Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so)
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so)
Do you wish to request the book?
Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so)
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so)
2013
Overview
A little over a decade ago, Martino and Marks (Current Directions in Psychological Science 10:61–65,
2001
) put forward the influential claim that cases of intuitive matchings between stimuli in different sensory modalities should be considered as a weak form of synesthesia. Over the intervening years, many other researchers have agreed—at the very least, implicitly—with this position (e.g., Bien, ten Oever, Goebel, & Sack NeuroImage 59:663–672,
2012
; Eagleman Cortex 45:1266–1277,
2009
; Esterman, Verstynen, Ivry, & Robertson Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18:1570–1576,
2006
; Ludwig, Adachi, & Matzuzawa Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108:20661–20665,
2011
; Mulvenna & Walsh Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10:350–352,
2006
; Sagiv & Ward
2006
; Zellner, McGarry, Mattern-McClory, & Abreu Chemical Senses 33:211–222:
2008
). Here, though, we defend the
separatist view
, arguing that these cases are likely to form distinct kinds of phenomena despite their superficial similarities. We believe that crossmodal correspondences should be studied in their own right and not assimilated, either in terms of the name used or in terms of the explanation given, to synesthesia. To conflate these two phenomena is both inappropriate and potentially misleading. Below, we critically evaluate the evidence concerning the descriptive and constitutive features of crossmodal correspondences and synesthesia and highlight how they differ. Ultimately, we wish to provide a general definition of crossmodal correspondences as acquired, malleable, relative, and transitive pairings between sensory dimensions and to provide a framework in which to integrate the nonsystematic cataloguing of new cases of crossmodal correspondences, a tendency that has increased in recent years.
Publisher
Springer US,Springer,Springer Nature B.V
