How music touches: Musical parameters and listeners' audio-tactile metaphorical mappings

Psychology of Music

Volumn 39, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 449-467

  Eitan, Zohar ^a   Rothschild, Inbar ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

cross modal interaction; haptic; loudness; metaphor; music performance; tactile

Indexed keywords

EID: 80155194889     PISSN: 03057356     EISSN: 17413087     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0305735610377592     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. von Bismarck G.. Timbre of steady sounds: A factorial investigation of its verbal attributes. Acustica. 1974 ; 30: 146-159
2. Burro R., Grassi M.. Experiments on size and height of falling objects. Phenomenology of Sounds Events, Sounding Object Group Report. 2001 ; 4: 31-39
3. Chen X., Shao F., Barnes C., Childs T., Henson B.. Exploring relationships between touch perception and surface physical properties. International Journal of Design. 2009 ; 3 (2). 67-77
4. Eitan Z., Granot R. Y.. How music moves: Musical parameters and images of motion. Music Perception. 2006 ; 23 (3). 221-247
5. Eitan Z., Katz A., Shen Y.. Effects of pitch register, loudness and tempo on children's metaphors for music. Poster presented at the 11th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC11) ; Seattle, WA ;..
6. Eitan Z., Schupak A., Marks L. E.. Louder is higher: Cross-modal interaction of loudness change and vertical motion in speeded classification. Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Music Perception & Cognition (ICMPC10) ; ;. 67.
7. Eitan Z., Timmers R.. Beethoven's last piano sonata and those who follow crocodiles: Cross-domain mappings of auditory pitch in a musical context. Cognition. 2010 ; 114 (3). 405-422
8. Eitan Z., Tubul N.. Musical parameters and children's images of motion. Musicae Scientiae. in press ;:
9. Foxe J. J., Morocz I. A., Murray M. M., Higgins B. A., Javitt D. C., Schroeder C. E.. Multisensory auditory-somatosensory interactions in early cortical processing revealed by high-density electrical mapping. Cognitive Brain Research. 2000 ; 10 (1). 77-83
10. Foxe J. J., Wylie G. R., Martinez A., Schroeder C. E., Javitt D. C., Guilfoyle D., et al. Auditory-somatosensory multisensory processing in auditory association cortex: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2002 ; 88 (1). 540-543
11. Freed D. J.. Auditory correlates of perceived mallet hardness for a set of recorded percussive events. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America. 1990 ; 87 (1). 311-322
12. Gaver W. W.. What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology. 1993a ; 5 (1). 29
13. Gaver W. W.. How do we hear in the world? Explorations of ecological acoustics. Ecological Psychology. 1993b ; 5 (4). 285-313
14. Gibson J. J. The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin ; 1966 :
15. GiordanoB. L. (2005). Sound source perception in impact sounds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Padova, Italy.
16. Guest S., Catmur C., Lloyd D., Spence C.. Audiotactile interactions in roughness perception. Experimental Brain Research. 2002 ; 146 (2). 161-171
17. Gunther E., O'Modhrain S.. Cutaneous grooves: Composing for the sense of touch. Journal of New Music Research. 2003 ; 32 (4). 369-381
18. HlushchukY. (2007). Tactile processing in human somatosensory and auditory cortices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Finland.
19. Hötting K., Rösler F., Röder B.. Crossmodal and intermodal attention modulate event-related brain potentials to tactile and auditory stimuli. Experimental Brain Research. 2003 ; 148 (1). 26-37
20. Jousmäki V., Hari R.. Parchment-skin illusion: Sound-biased touch. Current Biology. 1998 ; 8 (6). 190
21. Lederman S. J.. Auditory texture perception. Perception. 1979 ; 8 (1). 93-103
22. Lederman S. J., Klatzki R. L., Morgan T., Hamilton C.. Integrating multimodal information about surface texture via a probe: Relative contribution of haptic and touch produced sound sources. Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, 2002 ; ;. 97.
23. Lewkowicz D. J.. The development of intersensory temporal perception: An epigenetic systems/limitations view. Psychological Bulletin. 2000 ; 126 (2). 281-308
24. Lewkowicz D. J., Turkewitz G.. Cross-modal equivalence in early infancy: Auditory-visual intensity matching. Developmental Psychology. 1980 ; 16: 597-607
25. Lipscomb S. D., Kim E. M.. Perceived match between visual parameters and auditory correlates: An experimental multimedia investigation. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC8) ; Evanston, IL ;. 72.
26. Marks L. E. Handbook of multisensory processes. Calvert G. Spence C. Stein B. E., ed. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press ; 2004: 85-106.
27. Marks L. E., Hammeal R. J., Bornstein M. H., Smith L. B.. Perceiving similarity and comprehending metaphor. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1988 ; 52 ( 1 ):
28. Martino G., Marks L. E.. Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: Tests of the semantic coding hypothesis. Perception. 1999 ; 28 (7). 903-923
29. Martino G., Marks L. E.. Synesthesia: Strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2001 ; 10 (2). 61-65
30. Mursell J. L. The psychology of music. New York: Norton ; 1937 :
31. Nakamura A.. The communication of dynamics between musicians and listeners through musical performance. Perception and Psychophysics. 1987 ; 41 (6). 525-533
32. Neuhoff J. G., McBeath M. K.. The Doppler illusion: The influence of dynamic intensity change on perceived pitch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1996 ; 22 (4). 970-985
33. Neuhoff J. G., McBeath M. K., Wanzie W. C.. Dynamic frequency change influences loudness perception: A central, analytic process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1999 ; 25 (4). 1050-1059
34. Osgood C. E.. Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. American Anthropologist. 1964 ; 66: 171-200
35. Osgood C. E., Suci G. J., Tannenbaum P. H. The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press ; 1957 :
36. Peeva D., Baird B., Izmirli O., Blevins D.. Haptic and sound correlations: Pitch, loudness and texture. Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information Visualization, (IV'04) ; ;. 659.
37. Rovan J., Hayward V. Trends in gestural control of music. Wanderley M. Battier M., ed. Paris: IRCAM ; 2000: 389-405.
38. Schroeder C. E., Lindsley R. W., Specht C., Marcovici A., Smiley J. F., Javitt D. C.. Somatosensory input to auditory association cortex in the macaque monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2001 ; 85 (3). 1322-1327
39. Schürmann M., Caetano G., Hlushchuk Y., Jousmäki V., Hari R.. Touch activates human auditory cortex. NeuroImage. 2006 ; 30 (4). 1325-1331
40. Smith L. B., Sera M. D.. A developmental analysis of the polar structure of dimensions. Cognitive Psychology. 1992 ; 24: 99-142
41. Soto-Faraco S., Deco G.. Multisensory contributions to the perception of vibrotactile events. Behavioral Brain Research. 2009 ; 196: 145-154
42. Stevens S. S.. The volume and intensity of tones. American Journal of Psychology. 1934 ; 46 (3). 397-408
43. Walker P., Smith S.. Stroop interference based on the synaesthetic qualities of auditory pitch. Perception. 1984 ; 13 (1). 75-81
44. Walker P., Smith S.. The basis of Stroop interference involving the multimodal correlates of auditory pitch. Perception. 1986 ; 15 (4). 491-496
45. Walker R.. The effects of culture, environment, age, and musical training on choices of visual metaphors for sound. Perception and Psychophysics. 1987 ; 42 (5). 491-502
46. Zampini M., Guest S., Spence C.. The role of auditory cues in modulating the perception of electric toothbrushes. Journal of Dental Research. 2003 ; 82 (11). 929-932