Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22706551›Full record

ArticleExperimental brain research2012

Audiovisual crossmodal correspondences and sound symbolism: a study using the implicit association test.

Cesare V Parise, Charles Spence

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental brain research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Crossmodal Pitch-Luminance Association in Tortoises.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2025
    Article
  12. Sorries seem to have the harder words.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Scope and Limits of Iconic Prosody: Head Angle PredictsOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Cesare V PariseDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. cesare.parise@tuebingen.mpg.de
Charles Spence

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing body of empirical research on the topic of multisensory perception now shows that even non-synaesthetic individuals experience crossmodal correspondences, that is, apparently arbitrary compatibility effects between stimuli in different sensory modalities. In the present study, we replicated a number of classic results from the literature on crossmodal correspondences and highlight the existence of two new crossmodal correspondences using a modified version of the implicit association test (IAT). Given that only a single stimulus was presented on each trial, these results rule out selective attention and multisensory integration as possible mechanisms underlying the reported compatibility effects on speeded performance. The crossmodal correspondences examined in the present study all gave rise to very similar effect sizes, and the compatibility effect had a very rapid onset, thus speaking to the automatic detection of crossmodal correspondences. These results are further discussed in terms of the advantages of the IAT over traditional techniques for assessing the strength and symmetry of various crossmodal correspondences.

Indexed as

AssociationAcoustic StimulationAdolescentAdultAttentionAuditory PerceptionFemaleHumansMalePhotic StimulationReaction TimeSymbolismVisual Perception

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.