Prelinguistic infants are sensitive to space-pitch associations found across cultures

Psychological Science

Volumn 25, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1256-1261

  Dolscheid, Sarah ^a,b,c   Hunnius, Sabine ^d   Casasanto, Daniel ^e   Majid, Asifa ^a,d,f  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^b International Max Planck Research School for Language Sciences   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF COLOGNE   (Germany)

^d RADBOUD UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO   (United States)

^f RADBOUD UNIVERSITY NIJMEGEN   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cross modal associations; Infant perception; Metaphor; Musical pitch; Space

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; CULTURAL FACTOR; FEMALE; HEARING; HUMAN; INFANT; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; MALE; PHYSIOLOGY; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

ATTENTION; CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON; FEMALE; HUMANS; INFANT; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; MALE; PITCH PERCEPTION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SPEECH PERCEPTION;

EID: 84904760831     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: 14679280     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0956797614528521     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Ben-Artzi, E., & Marks, L. E. (1995). Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1151-1162.
2. Boroditsky, L. (2000). Metaphoric structuring: Understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition, 75, 1-28.
3. Casasanto, D. (2008). Who is afraid of the big bad Whorf? Crosslinguistic differences in temporal language and thought. Language Learning, 58, 63-79.
4. Casasanto, D. (2010). Space for thinking. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.), Language, cognition and space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 453-478). London, England: Equinox.
5. Dolscheid, S., Hunnius, S., Casasanto, D., & Majid, A. (2012). The sound of thickness: prelinguistic infants' associations of space and pitch. In N. Miyake, D. Peebles, & R. P. Cooper (Eds.), Building bridges across cognitive sciences around the world: Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 306-311). Retrieved from http://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2012/papers/0065/paper0065.pdf
6. Dolscheid, S., Shayan, S., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D. (2013). The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science, 24, 613-621. doi:10.1177/0956797612457374
7. Eitan, Z., & Timmers, R. (2010). Beethoven's last piano sonata and those who follow crocodiles: Cross-domain mappings of auditory pitch in a musical context. Cognition, 114, 405-422.
8. Evans, K. K., & Treisman, A. (2010). Natural cross-modal mappings between visual and auditory features. Journal of Vision, 10(1), Article 6. Retrieved from http://www.journalofvision.org/content/10/1/6.full
9. Gentner, D. (2002). Analogy in scientific discovery: The case of Johannes Kepler. In L. Magnani & N. J. Nersessian (Eds.), Model-based reasoning: Science, technology, values (pp. 21-39). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic.
10. Haryu, E., & Kajikawa, S. (2012). Are higher-frequency sounds brighter in color and smaller in size? Auditory-visual correspondences in 10-month-old infants. Infant Behavior & Development, 35, 727-732.
11. Hespos, S. J., & Spelke, E. S. (2004). Conceptual precursors to language. Nature, 430, 453-456.
12. Hollich, G. (2008). Supercoder: A program for coding preferential looking (Version 1.7.1) [Computer software]. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.
13. Hubbard, T. L. (1996). Synesthesia-like mappings of lightness, pitch, and melodic interval. The American Journal of Psychology, 109, 219-238.
14. Jeschonek, S., Pauen, S., & Babocsai, L. (2012). Cross-modal mapping of visual and acoustic displays in infants: The effect of dynamic and static components. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 10, 337-358.
15. Lewkowicz, D. J. (2011). The biological implausibility of the nature-nurture dichotomy and what it means for the study of infancy. Infancy, 16, 331-367.
16. Marks, L. E. (1987). On cross-modal similarity: Auditory- visual interactions in speeded discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 384-394.
17. Marks, L. E. (1989). On cross-modal similarity: The perceptual structure of pitch, loudness, and brightness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 586-602.
18. Marks, L. E., Hammeal, R. J., & Bornstein, M. H. (1987). Perceiving similarity and comprehending metaphor. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 52(1).
19. Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (1999). Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: Tests of the semantic coding hypothesis. Perception, 28, 903-923.
20. Melara, R. D. (1989). Dimensional interaction between color and pitch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 69-79.
21. Miller, R. (1986). The structure of singing: System and art in vocal technique. New York, NY: Schirmer Books.
22. Mondloch, C. J., & Maurer, D. (2004). Do small white balls squeak? Pitch-object correspondences in your children. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 4, 133-136.
23. Parise, C., & Spence, C. (2009). "When birds of a feather flock together": Synesthetic correspondences modulate audiovisual integration in non-synesthetes. PLoS ONE, 4(5), Article e5664. Retrieved from http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005664
24. Parkinson, C., Kohler, P. J., Sievers, B., & Wheatley, T. (2012). Associations between auditory pitch and visual elevation do not depend on language: Evidence from a remote population. Perception, 41, 854-861.
25. Pratt, C. C. (1930). The spatial character of high and low tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 278-285.
26. Shayan, S., Ozturk, O., & Sicoli, M. (2011). Thickness of pitch: Cross-modal metaphors in Farsi, Turkish and Zapotec. The Senses & Society, 6, 96-105.
27. Smith, L. B., & Sera, M. D. (1992). A developmental analysis of the polar structure of dimensions. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 99-142.
28. Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 971-995.
29. Wagner, S., Winner, E., Cicchetti, D., & Gardner, H. (1981). "Metaphorical" mapping in human infants. Child Development, 52, 728-731.
30. Walker, P., Bremner, J. G., Mason, U., Spring, J., Mattock, K., Slater, A., & Johnson, S. P. (2010). Preverbal infants' sensitivity to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychological Science, 21, 21-25.
31. Werker, J. F., & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior & Development, 7, 49-63.