Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37963160›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

How many categories are there in crossmodal correspondences? A study based on exploratory factor analysis.

Yuka Ohtake, Kanji Tanaka, Kentaro Yamamoto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Yuka OhtakeGraduate School of Human-Environment Studies, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.ORCID 0009-0003-0457-2612
Kanji TanakaFaculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.
Kentaro YamamotoFaculty of Human-Environment Studies, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Humans naturally associate stimulus features of one sensory modality with those of other modalities, such as associating bright light with high-pitched tones. This phenomenon is called crossmodal correspondence and is found between various stimulus features, and has been suggested to be categorized into several types. However, it is not yet clear whether there are differences in the underlying mechanism between the different kinds of correspondences. This study used exploratory factor analysis to address this question. Through an online experiment platform, we asked Japanese adult participants (Experiment 1: N = 178, Experiment 2: N = 160) to rate the degree of correspondence between two auditory and five visual features. The results of two experiments revealed that two factors underlie the subjective judgments of the audiovisual crossmodal correspondences: One factor was composed of correspondences whose auditory and visual features can be expressed in common Japanese terms, such as the loudness-size and pitch-vertical position correspondences, and another factor was composed of correspondences whose features have no linguistic similarities, such as pitch-brightness and pitch-shape correspondences. These results confirm that there are at least two types of crossmodal correspondences that are likely to differ in terms of language mediation.

Indexed as

CaffeineVisual PerceptionAdultFactor Analysis, StatisticalHumansJudgmentLinguisticsCaffeine

Identifiers

PMID37963160
PMCPMC10645324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.