Humans (Homo sapiens) but not baboons (Papio papio) demonstrate crossmodal pitch-luminance correspondence.
comparative cognition
crossmodal correspondence
iconicity
Journal
American journal of primatology
ISSN: 1098-2345
Titre abrégé: Am J Primatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8108949
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 Mar 2024
12 Mar 2024
Historique:
revised:
12
02
2024
received:
07
06
2023
accepted:
17
02
2024
medline:
13
3
2024
pubmed:
13
3
2024
entrez:
13
3
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Humans spontaneously and consistently map information coming from different sensory modalities. Surprisingly, the phylogenetic origin of such cross-modal correspondences has been under-investigated. A notable exception is the study of Ludwig et al. (Visuoauditory mappings between high luminance and high pitch are shared by chimpanzees [Pan troglodytes] and humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(51), 20661-20665) which reports that both humans and chimpanzees spontaneously map high-pitched sounds with bright objects and low-pitched sounds with dark objects. Our pre-registered study aimed to directly replicate this research on both humans and baboons (Papio papio), an old world monkey which is more phylogenetically distant from humans than chimpanzees. Following Ludwig et al. participants were presented with a visual classification task where they had to sort black and white square (low and high luminance), while background sounds (low or high-pitched tones) were playing. Whereas we replicated the finding that humans' performance on the visual task was affected by congruency between sound and luminance of the target, we did not find any of those effects on baboons' performance. These results question the presence of a shared cross-modal pitch-luminance mapping in other nonhuman primates.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e23613Subventions
Organisme : European Research Council
ID : GESTIMAGE-ERC-2016-STG
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors. American Journal of Primatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models using lme4 (arXiv:1406.5823). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.5823
Ben-Artzi, E., & Marks, L. E. (1995). Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(8), 1151-1162. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208371
Calvert, G. A., Spence, C., & Stein, B. E., (Eds). (2004). The handbook of multisensory processes. MIT Press.
Christensen, C. M. (1980). Effects of taste quality and intensity on oral perception of viscosity. Perception & Psychophysics, 28(4), 315-320. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204390
Christley, R. M. (2010). Power and error: Increased risk of false positive results in underpowered studies. The Open Epidemiology journal, 3(1), 16-19.
Coward, S. W., & Stevens, C. J. (2004). Extracting meaning from sound: Nomic mappings, everyday listening, and perceiving object size from frequency. The Psychological Record, 54, 349-364.
Cuskley, C., & Kirby, S. (2013). Synesthesia, cross-modality, and language evolution. In J. Simner & E. M. Hubbard (Eds.), In Oxford handbook of synesthesia (pp. 869-907). Oxford University Press.
Dolscheid, S., Çelik, S., Erkan, H., Küntay, A., & Majid, A. (2023). Children's associations between space and pitch are differentially shaped by language. Developmental science, 26(5), e13341. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.13341
Dolscheid, S., Shayan, S., Majid, A., & Casasanto, D. (2013). The thickness of musical pitch: Psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychological Science, 24(5), 613-621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457374
Ennaji, F.-E. (2022). Voice perception in non-human primates: A behavioral study of categorization of vocal and non-vocal sounds in Guinea baboon (Papio papio) [PhD Thesis, Aix-Marseille].
Ernst, M. O. (2007). Learning to integrate arbitrary signals from vision and touch. Journal of Vision, 7(5), 7.
Fagot, J., & Bonté, E. (2010). Automated testing of cognitive performance in monkeys: Use of a battery of computerized test systems by a troop of semi-free-ranging baboons (Papio papio. Behavior Research Methods, 42(2), 507-516. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.42.2.507
Fagot, J., Gullstrand, J., Kemp, C., Defilles, C., & Mekaouche, M. (2014). Effects of freely accessible computerized test systems on the spontaneous behaviors and stress level of Guinea baboons (Papio papio). American Journal of Primatology, 76(1), 56-64. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajp.22193
Gaver, W. W. (1993). What in the world do we hear?: An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0501_1
Gazes, R. P., Templer, V. L., & Lazareva, O. F. (2023). Thinking about order: A review of common processing of magnitude and learned orders in animals. Animal Cognition, 26(1), 299-317.
Getz, L. M., & Kubovy, M. (2018). Questioning the automaticity of audiovisual correspondences. Cognition, 175, 101-108.
Hanson-Vaux, G., Crisinel, A.-S., & Spence, C. (2013). Smelling shapes: Crossmodal correspondences between odors and shapes. Chemical Senses, 38(2), 161-166.
Hashiya, K., & Kojima, S. (2001). Acquisition of auditory-visual intermodal matching-to-sample by a chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes): Comparison with visual-visual intramodal matching. Animal Cognition, 4, 231-239.
Hubbard, T. L. (1996). Synesthesia-like mappings of lightness, pitch, and melodic interval. The American Journal of Psychology, 109, 219-238.
Knöferle, K., & Spence, C. (2012). Crossmodal correspondences between sounds and tastes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6), 992-1006. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-012-0321-z
Köhler, W. (1967). Gestalt psychology. Psychologische Forschung, 31(1), XVIII-XXX.
Korzeniowska, A. T., Root-Gutteridge, H., Simner, J., & Reby, D. (2019). Audio-visual crossmodal correspondences in domestic dogs (Canis familiaris). Biology Letters, 15(11), 20190564. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0564
Korzeniowska, A. T., Simner, J., Root-Gutteridge, H., & Reby, D. (2022). High-pitch sounds small for domestic dogs: Abstract crossmodal correspondences between auditory pitch and visual size. Royal Society Open Science, 9(2), 211647. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211647
Lewkowicz, D. J., & Turkewitz, G. (1980). Cross-modal equivalence in early infancy: Auditory-Visual intensity matching. Developmental Psychology, 16(6), 597-607.
Loconsole, M., Gasparini, A., & Regolin, L. (2022). Pitch-luminance crossmodal correspondence in the baby chick: An investigation on predisposed and learned processes. Vision, 6(2), 24.
Loconsole, M., Pasculli, M. S., & Regolin, L. (2021). Space-luminance crossmodal correspondences in domestic chicks. Vision Research, 188, 26-31.
Ludwig, V. U., Adachi, I., & Matsuzawa, T. (2011). Visuoauditory mappings between high luminance and high pitch are shared by chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) and humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(51), 20661-20665. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1112605108
Margiotoudi, K., Allritz, M., Bohn, M., & Pulvermüller, F. (2019). Sound symbolic congruency detection in humans but not in great apes. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 12705. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-49101-4
Margiotoudi, K., Bohn, M., Schwob, N., Taglialatela, J., Pulvermüller, F., Epping, A., Schweller, K., & Allritz, M. (2022). Bo-NO-bouba-kiki: Picture-word mapping but no spontaneous sound symbolic speech-shape mapping in a language trained bonobo. Proceedings. Biological sciences, 289(1968), 20211717. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.1717
Marks, L. E., Hammeal, R. J., Bornstein, M. H., & Smith, L. B. (1987). Perceiving similarity and comprehending metaphor. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 52(1), 1-102.
Martinez, L., & Matsuzawa, T. (2009). Visual and auditory conditional position discrimination in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). Behavioural Processes, 82(1), 90-94.
Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (1999). Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: Tests of the semantic coding hypothesis. Perception, 28(7), 903-923. https://doi.org/10.1068/p2866
Occelli, V., Spence, C., & Zampini, M. (2009). Compatibility effects between sound frequency and tactile elevation. Neuroreport, 20(8), 793-797.
Parise, C. V., Knorre, K., & Ernst, M. O. (2014). Natural auditory scene statistics shapes human spatial hearing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(16), 6104-6108. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1322705111
Parise, C. V., & Spence, C. (2009). ‘When birds of a feather flock together’: Synesthetic correspondences modulate audiovisual integration in non-synesthetes. PloS one, 4(5), e5664.
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(7), 854-861. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7225
Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia-a window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8(12), 3-34.
Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(4), 971-995. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7
Spence, C. (2019). On the relative nature of (pitch-based) crossmodal correspondences. Multisensory Research, 32(3), 235-265.
Spence, C., & Deroy, O. (2012). Crossmodal correspondences: Innate or learned. I-Perception, 3(5), 316-318. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0526ic
Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. CUP Archive. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pYw6AAAAIAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=Stochastic+Modelling+of+Elementary+Psychological+Processes+&ots=bajR9cCOSL&sig=-9aVxhd-Nnwy9RE44U6bVbY6qJM
Trimble, O. C. (1934). Localization of sound in the anterior-posterior and vertical dimensions of auditory space. British Journal of Psychology, 24(3), 320.
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(1), 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609354734
Walsh, V. (2003). A theory of magnitude: Common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(11), 483-488.