ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2024
Crossmodal correspondence of elevation/pitch and size/pitch is driven by real-world features.
Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The lightness/pitch crossmodal correspondence modulates reported dominance in binocular rivalry.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Influence of simple crossmodal correspondence on interpretation of spoken intent.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2025Article
- The Scope and Limits of Iconic Prosody: Head Angle PredictsOpen mind : discoveries in cognitive science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Crossmodal correspondences are consistent associations between sensory features from different modalities, with some theories suggesting they may either reflect environmental correlations or stem from innate neural structures. This study investigates this question by examining whether retinotopic or representational features of stimuli induce crossmodal congruency effects. Participants completed an auditory pitch discrimination task paired with visual stimuli varying in their sensory (retinotopic) or representational (scene integrated) nature, for both the elevation/pitch and size/pitch correspondences. Results show that only representational visual stimuli produced crossmodal congruency effects on pitch discrimination. These results support an environmental statistics hypothesis, suggesting crossmodal correspondences rely on real-world features rather than on sensory representations.
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.