Compatibility effects between sound frequency and tactile elevation

NeuroReport

Volumn 20, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 793-797

  Occelli, Valeria ^a,b   Spence, Charles ^b   Zampini, Massimiliano ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRENTO   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Audition; Implicit association test; Synaesthetic interactions; Touch

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUDITORY STIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; MEASUREMENT ERROR; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SOUND INTENSITY; TACTILE DISCRIMINATION; TACTILE STIMULATION; VIBRATION SENSE;

ACOUSTIC STIMULATION; ADULT; COCHLEA; DEPTH PERCEPTION; FEMALE; FINGERS; HUMANS; MALE; MECHANORECEPTORS; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS; ORIENTATION; PHYSICAL STIMULATION; PITCH PERCEPTION; SPACE PERCEPTION; TOUCH; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 67649649739     PISSN: 09594965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/WNR.0b013e32832b8069     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Marks LE. Similarities and differences among the senses. Int J Neurosci 1983; 19:1-11.
2. Martino G, Marks LE. Synesthesia: strong and weak. Curr Dir in Psychol Sci 2001; 10:61-65.
3. Ward J, Moore S, Thompson-Lake D, Salih S, Beck B. The aesthetic appeal of auditory-visual synaesthetic perceptions in people without synaesthesia. Perception 2008; 37:1285-1296.
4. Gallace A, Spence C. Multisensory synesthetic interactions in the speeded classification of visual size. Percept Psychophys 2006; 68:1191 -1203.
5. Melara RD. Dimensional interaction between color and pitch. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1989; 15:69-79.
6. Melara RD. Similarity relations among synesthetic stimuli and their attributes. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1989; 15:212-231.
7. Marks LE. On cross-modal similarity: auditory-visual interactions in speeded discrimination. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 1987; 13:384-394.
8. Ben-Artzi E, Marks LE. Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: role of stimulus difference. Percept Psychophys 1995; 57:1151-1162.
9. Melara RD, O'Brien TP. Interaction between synesthetically corresponding dimensions. J Exp Psychol Gen 1987; 116:323-336.
10. Martino G, Marks LE. Cross-modal interaction between vision and touch: the role of synesthetic correspondence. Perception 2000; 29:745-754.
11. Cinel C, Humphrey GW, Poli R. Cross-modal illusory conjunctions between vision and touch. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 2002; 28:1243-1266.
12. Melara RD, Marks LE. Processes underlying dimensional interactions: correspondences between linguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions. Mem Cognit 1990; 18:477-495.
13. Mudd SA. Spatial stereotypes of four dimensions of pure tone. J Exp Psychol 1963; 66:347-352.
14. Rusconi E, Kwan B, Giordano BL, Umilta C, Butterworth B. Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition 2006; 99:113-129.
15. Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JL Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J Pers Soc Psychol 1998; 74:1464-1480.
16. Dematté ML, Sanabria D, Spence C. Olfactory-tactile compatibility effects demonstrated using a variation of the Implicit Association Test. Acta Psychol 2007; 124:332-343.
17. Townsend JT, Ashby FG. Stochastic modelling of elementary psychological processes. London: Cambridge University Press; 1983.
18. Roffler SK, Butler RA. Factors that influence the localization of sound in the vertical plane. J Acoust Soc Am 1968; 43:1255-1259.
19. Harris JA, Thein T, Clifford CW. Dissociating detection from localization of tactile stimuli. J Neurosci 2004; 24:3683-3693.
20. Walker P, Smith S. Stroop interference based on the synaesthetic qualities of auditory pitch. Perception 1984; 13:75-81.
21. Lewkowicz DJ, Turkewitz G. Intersensory interaction in newborns: modification of visual preferences following exposure to sound. Child Dev 1981; 52:827-832.
22. Spector F, Maurer D. Synesthesia: a new approach to understanding the development of perception. Dev Psychol 2009; 45:175-189.
23. Stevenson PJ, Oaten M. The effect of appropriate and inappropriate stimulus color on odor discrimination. Percept Psychophys 2008; 70:640-646.
24. Soto-Faraco S, Ronald A, Spence C. Tactile selective attention and body posture: assessing the contribution of vision and proprioception. Percept Psychophys 2004; 66:1077-1094.
25. Lovelace CT, Grossenbacher PG. Is binding required to conjoin visual and tactile features? Abstr Soc Neurosci 2000; 26 (Part 2):1976.