Synesthesia, some people perceive individual symbols, characters, numbers

[rhody]

zooby, and to all following this thread,

I think your question about what qualifies as a true synesthetic experience and what isn't (backed by hard science) begs a deeper question. See posts #74 and #102 for a list of types of known synesthesia. Post #74 appears more comprehensive, up to date and applies to the US.

1. What organization/agency/govt department, etc... is recognized as maintaining the current standards when it comes to recognizing what is and what is not classified as a type of synesthesia in the US ? From post#74, 61 as of March 9, 2009, with Mirror touch listed as ?? and Non-graphemic ord. pers. listed as ??, Ticker-tape?? Note: the last three just mentioned are included in the total, so, 58 official, with 3 listed as ??

2. If there is no officially recognized organization, then what organization (by country) is regarded as a leading authority on the subject, again from http://home.comcast.net/~sean.day/html/conferences.html" in Post #74.
excerpt:

The Board Members of the ASA are pleased to announce the Eighth National Meeting of the American Synesthesia Association, which will take place on October 1 - 3, 2010, at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenness

3. Since these Organizations are fairly new (by country), 8 years in the case of the US as noted above, are there Conferences held by all countries where research into the study synesthesia is being done, as in the US listed in the example above.

4. Is there movement or discussion for synesthesia to be recognized by a World Wide Organization, the National Institutes of Health (NIST) for example, or some other large organization ?

5. A mature world organization that recognized synesthasia would have to eventually agree on a committee consisting of knowledge experts who would further clarify, add new types, and weed out proposed types that were not "true synesthetic" types, then report disseminate as appropriate updated knowledge to all countries particpating, would they not ?

Rhody...

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Thanks Rhody, if you meant to point to this definition from your link in post 74. I'll just address that quickly. It is different to any definition I’ve seen before, but still don't think it helps to clarify things as suggested in your points.


“
Definition of "synesthesia"
Synesthesia is the general name for a related set (a "complex") of various cognitive states. Synesthesia may be divided into two general, somewhat overlapping types. The first, which I sometimes call "synesthesia proper", is as described above, in which stimuli to a sensory input will also trigger sensations in one or more other sensory modes. The second form of synesthesia, called "cognitive" or "category synesthesia", involves synesthetic additions to culture-bound cognitive categorizational systems. In simpler words, with this kind of synesthesia, certain sets of things which our individual cultures teach us to put together and categorize in some specific way – like letters, numbers, or people's names – also get some kind of sensory addition, such as a smell, color or flavor. The most common forms of cognitive synesthesia involve such things as colored written letter characters (graphemes), numbers, time units, and musical notes or keys. For example, the synesthete might see, about a foot or two before her, different colors for different spoken vowel and consonant sounds, or perceive numbers and letters, whether conceptualized or before her in print, as colored. A friend of mine, Deborah, always perceives the letter "a" as pink, "b" as blue, and "c" as green, no matter what color of ink they are printed with.”

The first type, according to this, of synaesthesia involves two or more senses. Does this include music, which may be culturally defined, or chords, too, for example, which could be cultural
http://www.newscientist.com/article...sal-music.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
(there is quite a bit about this, but this will do for now)?

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/recent/McDermottHauserMusicOriginsMP.pdf

It excludes number graphemes, for example, because they are learned and cultural, but it may not be about the grapheme as what it represents in a possibly heritable ‘number line’, (Deheane). http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=...23YdQATlvAx2HMjb_J8SRGrS0#v=onepage&q&f=false

“Synesthesia is additive; that is, it adds to the initial (primary) sensory perception, rather than replacing one perceptual mode for another. With my colored musical timbres, I both hear and "see" the sounds; the visual images don't replace the audial sensations. Both sensory perceptions may thus become affected and altered in the ways they function and integrate with other senses. Synesthesia is generally "one-way"; that is, for example, for a given synesthete, tastes may produce synesthetic sounds, but sounds will not produce synesthetic tastes. However, there have been a few rare cases of synesthetes who have had "bi-directional" synesthesia, in which, for example, music induces (synesthetic) colors and seeing colors induces (synesthetic) sounds – the correspondences, however, may not be the same in both directions!”

Fechner’s illusion, for example, http://dogfeathers.com/java/fechner.html
is additive.

Synaesthesia may be ‘bi-directional”, for example,
http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2934/1/2934.pdf
(edit: I had accidentally said "may not be "bi-directional")

“Regarding synesthesia “proper”, stimuli to one sense, such as smell, are involuntarily simultaneously perceived as if by one or more other senses, such as sight or/and hearing. For example, I myself have three types of synesthesiae: The sounds of musical instruments will sometimes make me see certain colors, about a yard in front of me, each color specific and consistent with the particular instrument playing; a piano, for example, produces a sky-blue cloud in front of me, and a tenor saxophone produces an image of electric purple neon lights. I also have had colored taste and smell sensations; for example, the taste of espresso coffee can make me see a pool of dark green oily fluid about two feet away from me.
The word "synesthesia" comes directly from the Greek (syn-) "union", and (aísthesis) "sensation", thus meaning something akin to "a union of the senses". "Synaesthesia" is the British English spelling of the word; in American English, it is often spelled "synesthesia", without the "a". The concept appears in other European languages, too: In Danish it is synæstesi . The Dutch word is synesthesie . In Finnish, synestesia. In French, it's synesthésie , one type of which is audition colorée , "colored hearing". In German, it's Synästhesie , and colored hearing is Farbenhören. In Italian, sinestetici ; in Polish, synestezja; in Russian, ( sinestezia ); in Swedish, it's synestesi.”

The name suggests the combination of two senses, yet the first paragraph includes both sensory and cultural combinations, and as it states this only applicable to one type.

“Synesthesia has definite neurological components and is apparently partially heritable, one component perhaps passed down genetically on X-chromosomes. The percentage of the general human population which has synesthesia varies with the type involved; estimates run from 4 in 100 for basic types of cognitive synesthesia (colored letters or musical pitches), to 1 in 3,000 for more common forms of synesthesia proper (colored musical sounds or colored taste sensations), to 1 in 15,000 or more for people with rare (such as one synesthete I know of who synesthetically tastes things she touches) or multiple forms of synesthesia proper. Perhaps more than half of all humans have a basic form of synesthesia in which they consider "higher" sounds to be "brighter" and "lower" sounds to be "darker".”

The “definite neurological components” may not include abnormal neuronal connections. (http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=...EZbn9oSbT62Dyw )

I think the mention of x-chromosomes may be based on the idea from old data that this occurs more often in women, which has since been discounted. Newer information involves a survey held at the Science Museum in London, which I’ll try to find. (Haven't yet, but is backed by Simner 2006.)

The last sentence refers to understanding metaphors, which I believe is a human capacity.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think your question about what qualifies as a true synesthetic experience and what isn't (backed by hard science) begs a deeper question.

That's not really what I was asking, though. I was more pondering the notion whether all synesthesia might not be essentially an extension of what we understand as "psychosomatic" phenomenon:

Maybe the question is whether there is a line, whether all syesthesia isn't caused by the same mechanism that causes psychosomatic reactions: the taste of properly spiced chicken psychosomatically inducing the feeling of points, and so forth.

 

[rhody]

That's not really what I was asking, though. I was more pondering the notion whether all synesthesia might not be essentially an extension of what we understand as "psychosomatic" phenomenon:

Zooby,

You want to know "whether all synesthesia might not be essentially an extension of what we understand as "psychosomatic" phenomenon". I think there isn't anyone qualified on this forum to give you an expert opinion. We can bat it back and forth like a pinball, but without one, in the end all we are left with is our collective opinion, with which we may or may not collectively agree on, and may be wrong.

If there is someone following this who can give us an expert answer, please speak up and state your credentials while doing so. That's the most rational approach I can think of.

My personal belief is that for the mirror touch form of synesthesia may be due all or in part to a psychosomatic phenomenon, because it generates an emotional response (in most cases). Are you sure you meant to say all synesthesia and not just the mirror touch type ? The most common form, http://home.comcast.net/~sean.day/html/types.htm" I believe would not qualify as a psychosomatic phenomenon, at least not for me.

Rhody...

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I believe I can clear this up: synesthesia is by definition a neurological phenomenon, not a psychological one. Psychosomatic disorders, by contrast, have their basis in psychology which then makes itself known through physiology. Whether drugs, natural "wiring", or TCMS, synesthesia is based in the brain and its physical workings. To be synesthesia something could not be purely psychosomatic.

 

[rhody]

Fechner’s illusion, for example, http://dogfeathers.com/java/fechner.html
is additive.

Fuzzyfelt,

I needed to think a little less so I tried the Fechner color illusion test #1.

With the scale at 1/3 staring at the white space between the second and third rows, only the third row took on a yellow/green tinge. When I increased the speed to 1/2 the second row became grayish blue and the third row more vivid yellow. When setting the speed to 2/3, the second and forth rows became a grayish blue. When I went full speed after awhile by looking straight, left, right, up, down I could sense that the speed of movement varied, speeding, up then slowing down again, I attribute this to involuntary eye tracking but can't be sure.

Anyone else care to try this or perhaps test #2 and report what they experienced.
I think this would be an interesting test to try again after having a few shots of Patron some evening, I may just do that for comparison. I notice that when I do drink agave based tequila, I feel more in the moment, more connected, which if I am not mistaken is more associated with functions the prefer the right side of the brain. I don't want this thread to diverge along that thought, I was merely adding a personal observation.

Rhody...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby,

You want to know "whether all synesthesia might not be essentially an extension of what we understand as "psychosomatic" phenomenon". I think there isn't anyone qualified on this forum to give you an expert opinion. We can bat it back and forth like a pinball, but without one, in the end all we are left with is our collective opinion, with which we may or may not collectively agree on, and may be wrong.

I wasn't raising it as a question that can be settled here, I am saying it is something that all synesthesia researchers should have to consider in light of "mirror touch" synesthesia. It's not something that could be settled by anyone at this point.

My personal belief is that for the mirror touch form of synesthesia may be due all or in part to a psychosomatic phenomenon, because it generates an emotional response (in most cases). Are you sure you meant to say all synesthesia and not just the mirror touch type ? The most common form, http://home.comcast.net/~sean.day/html/types.htm" I believe would not qualify as a psychosomatic phenomenon, at least not for me.

What they share is concept -> sensation. This is conceivably true of all the synesthesias, that the concept of the original and primary sensation is what is triggering the secondary one. This isn't something I would have suspected until it was pointed out about grapheme -> color synesthesia. Any "G", upper or lower case, in any font at all, will produce the color. It is the concept of the grapheme "G", therefore, that triggers the activation of the color area of the brain.

Psychosomatic reactions are the same concept ->sensation reaction.

The same may be the case in all other forms, i.e. that it wasn't directly the taste of food that evoked the sensation of touch in MW, but the immediate concept of that taste that was created along with the taste. This is something that has to be looked into which would be easy not to suspect were it not for the grapheme (concept) -> color connection, and the mirror touch phenomenon.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I believe I can clear this up: synesthesia is by definition a neurological phenomenon, not a psychological one. Psychosomatic disorders, by contrast, have their basis in psychology which then makes itself known through physiology. Whether drugs, natural "wiring", or TCMS, synesthesia is based in the brain and its physical workings. To be synesthesia something could not be purely psychosomatic.

Anything that happens in your mind is automatically some form of neurological event: it represents neurons firing, at least. There now exist the fields of neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry, which are long overdue recognitions of this fact.

If you talk to people with chronic seizures they'll tell you that the single most common trigger for their seizures is emotional stress. You might find the same claim made by migraine sufferers. There is the danger of someone misinterpreting that to mean these ailments are psychosomatic. In fact, though, the only reason it's possible for them to be psychogenically induced is because the person's neurons are not normal, they are predisposed to fire paroxysmally at a much lower threshold of stimulation.

If psychosomatic reactions are now relegated to "psychology" it is only because no one has sufficiently explored the neurological correlates. It is not possible to feel a pain in your body somewhere without a pain center in your brain becoming active, just as it is not possible to see a color without a color area becoming active. Both can happen without a normal outside stimulus but the subjective experience is just as vivid. A person "prone" to psychosomatic pains might have exactly the same neurological situation as a synesthete, be it unpruned synapses or lack of normal inhibitory functions in a certain "circuit".

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Fuzzyfelt,

I needed to think a little less so I tried the Fechner color illusion test #1.

With the scale at 1/3 staring at the white space between the second and third rows, only the third row took on a yellow/green tinge. When I increased the speed to 1/2 the second row became grayish blue and the third row more vivid yellow. When setting the speed to 2/3, the second and forth rows became a grayish blue. When I went full speed after awhile by looking straight, left, right, up, down I could sense that the speed of movement varied, speeding, up then slowing down again, I attribute this to involuntary eye tracking but can't be sure.

Anyone else care to try this or perhaps test #2 and report what they experienced.
I think this would be an interesting test to try again after having a few shots of Patron some evening, I may just do that for comparison. I notice that when I do drink agave based tequila, I feel more in the moment, more connected, which if I am not mistaken is more associated with functions the prefer the right side of the brain. I don't want this thread to diverge along that thought, I was merely adding a personal observation.

Rhody...

!

It was really meant as an example of how additional percepts are not unique to synaesthesia, so that addition alone doesn’t constitute a definition, but I like that idea- lick, sip, suck, evoke Fechner’s Colour.

Sans tequila, the second illusion at about half way along gives electric blue and definite yellow, and when going much faster becomes a deep pink tartan with maybe olive green there. I'm sure previously I've seen stripes of different colours. The first illusion has the same colours at a fast pace.

I’ve edited my previous post, post number 142, correcting links and mistakes and adding colour. I hope it is more helpful now.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Anything that happens in your mind is automatically some form of neurological event: it represents neurons firing, at least. There now exist the fields of neuropsychology and neuropsychiatry, which are long overdue recognitions of this fact.

If you talk to people with chronic seizures they'll tell you that the single most common trigger for their seizures is emotional stress. You might find the same claim made by migraine sufferers. There is the danger of someone misinterpreting that to mean these ailments are psychosomatic. In fact, though, the only reason it's possible for them to be psychogenically induced is because the person's neurons are not normal, they are predisposed to fire paroxysmally at a much lower threshold of stimulation.

If psychosomatic reactions are now relegated to "psychology" it is only because no one has sufficiently explored the neurological correlates. It is not possible to feel a pain in your body somewhere without a pain center in your brain becoming active, just as it is not possible to see a color without a color area becoming active. Both can happen without a normal outside stimulus but the subjective experience is just as vivid. A person "prone" to psychosomatic pains might have exactly the same neurological situation as a synesthete, be it unpruned synapses or lack of normal inhibitory functions in a certain "circuit".

Stress can trigger premature birth, but I would not call birthing a psychosomatic process. This is an issue of needing new terminology and not a disagreement with some of your conclusions.

 

[rhody]

Ice, Zooby,

Can I bat the birdie now ? lol. Like I said previously, do either of you know of an agency/organization US or world based that can provide guidance and definition criteria to be included as a form of synesthesia ?

Rhody...

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Ice, Zooby,

Can I bat the birdie now ? lol. Like I said previously, do either of you know of an agency/organization US or world based that can provide guidance and definition criteria to be included as a form of synesthesia ?

Rhody...

Yes, the DSMIV, and EU guidelines, but that would make me "technically" right, but I would be missing Zooby's point about a deeper understanding of neurophysiology and psychology. So, the APA and the WHO have diagnostic criteria that are accepted, but their purpose is not sufficient for the direction this discussion has taken.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Ice, Zooby,

Can I bat the birdie now ? lol. Like I said previously, do either of you know of an agency/organization US or world based that can provide guidance and definition criteria to be included as a form of synesthesia ?

Rhody...

Not that I know of. Cytowic doesn't cite any authority for number forms having been upgraded to synesthesia. He may have worked that out with Eagleman, and declared it to be so, there being no more recognized authority than him (Cytowic).

Since synesthesia is not considered to be a pathological condition requiring treatment, I suspect there's probably no urgency about consensus on criteria. Also, it's only been seriously researched for a pretty short time so I'd suppose all the researchers want to keep things open ended until more is known.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It's the authoritative text used by all psychiatrists for classifying mental illnesses. The thing is, it's in constant flux: important changes in every new edition. If there were ever such a guide created for synesthesia I am sure the same will be true: new research, better logic will keep it constantly changing.

Given the experience of Jim McNamara having been brought to a shrink by his parents to cure his number form, I hope synesthesia gets included in the DSM to alert shrinks it's not a mental illness.

 

[rhody]

Yes, the DSMIV, and EU guidelines, but that would make me "technically" right, but I would be missing Zooby's point about a deeper understanding of neurophysiology and psychology. So, the APA and the WHO have diagnostic criteria that are accepted, but their purpose is not sufficient for the direction this discussion has taken.

Thanks Ice, FYI Zooby,

I have been looking at the history of this thread and in more than a few instances I have seen data that is not consistent, or contradicts what another source has said. For instance, the contention by the Israeli researcher that synesthesia does not necessarily have a genetic component for example: Post #117, see quote:

Our study shows that hypnosis can induce synesthetic experiences in people, suggesting that extra brain connections are not needed to experience cross-sensory interactions and that it is a change in inhibitory processes - more cross talk within the brain - that causes these experiences

I for one would like to see a summary of consistent knowledge/video's/links that were posted so that folks new to this subject could get "the essense" of synesthesia.

Second, to describe problems with existing knowledge, to flesh out clearly what those differences are. Maybe all this could be summarized in a new thread at some point in the future.

I am not saying debate is bad, it is good, the truth is better served that way. Synesthesia is complex to say the least (what an understatement that is !), and trying to imagine someone sorting fact from fiction who is new to the subject is a daunting task.

Rhody...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Stress can trigger premature birth, but I would not call birthing a psychosomatic process. This is an issue of needing new terminology and not a disagreement with some of your conclusions.

I am sure a distinction would be made between birthing and a premature birth caused by stress. The latter might be termed a psychosomatic reaction, but I don't know.

More clear cut are psychosomatic pregnancies. I can't remember the official term, but I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The physical manifestations of pregnancy are remarkable and seem to be caused by the woman's desire to be pregnant. But I don't know much more than that. Haven't read much about it.

 

[rhody]

Zooby,

I don't know if you're familiar with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It's the authoritative text used by all psychiatrists for classifying mental illnesses. The thing is, it's in constant flux: important changes in every new edition. If there were ever such a guide created for synesthesia I am sure the same will be true: new research, better logic will keep it constantly changing.

Funny you mention the DSM IV as it now is called, my daughter who is graduating from college had to write a paper (that I reviewed for syntax/punctuation/grammar errors) on the History of DSM. Even in its current form IMHO, there is much that could be done to make it more consistent/concise, given that it is the "Bible" when it comes to dealing with psychological issues involving real people with HMO's and Insurance providers. Let's just say at the end of the day I was not overly impressed given that the DSM has been around since 1952 making it almost 60 years old. Some treatable psychological conditions fall through the cracks because they don't have an official category and code to go with it, making those who suffer inelligible for insurance benerfits to address it.

Rhody...

 

[fuzzyfelt]

For instance, the contention by the Israeli researcher that synesthesia does not necessarily have a genetic component for example: Post #117, see quote:

Do you mean Cohen Kadosh, at UCL?
http://www.icn.ucl.ac.uk/Research-Groups/Visual-Cognition-Group/group-members/MemberDetails.php?Title=Dr&FirstName=Roi&LastName=Cohen%20Kadosh

 

[zoobyshoe]

Thanks Ice, FYI Zooby,

I have been looking at the history of this thread and in more than a few instances I have seen data that is not consistent, or contradicts what another source has said. For instance, the contention by the Israeli researcher that synesthesia does not necessarily have a genetic component for example: Post #117, see quote:I for one would like to see a summary of consistent knowledge/video's/links that were posted so that folks new to this subject could get "the essense" of synesthesia.

Second, to describe problems with existing knowledge, to flesh out clearly what those differences are. Maybe all this could be summarized in a new thread at some point in the future.

I am not saying debate is bad, it is good, the truth is better served that way. Synesthesia is complex to say the least (what an understatement that is !), and trying to imagine someone sorting fact from fiction who is new to the subject is a daunting task.

Rhody...

Contradictory studies are par for the course. It can take years for a given viewpoint to become standard, and even then it's always open to revision. I don't believe the accepted facts about synesthesia are going to hold still for a long time.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

Well, time will tell, and isn't that a big part of the joys of studying neurology? So much to learn, and a life that is only so long cannot be bored with such a challenge. We must be at least as flexible in our evolving understanding as psychology and neurology merge over the next few decades, as the brain itself is plastic.

 

[rhody]

For instance, the contention by the Israeli researcher that synesthesia does not necessarily have a genetic component for example: Post #117, see quote:

Do you mean Cohen Kadosh, at UCL?
http://www.icn.ucl.ac.uk/Research-Groups/Visual-Cognition-Group/group-members/MemberDetails.php?Title=Dr&FirstName=Roi&LastName=Cohen%20Kadosh

The research project was funded by a Marie Curie Intra-European Fellowship; the Royal Society; Israel Science Foundation; Junta de Andalucía and the Spanish Ministry of Education and Science, and the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation and Fundación Séneca.

Fuzzyfelt,

That may be true, however I believe the interview was conducted in Israel because the subject spoke Hebrew. I naturally assumed the leader of the study was an Israeli, which may in fact not be true. That's not the point, whether an Israeli or a Brit, the study proposed a conflicting view. You can see from the quote above it was a collaborative effort involving more than one country.

Rhody...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Zooby,


Funny you mention the DSM IV as it now is called, my daughter who is graduating from college had to write a paper (that I reviewed for syntax/punctuation/grammar errors) on the History of DSM. Even in its current form IMHO, there is much that could be done to make it more consistent/concise, given that it is the "Bible" when it comes to dealing with psychological issues involving real people with HMO's and Insurance providers. Let's just say at the end of the day I was not overly impressed given that the DSM has been around since 1952 making it almost 60 years old. Some treatable psychological conditions fall through the cracks because they don't have an official category and code to go with it, making those who suffer inelligible for insurance benerfits to address it.

Rhody...

It has certain uses but it's mostly a witch doctors manual of terminology to sound like you know what you're talking about so you can proceed to prescribe medication by trial and error.

"Schizophrenia", for example, doesn't exactly exist. I say that because there is no physiological test for it, no remotely agreed upon cause, and all the symptoms are subject to the qualification: atypical. If I hear someone has a diagnosis of schizophrenia the most specific thing that tells me is there's a 90% chance they are hearing voices. You're schizophrenic if a shrink believes he can plausibly shoehorn you into that diagnosis a bit better than another diagnosis.

I would like to know how many synesthetes there are out there with a diagnosis of "Schizophrenia, atypical."

Anyway, that's cool your daughter happened to write that paper. I'd bet you know more about the history of the DSM than most psychiatrists now.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, time will tell, and isn't that a big part of the joys of studying neurology? So much to learn, and a life that is only so long cannot be bored with such a challenge. We must be at least as flexible in our evolving understanding as psychology and neurology merge over the next few decades, as the brain itself is plastic.

I am always amazed at how much is already known. What I find cool about synesthesia is that it makes you aware of the strange fact that our senses are not written in stone: we could have evolved "seeing" by echolocation and "hearing" with our eyes, or recognizing the "feel" of objects by a taste reaction. The only restriction on the specific "qualia" of any sense is that it has to be useful, practical.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

I am always amazed at how much is already known. What I find cool about synesthesia is that it makes you aware of the strange fact that our senses are not written in stone: we could have evolved "seeing" by echolocation and "hearing" with our eyes, or recognizing the "feel" of objects by a taste reaction. The only restriction on the specific "qualia" of any sense is that it has to be useful, practical.

If echolocation is ever on offer, I want it

 

[rhody]

I am always amazed at how much is already known. What I find cool about synesthesia is that it makes you aware of the strange fact that our senses are not written in stone: we could have evolved "seeing" by echolocation and "hearing" with our eyes, or recognizing the "feel" of objects by a taste reaction. The only restriction on the specific "qualia" of any sense is that it has to be useful, practical.

Zooby,

Yeah, even now it still gives me chills, if you are open to how the brain evolved its amazing capabilities that is. Synesthesia would serve as great background to a Will Smith blockbuster movie, with a plotline similar to the the one used in: "Seven Pounds". A really great movie IMHO.

Rhody...

 

[rhody]

If echolocation is ever on offer, I want it

Yeah, then we can start calling you Batman instead of Ice Ice baby... hehe

Rhody...

P.S. Is it just me or is this thread just getting a weeee bit off track.

P. P. S. I promise to self medicate, returning to the subject at hand.

 

[rhody]

OK, back to topic, this time: bi-directional synesthesia:

I found this from Fuzzyfelt's post #142 above from:

http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2934/1/2934.pdf"

From pages: 1, 2

Moreover, the two ERP studies that did examine synesthesia yielded contradicting results. Sagiv et al. (2003) showed an early negative modulation of the ERP component between 150 and 200 msec (i.e., N170), whereas Schiltz et al. (1999) found a difference in the P300 component, which reflects cognitive processes at a postperceptual stage.

The conflicting results from fMRI and behavioral studies led some researchers to suggest that synesthetes can be divided into at least two distinct groups:

(1) those with perceptually mediated synesthesia expressed in the abnormal activation of visual areas.
(2) those with semantically mediated synesthesia expressed in the abnormal activation of the parietal lobes.

Some termed the former group projectors and the latter group associators (Dixon, Smilek, & Merikle, 2004); or lower synesthetes and higher synesthetes, respectively (Ramachandran
& Hubbard, 2001b).

Are higher (group projectors) and lower (group associators) classifications new to everyone here, or are they part of your understanding ?

Rhody...

P.S. I haven't read/reread this 10 page paper it is very detailed will do so this evening and report more detail later.

 

[IcedEcliptic]

OK, back to topic, this time: bi-directional synesthesia:

I found this from Fuzzyfelt's post #142 above from:

http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2934/1/2934.pdf"

From pages: 1, 2


Are higher (group projectors) and lower (group associators) classifications new to everyone here, or are they part of your understanding ?

Rhody...

P.S. I haven't read/reread this 10 page paper it is very detailed will do so this evening and report more detail later.

I still have to read that, but it looks good. I am looking forward to chatting about it.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I found this from Fuzzyfelt's post #142 above from...




Are higher (group projectors) and lower (group associators) classifications new to everyone here, or are they part of your understanding ?

I've used the terms before, for example, post number 87, and have been alluding to them as well, assuming a familiarity with the terms here. Ramachandran explains them.

(I linked the paper because it is an example, along with others in post #142, of the weakness of the definition of synaesthesia given.)

 

[fuzzyfelt]

I had also mentioned in post #142 more recent studies discrediting the x-chromosome idea. I've found what I was hoping to link to about that, but am no longer able to edit. As it is, it may be more relevant linked here instead anyway.

"A Whole-Genome Scan and Fine-Mapping Linkage Study
of Auditory-Visual Synesthesia Reveals Evidence
of Linkage to Chromosomes 2q24, 5q33, 6p12, and 12p12"

http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2009_Asher_etal_Synaesthesia_Linkage_Study_AJHG.pdf

 

[rhody]

Particularly regarding grapheme-colour synaesthesia, and looking at VBM, MEG, fMRI and EEG data, a lot of interest lies in the fusiform gyrus amongst other areas, for example-

V4/V8 is mentioned by Nunn et al., 2002
http://www.psych.ndsu.nodak.edu/mcco...nesthesia).pdf

Weiss and Fink, 2008 mention the fusiform gyrus and parietal cortex.
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/.../full/awn304v3


In Hubbard, Arman, Ramachandran & Boynton, 2005 "Neurocognitive Mechanisms of Synesthesia" there is also the prediction that-

In lower synesthetes, we suggest that crossactivation may occur between adjacent regions of the fusiform gyrus involved in letter recognition and color processing, whereas higher synesthesia may arise from crossactivation in the parietal cortex, particularly in the region of the angular gyrus, the ventral intraparietal area, and the lateral intraparietal area (Hubbard et al., 2005b).
http://www.unicog.org/publications/H...onReview05.pdf

Fuzzyfelt,

I reproduced your post #87 and you are correct, the definitions are there, though expressed slightly different, my mistake and apologies, that being said I wanted to read the paper you provided in post #142, that I reproduced above, and the one in (discrediting the x-chromosome idea) you provided in your post #169 above.

When I first saw that paper awhile ago, I knew to do it justice I would have to read it, maybe a couple of times, marking it up as I went to understand it and not miss anything.

I will try to summarize it http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2934/1/2934.pdf" , distill the essence of it, without jumping to the summary and parroting words back to everybody. I am in the process of doing that now, it may take a bit of time, but I think the results in the end will be worth it. More later...

Rhody...

 

[zoobyshoe]

P.S. Is it just me or is this thread just getting a weeee bit off track.

I hope you don't think so because my last post was the very kernel of what interests me about synesthesia. The exact personal experience we have in response to, say, taste, is essentially arbitrary and could have evolved to be anyone of a number of other experiences. The only criteria for a particular experience to be selected would be that it be usable: able to help us distinguish one thing in our world from another. Beyond that, hot could be felt as cold, and cold as hot, it doesn't matter so long as the sensation prompts an appropriate response.

Before a person learns anything about neurology they suppose that our perception of the world is essentially "real" and inevitable, that we are perceiving exactly what's out there and that there is no other possible way for things to look, sound, feel, etc. The phenomenon of synesthesia clues us into the fact that isn't so. The stimuli are "real" and come from outside, but there is probably no limit to how a brain could evolve to work with a given stimulus to create extrordinary variations of the "qualia" the individual experiences. If sound stimulus can be shunted to vision neurons and produce a consistent visual reaction, you realize that the dedicated vision neurons could have evolved to produce a very different experience from the one we have in the first place.

There's nothing "true" about the redness of a rose, or about it's shape. In another sensory evolutionary path the all important "truth" about a rose might be it's heat signature and the way that brain presents that heat signature to consciousness might be amazingly vivid and interesting and practical (nothing like you see in "night vision" goggles).

It also teaches something also about the phenomenon of hallucination. If a stimulus can be shunted to a part of the brain not dedicated to processing that stimulus, to what extent can the brain be erroneously stimulated from within, in the complete absence of authetic outside stimuli, to produce completely vivid seeming experiences? The answer, found in other literature, is that there seems to be no cap on this: hallucinations can run the gamut from extemely simple "elementary" sensations all the way up to full blown full sensory experiences. Synesthesia gives us part of the necessary insight into the mechanism that makes such a strange experience as "hearing voices", or having a Lilliputian tribe of Indians assemble around you during a fever, possible.

There's plenty more to learn about synesthesia but it all strikes me as not particularly urgent refinement. The big lesson is already there, intact, in the first 152 pages of The Man Who Tasted Shapes, and, in those pages, is basically contained in Michael Watson's descriptions of what he perceives. Once you understand his experiences are vivid, consistent, useful to him, and are caused by stimulus to one brain area being also shunted somehow to another, you know the essential lesson of synesthesia.

I had a modicum of confidence that, since you bothered to post the thread asking how hot could be cold and cold could be hot, that you would find The Man Who Tasted Shapes interesting. I had no idea you would become so fascinated by synesthesia.

That's great, but Synesthesia is like a very pretty tourist resort town that is alluring to first time visitors to the country of Neurology. Every one loves the town of Synesthesia, and many visit and leave thinking they have seen the country of Neurology and that they like the country of Neurology. You, in fact, seem to be so taken with the town of Synesthesia that I'm afraid you might be thinking of moving there to live.

As someone who has visited many more of Neurology's big cities and been through some other of it's smaller towns, I have to recommend you not settle there until you've done much more traveling.

 

[fuzzyfelt]

Fuzzyfelt,

I reproduced your post #87 and you are correct, the definitions are there, though expressed slightly different, my mistake and apologies, that being said I wanted to read the paper you provided in post #142, that I reproduced above, and the one in (discrediting the x-chromosome idea) you provided in your post #169 above.

When I first saw that paper awhile ago, I knew to do it justice I would have to read it, maybe a couple of times, marking it up as I went to understand it and not miss anything.

I will try to summarize it http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/2934/1/2934.pdf" , distill the essence of it, without jumping to the summary and parroting words back to everybody. I am in the process of doing that now, it may take a bit of time, but I think the results in the end will be worth it. More later...

Rhody...

No matter, Rhody, I doubt I’ve explained myself very well. I hope it makes more sense when I mention “versions” of cross-modality.

I’ll link some abstracts to papers related to the one you are reading, the first is cited in that paper.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17853248
http://www.springerlink.com/content/406581u3507un270/

 

[fuzzyfelt]

There could be many reasons, or combinations of reasons, to find this topic interesting and promising, and some may find other reasons to judge the merits of this topic aside from the degree of neurological disorder entailed. It could, in fact, be the lack of disorder that is most interesting to some.

However, some may find interest concerning relations to neural disorders and processes. For example, the last paper linked to investigates links between synaesthesia and autism, autistic savants, dyslexia, various expressions of epilepsy and febrile seizures, and different effects upon neuronal pathways. Linking it again-
"A Whole-Genome Scan and Fine-Mapping Linkage Study
of Auditory-Visual Synesthesia Reveals Evidence
of Linkage to Chromosomes 2q24, 5q33, 6p12, and 12p12"
http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/...Study_AJHG.pdf
I should mention that Eagleman and colleagues have included a response to that paper in the linked paper following, suggesting that a possibility of “incomplete prenetrance” could mean that the conclusion reached about the x-chromosome is not necessarily the case- http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...ZdZmjp&sig=AHIEtbSlX_6FOK3TUgTRXDQG-s0LVOlAOw
And from this second paper Eagleman and colleagues state, “Using synesthesia as a model for abnormal crosstalk, we hope to uncover the functional and molecular mechanisms of neural crosstalk; a discovery that could potentially improve our ability to characterize and treat developmental disorders such as schizophrenia and autism.”

Some may find the topic a window on neurological informational processes. Again, for example, the above linked paper from Eagleman and colleagues states, “Many examples illustrate the heavy crosstalk in the normal brain, including cross-sensory illusions (Calvert et al., 1997; D.M. Eagleman, 2001; Macaluso, Frith, & Driver, 2000; McGurk & MacDonald, 1976), anatomical tracing (Falchier, Clavagnier, Barone, & Kennedy, 2002; Fu et al., 2003; Rockland & Ojima, 2003; Schroeder & Foxe, 2002), and sensory substitution experiments (Lenay, 2003). The difference between the synesthetic and non–synesthetic brain therefore appears to be not whether there is crosstalk, but rather how much there is.”

Itself worthy of interest alone, such interest could also contribute to fields such as aesthetics, linguistics, etc., and importantly, too, relationships between these, historically exemplified by Kant’s theory of aesthetics which attempted to explain the relationships between art, scientific knowledge, morality and religion. More recently, a specific example of interest to this field would be whether non-perceptual work may be considered art. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/ . Again, concerning many fields, and aesthetics as well, is creativity. As the above linked paper also states, “We do not yet know, although we speculate that the gene could be an attractive candidate for the ability of highly creative people to derive connections between seemingly unrelated concepts (Cytowic & Eagleman, 2009).

Experience limited to mostly anecdotal books, and in this case, ones exploring more rare conditions, may stifle appreciation and cognisance of potential. I haven’t read the book recommended here, but feel, however, through the use of a somewhat updated copy, an amount of background was extracted and shared, providing a helpful introduction for this thread.

 

[rhody]

Fuzzyfelt,

I am including a https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2640607&highlight=Casanova#post2640607" to the Einstein Autism thread. The point Dr Casanova is making is that there are brain structure anomalies: quote from the post linked above:

The brain strands or minicolumns of autism patients have more cells, but they are narrower and more densely packed -- which can limit the brain's ability to send messages.

Dr. Casanova says that's because "there's not enough juice to actually power very long connections in the brain."

Examining tissues from a normal brain and the brain of an autistic person, Dr. Casanova explains the differences. "The more bluish staining actually means more cells present," he says.

More cells and smaller cells, making up tiny brain strands, or minicolumns. These minicolums take in information, process it and respond to it.

Processing is in fact delayed in people with autism, contrasting to what has been observed through experiment so far with synesthesia, where co-activation of areas of the brain having to do with sensation of color, taste, touch, etc... are more in play. Needless to say, research into synesthesia and autism has focused on the what and where and at what times in brain different brain areas this occurs. The investigation to the underlying genetic mechanisms leading to the expression of synesthesia and autism are being done, and from what I read, it appears that progress is being made.

P.S.

In regards to my post #170 I have read the bi-directional synesthesia paper three times now (highlighting as I go), and have assembled a number of links on the capability and limitation of fMRI/EEG machines used to measure it. I will be posting that information soon. This process has been quite an interesting learning experience.

Rhody...

 

[rhody]

I had a PM the other day from someone who joined PF just to tell me he found the synesthesia thread interesting.
He gave permission to post his experience so here it is:

I have mirror touch synesthesia. I have several other kinds as well (letter/number-color-gender; music/color). I set up a Google alert so I can read any articles about it, which is why I found the Physics Forum posts. Perhaps because you are one of the more frequent commenters, I thought I'd write to you. Feel free to post or summarize anything below that you find interesting. I'm not much in the mood to post anything myself.

Mirror touch doesn't just involve pain; it can involve any touch. While I've always had it, I didn't believe in it until it was scientifically proven (which is apparently not like other mirror touch synesthetes' experiences--they seemed to be surprised that not everyone had mirror touch, which I find difficult to believe).

A friend who knew I had other kinds of synesthesia (and wishes he did as well) sent me this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8248589.stm"

I read these lines: "Another variant recently come to light is called mirror touch synaesthesia. This causes people to experience sensations of touch when they see other people being touched.
"So if I sat in front of you and scratched my nose, you would feel a scratch on your nose," explains Dr Simner. Psychologists have linked this to a greater sense of empathy." and freaked out for about a month and a half. I even wrote to Jamie Ward, one of the main researchers, who kindly responded. I've also read reports of the research that's been done so far.

I can feel it when you touch yourself. My friend and I explored some of the limits of this, and it was like having my life turn into a science fiction novel, in part because I apparently have spent much of my life suppressing the feelings, but when I tuned into them, they went totally out of whack. For example, normally I apparently don't look at people directly too often, but when I was experimenting with my friend, I made myself look. I'd say that phase of my life lasted for about 6 weeks, and now I'm back to not looking and suppressing it as much as possible.

These are some of the things I feel: you scratch your nose, rub your face, touch yourself anywhere, I can feel it. You eat, and I feel it (so I tend to eat away from others and when I have to sit at a table with others who are eating, I don't look at them). You exercise, and I feel it. I can't watch ballet when dancers go en pointe. Sometimes I feel pain, yes, but I can watch action/adventure movies, perhaps because I know they aren't real. In fact, I have two favorite scenes in the Bourne movies--one where's he running down the beach, because I can feel it, and another where he's running over the rooftops. If you think about it, he really is running down the beach--it isn't like a stylized fight scene. I didn't consciously realize that was why I enjoyed those scenes so much until after I read about mirror touch. I always used to describe it as "having a low suspense threshold" for suspenseful or horror movies instead of feeling people's pain.

I also experimented with watching porn, and I'll just say that it sometimes worked quite well.

My daughter and one of my sons have the color/number and color/letter forms, but none of them have mirror touch. In thinking back, though, I'm fairly certain that my father did.

Anyway, I thought you might find this interesting (based on your posts).

Thanks for your contribution: (Anonymous PF poster)

Rhody...