Sound enhances touch perception

Ro, Tony; Hsu, Johanan; Yasar, Nafi; Elmore, L. Caitlin; Beauchamp, Michael S.

doi:10.1007/s00221-009-1759-8

Cited by 74 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been previous demonstrations of auditory-somatosensory interactions in situations other than speech (Jousmaki and Hari 1998;Ro et al 2009;Yau et al 2009;Zampini and Spence 2004). In particular, there are robust effects of auditory input on tactile frequency discrimination, and the auditory cross-sensory interference is quite specific.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The effects of auditory inputs on somatosensory perception have been reported in cases other than speech. For example, the detection of nearthreshold somatosensory stimuli is improved by the presence of simultaneous auditory inputs (Ro et al 2009). Similarly, the perception of surface roughness is affected by sounds played to subjects while they rub their hands together (Jousmaki and Hari 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Speech sounds alter facial skin sensation

Itō

Ostry

2012

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Speech sounds alter facial skin sensation

Itō

Ostry

2012

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, higher frequency tactile vibrations on the hand are congruent both with higher levels of visual brightness (white shapes rather than black shapes) (Martino & Marks, 2000) and with higher levels of auditory pitch (Ro, Hsu, Yasar, Elmore & Beauchamp, 2009). Tactile sensations on the hand that are located higher in space also prove to be congruent with higher pitch sounds (Occelli, Spence, & Zampini, 2009).…”

Section: Judging the Mapping Of Cross-sensory Features Beyond Auditormentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-sensory correspondences: A theoretical framework and their relevance to music.

Walker

2016

Psychomusicology: Music, Mind, and Brain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Each of our senses is 'blind' to some features of objects and events (e.g., hearing can tell us little or nothing about the shape, colour, and weight of an object, or about how it might taste or smell). When we listen to sounds without support from other sensory modalities, such as when listening to recorded music, how do will fill-in these blind spots? Evidence identifying a core set of cross-sensory correspondences among basic stimulus features is reviewed, and it is proposed that they offer a potential basis for the filling-in of information that is missing when one or more sensory systems is not available. An emerging theoretical framework for understanding correspondences and their impact on behaviour is presented. Evidence pertaining to key features of the framework is reviewed, including that cross-sensory correspondences are based on crosstalk among conceptual representations of aligned feature dimensions, are bi-directional in their effects, obey transitivity in the feature associations they support, involve the relative (context-sensitive) coding of stimulus features, and can be accessed through the verbal specification of feature values. After illustrating how cross-sensory correspondences are able to embrace basic features of bodily actions, gestures, and vocalisations, their potential for exploitation in the communication of ideas is explained. The relevance of cross-sensory correspondences to musical sounds, and their potential to enhance the composition, performance, and appreciation of music, are discussed. Running head: CROSS-SENSORY CORRESPONDENCES 3Cross-Sensory Correspondences: A Theoretical Framework and Their Relevance to MusicIn our everyday interactions with the environment we gather information about objects and events simultaneously through different sensory modalities, with the acquisition of information about some features of objects and events being duplicated across modalities. For example, vision and touch can both discern the size and shape of a tangible object, though touch normally requires the object to be within reach. In such cases of duplication it need not be a problem if, for some reason, one of the modalities cannot be used, because the same information can be gathered using a modality that is available (e.g., when vision confirms the size and shape of a tangible object that is out of reach).Information about some features, however, is available only through a single modality. A novel object's brightness and colour, for example, can be identified only through vision, the pitch of the sound it is making only through audition, and its weight only through dynamic touch. In such cases problems do arise when the modality best placed to provide information about a particular feature is not available, and there is considerable interest in how the 'blind spots' this creates are filled-in. How is it that in everyday life we readily refer to, for example, the brightness of a sound that cannot be seen, the loudness of a shirt that cannot be heard, and the thickness and heavi...

show abstract

“…Consistent with this phenomenology, several recent behavioral studies have demonstrated systematic perceptual interactions between the auditory and somatosensory modalities. For example, auditory sounds at one frequency affect the perception of somatosensory vibrations at the same or similar frequencies (Ro et al 2009;Yau et al 2009;Wilson et al 2010), somatosensory vibrations influence the perceived intensity of auditory stimuli (Yau et al 2010), somatosensory stimuli can influence the perception of language (Gick and Derrick 2009;Ito et al 2009) and vice versa (Ito and Ostry 2012), and higher auditory frequencies and intensities can alter texture perception (Jousmaki and Hari 1998;Guest et al 2002). Such results suggest the existence of highly tuned multisensory integration mechanisms for gathering consistent information about the environment, such as when hearing and feeling one's hand rubbing over textured surfaces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A neural link between feeling and hearing

Ellmore

Beauchamp

2012

Seeing and Perceiving

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hearing and feeling both rely upon the transduction of physical events into frequency-based neural codes, suggesting that the auditory system may be intimately related to the somatosensory system. Here, we provide evidence that the neural substrates for audition and somatosensation are anatomically linked. Using diffusion tensor imaging with both deterministic and probabilistic tractography to measure white matter connectivity, we show that there are extensive ipsilateral connections between the primary auditory cortex and the primary and secondary somatosensory regions in the human cerebral cortex. We further show that these crossmodal connections are exaggerated between the auditory and secondary somatosensory cortex in the lesioned hemisphere of a patient (SR) with acquired auditory-tactile synesthesia, in whom sounds alone produce bodily sensations. These results provide an anatomical basis for multisensory interactions between audition and somatosensation and suggest that cross-talk between these regions may explain why some sounds, such as nails screeching down a chalkboard or an audible mosquito, can induce feelings of touch, especially on the contralesional body surface of patient SR.

show abstract

Sound enhances touch perception

Cited by 74 publications

References 44 publications

Speech sounds alter facial skin sensation

Speech sounds alter facial skin sensation

Cross-sensory correspondences: A theoretical framework and their relevance to music.

A neural link between feeling and hearing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About