ReviewFrontiers in psychology2025
Augmenting art crossmodally: possibilities and pitfalls.
Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2025. 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.
- Consonance Shapes the Multisensory and Emotional Mappings of Musical Intervals Across English- and Mandarin-Speakers.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026Article
- What role does temporal synchrony play in mid-level audiovisual crossmodal correspondences?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Review
- Crossmodal counterpoint: from music to multimedia - incongruency, cognitive dissonance, irony, and surrealism.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this narrative historical review, we take a closer look at the question of whether it is possible to augment works of art through crossmodal (specifically audiovisual) means. We start by highlighting an important distinction between three classes of audiovisual crossmodal correspondence: Namely those operating on individual sensory stimuli (so-called basic correspondences), those operating on dynamically-changing stimuli, or else on combinations of unisensory stimuli (so-called mid-level correspondences), and those operating on complex and often aesthetically-meaningful stimuli, such as music and paintings. We also highlight another important distinction between the literature on crossmodal matching and that dedicated to demonstrating crossmodal effects. The latter distinction aligns, in some sense, onto the distinction between crossmodal mapping and crossmodal effects. Although it may not be possible, in any meaningful sense, to translate works of art from one modality into another, that does not deny the possibility of augmenting a work of art by the deliberate addition of stimulation presented to another sensory modality. The aims and objectives of those who have attempted to augment works of art by introducing additional sensory stimulation are discussed. We also draw attention to a number of challenges and/or pitfalls (such as the distraction offered by recourse to the phenomenon of synaesthesia) for those interested in augmenting auditory/visual art crossmodally.
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.