Sounds Move a Static Visual Object

Teramoto, Wataru; Hidaka, Souta; Sugita, Yoichi

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012255

Cited by 23 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our opinion, this initial pair of mechanisms should be statistical co-occurrence and shared properties (particularly connotations) since these two mechanisms are best supported by the available empirical evidence. There is compelling evidence that statistical co-occurrences can create crossmodal correspondences between dimensions (e.g., Baier, Kleinschmidt, & Müller, 2006;Ernst, 2007;Teramoto, Hidaka, & Sugita, 2010;Zangenehpour & Zatorre, 2010), though this still remains to be demonstrated for sound symbolic associations. There is also evidence of similar connotations creating crossmodal correspondences (e.g., L. P.…”

Section: Outstanding Issues and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sound symbolism refers to an association between phonemes and stimuli containing particular perceptual and/or semantic elements (e.g., objects of a certain size or shape). Some of the best-known examples include the mil/mal effect (Sapir, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 225-239, 1929) and the maluma/takete effect (Köhler, 1929). Interest in this topic has been on the rise within psychology, and studies have demonstrated that sound symbolic effects are relevant for many facets of cognition, including language, action, memory, and categorization. Sound symbolism also provides a mechanism by which words' forms can have nonarbitrary, iconic relationships with their meanings. Although various proposals have been put forth for how phonetic features (both acoustic and articulatory) come to be associated with stimuli, there is as yet no generally agreed-upon explanation. We review five proposals: statistical co-occurrence between phonetic features and associated stimuli in the environment, a shared property among phonetic features and stimuli; neural factors; species-general, evolved associations; and patterns extracted from language. We identify a number of outstanding questions that need to be addressed on this topic and suggest next steps for the field.

show abstract

Section: Outstanding Issues and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What is more, repeated exposure to the statistical co-occurrence of particular pairs of stimuli can also influence the coupling prior, even for pairs of stimulus dimensions that happen, initially, to be unrelated (e.g., Ernst, 2007; see also Teramoto, Hidaka, & Sugita, 2010). So, for example, Ernst (2007) demonstrated that exposing people to an arbitrary correspondence between the luminance of a visual object and its felt stiffness, a haptically ascertained stimulus property that is not correlated with luminance in the natural environment, can give rise to a change in the coupling prior.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review

Spence

2011

Atten Percept Psychophys

1,265

1,263

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In many everyday situations, our senses are bombarded by many different unisensory signals at any given time. To gain the most veridical, and least variable, estimate of environmental stimuli/properties, we need to combine the individual noisy unisensory perceptual estimates that refer to the same object, while keeping those estimates belonging to different objects or events separate. How, though, does the brain "know" which stimuli to combine? Traditionally, researchers interested in the crossmodal binding problem have focused on the roles that spatial and temporal factors play in modulating multisensory integration. However, crossmodal correspondences between various unisensory features (such as between auditory pitch and visual size) may provide yet another important means of constraining the crossmodal binding problem. A large body of research now shows that people exhibit consistent crossmodal correspondences between many stimulus features in different sensory modalities. For example, people consistently match high-pitched sounds with small, bright objects that are located high up in space. The literature reviewed here supports the view that crossmodal correspondences need to be considered alongside semantic and spatiotemporal congruency, among the key constraints that help our brains solve the crossmodal binding problem.

show abstract

“…Interestingly, SCVM was specifically observed for the previously exposed visual field [3] and eye [6]. These behavioral findings suggest that the associations are formed relatively early visual processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…Previous behavioral studies have demonstrated several characteristics of SCVM. Teramoto et al [3] tested 20 and 5…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Once this association has been formed, the sound sequence can be a driver for visual motion perception. This phenomenon is known as sound-contingent visual motion perception (SCVM; [3]). In these studies, two circles placed side-by-side were alternately presented in conjunction with the alternation of high-and low-frequency tones for several minutes during an exposure phase.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An ERP Study on Sound-contingent Visual Motion Perception

Teraoka

Watanabe

Teramoto

2017

IIS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies have demonstrated that a new association between auditory sequence and visual motion can be rapidly formed even in adults (sound-contingent visual motion perception: SCVM). The present study investigated the neural mechanisms underlying SCVM using event-related potential (ERP). During a 9-min exposure phase, two circles placed side-by-side were alternately and repeatedly presented to produce horizontal apparent motion. The onsets of the circles were synchronized with high-and low-frequency tones. ERPs were measured before and after the exposure phase in response to a pair of visual stimuli (S1 and S2) sequentially presented at a fixed location with a sound sequence that contained the same high and low frequency tones as presented during the exposure phase. After the exposure, the participants experienced SCVM. Significant ERP differences between the pre-and post-exposure were observed not only in the S2 presentation, but also in the S1 presentation. These findings suggest that SCVM processing starts in higher stages of the visual system as early as S1 presentation and then sends feedback signals to earlier stages to induce motion perception at S2 presentation.

show abstract

Sounds Move a Static Visual Object

Cited by 23 publications

References 19 publications

Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association

Five mechanisms of sound symbolic association

Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review

An ERP Study on Sound-contingent Visual Motion Perception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About