Articlei-Perception2013
Fast lemons and sour boulders: Testing crossmodal correspondences using an internet-based testing methodology.
Article in i-Perception, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond expectations: nocebo suggestion affects cognitive performance in older adults.Psychological research · 2026Trial
- Summation of visual attributes in auditory-visual crossmodal correspondences.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2017Trial
- Visual communication via the design of food and beverage packaging.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2022Review
- Crossmodal Associations with Olfactory, Auditory, and Tactile Stimuli in Children and Adults.i-Perception · 2021Article
- Olfactory Stimulation Modulates Visual Perception Without Training.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021Article
- Multisensory inclusive design with sensory substitution.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2020Review
- Assessing the Influence of Visual-Taste Congruency on Perceived Sweetness and Product Liking in Immersive VR.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- I know that "Kiki" is angular: The metacognition underlying sound-shape correspondences.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2019Article
- Article
- Cross-cultural differences in crossmodal correspondences between basic tastes and visual features.Frontiers in psychology · 2014Article
- Is Red Heavier Than Yellow Even for Blind?i-PerceptionArticle
- Article
- Crossmodal correspondences between basic tastes and visual design features: A narrative historical review.i-PerceptionArticle
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to a popular family of hypotheses, crossmodal matches between distinct features hold because they correspond to the same polarity on several conceptual dimensions (such as active-passive, good-bad, etc.) that can be identified using the semantic differential technique. The main problem here resides in turning this hypothesis into testable empirical predictions. In the present study, we outline a series of plausible consequences of the hypothesis and test a variety of well-established and previously untested crossmodal correspondences by means of a novel internet-based testing methodology. The results highlight that the semantic hypothesis cannot easily explain differences in the prevalence of crossmodal associations built on the same semantic pattern (fast lemons, slow prunes, sour boulders, heavy red); furthermore, the semantic hypothesis only minimally predicts what happens when the semantic dimensions and polarities that are supposed to drive such crossmodal associations are made more salient (e.g., by adding emotional cues that ought to make the good/bad dimension more salient); finally, the semantic hypothesis does not explain why reliable matches are no longer observed once intramodal dimensions with congruent connotations are presented (e.g., visually presented shapes and colour do not appear to correspond).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.