell of Fear.” 2007. MoMA PS1, New York. https://www.sisseltolaas.com/
Daisy Ginsberg. “Resurrecting the Sublime.” 2019. Developed in collaboration with Sissel Tolaas and International Flavors and Fragrances. https://www.daisyginsberg.com/work/resurrecting-the-sublime
This report was developed through an iterative, fact-checked, and edited collaborative research process between Rachael Que Vargas and Anthropic’s Claude (in two roles — long-form research and document operations). The questions, institutional framework, and editorial judgment are the author’s; the research synthesis and structural development are collaborative.
© 2026 Rachael Que Vargas / Museum of Mosaic Environments. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0). You may share and adapt this work for non-commercial purposes with attribution. Full license: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/