This is an archive of past discussions about Synesthesia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What does grapheme synesthesia appear to someone who's native language is chinese, japanese, arabic, etc.? Is there a different color for every single symbol? Are there no colors?
Also, as far as I know I'm not a synesthete, but sometimes when I see a word or letter and I don't pay attention to the real color of it, for a very small amount of time I DO see some color and it's consistent for each letter/word. (example, "a" is a somewhat light scarlet, "u" is a dark, deep blue, and the word "pay" seems a little reddish green) Do I have, like, some sort of weak synesthesia, or is it my imagination?
I read "A Mango Shaped Space" and now I'm interested! XD
The condition is much more deep rooted than that, to have colorless symbols. a new symbol kind of 'retrieves' a color along with it.
I was recently in china, and when looking at chinese charachters, they were... fragmented. different parts of them were different colors. i'd never experienced that. as for encountering a new symbol, a color is automatically assigned, and it stays that way forever.
I also have colored days of the week. Someone I knew was talking about a new,simpler type of calendar they developed in which holidays were on unique days, called "holiday". for examle, the week with christmas in it would have 8 days, the extra one, dec 25, would be a holiday. from the moment these 'holidays' were mentioned, they were magnesium flame white. when a new concept is introduced, all of its synesthetic implications appear also.
you see, synesthesia is analytic, not synthetic. that's what most people don't understand (even the name is misleading). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.195.4 (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Vandalism?
It appears there is a diagonal line on the "L" in one of the synesthesia letter diagrams. This may be intentional (like some people put lines on 7s) or it may be vandalism.
PS: Do I have synesthesia? Often when I first glance at a letter I'll see a color. It ALWAYS happens when I look at a letter and not think about the color, when I'm only looking at the letter. I can simulate not knowing the color by defocusing my eyes, which makes me see color. Although it's moderately faint, even normally I can see color in text. I don't know if this makes it a bigger chance of having it, but often if I pay attention to the word itself instead of just its letters the colors sort of come together into one color. For example, if you had the nonsense word "gggccc" with in my case g being a rather dark scarlet red and c being a violety-blue color, would see purple overall, but more red on the g side and more blue on the c side. I don't see colors with sounds or tastes with colors, so this would be the only type I have if I have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uber-Awesomeness (talk • contribs) 19:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
that crossed L is a different letter in the polish language, and maybe some others. apparantly the person whose color mapping was used spoke a language with that alphabet. and yes you probably have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.33.198.74 (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggestions re definition of synaesthesia
I have noticed that Jamie Ward has listed 4 characteristics of synaesthesia on page 29 of his book "The frog who croaked blue". I don't see any reason why this simple and sensible list of characteristics shouldn't be listed along with R. Cytowic's defining criteria.
I'd like to question the use of the term "diagnostic criteria of synesthesia" in the article as it stands, because synesthesia isn't generally considered to be an illness or disorder, and I've never heard of it being diagnosed by a doctor or a shrink in a medical scenario.
I quite like the current text of the definition of synesthesia, but I think some characteristics have not been given due emphasis. In very different types of synaesthesia the same characteristics can be found; there may be some cultural influence on some of these links between sensory experiences and triggers, but in general the pairings seem to be randomly fixed and no logical reason can be imagined to explain why one sensory experience should be associated with a specific "trigger". Why should soomeone's visualized horizontal line of numbers always suddenly ascend upwards at the number 20? Why should the letter G be brown-coloured? Two people with the same type of synaesthesia will have different specific associations in their synaesthesias. My months of the year go counter-clockwise in a circle, while yours drop down vertically. Both are a mixing of a concept with the sense of space, but they are also very individual ways of thinking. Synaesthesia associations are generally not based on logic or reason, and they are highly individualized. These specific associations often seem to have been randomly set in some meaningless process. They are highly idiosyncratic. They don't make sense, but paradoxically, in a way they feel correct to the individual synaesthete. They are hard-wired early in life, safe from being altered by later learning or reasoning. Objectively these associations are plain silly, but subjectively they feel "right". One reason why I find synaesthesia so interesting is that at the level of fine details, it offers plain evidence that no two brains are exactly the same. You will never find two synaesthetes who have exactly the same colours for the alphabet letters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.91.235 (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Handedness and synesthesia?
Has anyone done any research or collected any statistics regarding handedness and synesthesia? Is there no evidence, or is there evidence that synaesthetes are no different in this regard from non-synesthetes? There's also "stong-handedness" and mixed-handedness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.126.44 (talk) 08:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Metaphors
The article contains the statement, "While cross-sensory metaphors are sometimes described as 'synesthetic'..." and I'm not sure I understand. Maybe an example of a cross-sensory metaphor would clarify things? Thanks, --Grant M23:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
1 in 23 or 1 in 2000 ?
This web page: [1] referenced by the article states that Simon Baron-Cohen (University of Cambridge) found the number of synaesthetes to be 1 in 2,000 not the 1 in 23 this article states. Given the apparent rarity of the condition I am inclined to believe the 2000 figure. — Nicholas (reply) @ 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If you read further into the article, you will clearly see this issue addressed. The Baron-Cohen et al. (1996) estimate depended on self-reported samples. In short, B-C and colleagues placed an advert in the newspaper asking for subjects who had music-color synesthesia to respond. They then counted up the number of respondants, divided by the circulation of the paper to give a minimum estimate of 1 in 2000, but assumes that all who did not respond were not synesthetes. In a more recent study (Simner et al., 2006), the first to actually randomly sample a population, the results yielded an estimate of 1 in 23, across all forms of synesthesia. Note that this includes many forms of synesthesia, such as grapheme-color synesthesia not included in Baron-Cohen et al.'s advert. The Simner et al. study also yielded an estimate of 1 in 100 for grapheme color synesthesia, which is slightly higher than that suggested by Ramachandran and Hubbard (1 in 200) in 2001, but which was also substantially higher than that suggested by Baron-Cohen et al. Synesthesia is an active area of research, and the estimates published in 1996 have been superceded in 2006, based on improved methodologies, and increased awareness of the various forms of synesthesia. Edhubbard19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Please convert this to the more common and much easier Ref/Note style. Three reasons: it is much quicker and easier; all recent FAs use the ref/note style, so you want have a chance of getting this through FAC in the current format; I wanted to add something about philosophical implications for consciousness, but I can't edit with this style. It's useless and a pain in the ass. Thank you.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias08:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. What's so hard about editing with this style? Simply create an anchored reference at the bottom. I personally think that references cited with many different pages should be done author-date while the Ref tags should be used for more minor references, but I'm not sure if that style is endorsed. In my work I always use author-date referencing. OptimistBen | talk - contribs18:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ben, there is a standard in this case, the Medical manual of style which has been worked on by many editors that has agreed on the other format... I'm just too busy with real life to actually do the change over. Edhubbard (talk) 19:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Today, I updated the references to the Medical manual of style format. There are a few instances where I'm not quite sure if they're correct (e.g. when a passage says "(see xyz for review)") so maybe someone else could help clear that up. Smirkster (talk) 20:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Links
Frankly, the only external links that belong in an encyclopedia are the 4 associations. The rest should be supplied by associations like those. --MilFlyboy10:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi MilFlyboy, I agree that the links need to be cleaned up, but not as drastically as you would suggest. Compare, for example, schizophrenia which is a featured article, and which has much more extensive links than just the minimal four associations. There is also an important difference between synesthesia and schizophrenia, in that schizophrenia is a well-known disease with a large clinical infrastructure, while synesthesia has only recently come back to the attention of scientists and clinicians, despite the fact that many more people experience synesthesia. This is in part through the efforts of synesthetes themselves, who have created this large on-line community. That is, many of the links that are there are equally important to the synesthesia community, but do not necessarily bear the imprinteur of a large professional body like the APA. Edhubbard12:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Does this phenomenon warrant full coverage in this article? There's more material than in the entry dedicated to it. Also, I find no references anywhere to the purple/kiki colouring of the shapes in the experiments. Isn't this misleading? Bendž|Ť20:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bendž. My feeling is not that we should remove the material that is currently here in the article referring to the bouba/kiki effect, but rather that we should increase the amount of material that is available in the main bouba/kiki entry. As for the coloring, it really doesn't seem to have an impact, as Kohler's original experiments used black and white stimuli, as did ours. In subsequent demonstrations for the BBC, we used red forms, but nothing seemed to change when the cameras were rolling. It might be interesting to try this systematically, as there is an association between large and dark, and between large and rounded vowels (mil vs. mal for example; see the sound symbolism entry). However, I don't think that this is a critical issue. Edhubbard17:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Future research aside is it alright to remove references to colour in this case? Perhaps making the shapes not b&w but at least the same colour.Bendž|Ť12:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be great. There's no reason for color in that image, but it just never occurred to me to change it when we started revamping the page last August, since it was already there, and was wiki-friendly. Change it 'til your heart's content. Edhubbard19:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright it's done, but I had to enter it as another file because the 'upload an updated version' link is missing from the original.Bendž|Ť10:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
(resetting indent) Yeah, thanks! I think that the upload an updated version link is missing because this was a wiki-commons image, and not a standard English wikipedia image. BTW, is it worthwhile to copy some of the material currently here to the kiki/bouba page, to perhaps get a jumpstart on exapnding that page? Edhubbard10:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and copied, and copy-edited the material over there. One thing that would be good, and important, is to discuss Larry Mark's work on the same topic, between Kohler's work and ours, and the more recent (very elegant) follow-up by Chris Westbury. I'll try to get to it soon, but if you get to first, so much the better. Edhubbard11:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this test take into account that, at least in English language, the sound « BOOB » is notoriously associated with round and soft images and memories ? :D ... - Orme 83.198.132.170 (talk)
Hi, the Booba and Kiki links to this article. In the meantime there is another article Bouba/kiki_effect.
Shouldn't the link Booba and Kiki redirect there?
And what about the spelling anyway? Bouba or Booba?
Steven 22:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no. The reports from people, who had, for example, taken LSD, was before the resurgence of interest in synesthesia as a neurological phenomenon. Now that there is a resurgence in interest in synesthesia, these psychadelics are largely illegal. Some people who both have synesthesia and who have tried LSD report that the experiences are not really the same, but all of this is anecdotal. The best possibility might be Franz Vollenwieder's group in Switzerland, who has approval for a number of perceptual and cognitive studies of psychedelics http://www.dcp.unizh.ch/vollenweider/. I will be meeting with some of the members of their group tomorrow and Thursday. Edhubbard19:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Ed - interesting stuff. It's a shame because psychedelics could potentially teach us a lot about these phenomena and indeed about sensory processing in general. There are still plenty of synaesthesia-inducing psychedelics that are legal, but the real problem is gaining funding and approval for human research. The anecdotal reports I've heard regarding psychedelic-induce synaesthesia indicate more of a blurring of the senses (at one moment, you can taste touch sensations, the next you can smell your sights or commonly, seeing visual interpretations of sounds). Certainly, it doesn't seem to bear much similarity to the common Grapheme → coluor type of synaesthesia. I wonder whether organisations like MAPS would be interested in research in this area? 193.60.93.20620:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. My understanding of what people report is that it is something different from the very precise grapheme->color mappings that have been most studied in the neuroscience literature. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule it out until it's been properly tested. My pre-experimental hunch matches yours, but I am quite willing to admit that it's just that, my hunch/interpretation. I'd love to be able to run these types of experiments, and there is a chance that I will be able to set it up in Switzerland. In the U.S., MAPS would definitely be a good place to look into it, but much of their work focuses on potential clinical usefulness of psychedelics as an adjunct to therapy, and in leading to "moments of insight/clarity". If you know more about such opportunities, feel free to write to me off-wiki. Edhubbard19:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Sources needed for celebrity synesthetes
Most of these are unsourced, and some of it seems to be OR. For example, Richard Feynman is listed as one, but he just talked about seeing certain symbols as having distinct colors in his imagination (see the quote here), whereas I understand genuine synesthesia to be more like an actual sensory hallucination which in the case of visual synesthesia would be seen with your eyes open, or at least would be associated with strong involuntary color sensations in the mind's eye whenever you see a certain symbol (rather than just seeing particular symbols as having particular colors when you imagine them)--I associate numbers with colors myself, but I wouldn't pass the visual pop-out test with 5s vs 2s shown in the "objective verification" section. Hypnosifl06:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
See the List of people with synesthesia for most of the references. They should be transfered here, too, but there are good references for the majority of the people who are listed. I've been meaning to change the reference format for the entire page, and didn't want to copy the references over from the other page until I did that. Feynman's reports are perfectly consistent with him being a synesthete (what would technically be called an "associator" rather than a "projector". BTW, your experiences sound more like you are an associator, too; most associators have perfectly real synesthetic experience, but may not "pass" the 5s and 2s test; believe me, I created the test!). Tesla should probably be removed, or at least moved to the discussion section, since, as you note, that is one editors interpretation. Edhubbard06:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
"Neurological condition?"
I removed the term "neurological condition" from the opening definition of synesthesia and got reverted twice, so have decided to bring up the issue on the talk page.
Hi Except, Thanks for bringing this up on the talk page... This is a complicated issue, and one that even professionals who study synesthesia have a hard time deciding on. You've raised a number of points here, so I will respond to each of them below the corresponding paragraph, indented like this. Just in case other you or other people want to respond to my individual comments, I will also sign each comment. As a general note, now that the academic year is over, I am hoping to spend a little more time on this article, to bring it up to GA or even FA status, so if you are interested in helping with some of this, welcome aboard. For now, let's get down to the definition in the lead, which I've never been entirely happy with either. Edhubbard21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The term "neurological condition" is an inappropriate way to describe synesthesia, especially in the article's introductory definition. An informal search for the contexts in which "neurological condition" is used, using Google, turns up hits like the following: "brain & spine foundation, spinal cord develops outside the body, thalia chiropractic center, obesity surgery/severe alcoholics, hysteria, chronic fatigue syndrome, hydrocephalus, behavioral impacts of PCBs, shingles, impaired ability, neuro-metabolic disorders, Parkinson's disease." "Neurological condition" is also a common euphemism for serious mental illness.
Well, let me work backwards on this one. The standard working distinction between, e.g., psychiatric and neurological condition is that a psychiatric condition (e.g., schizophrenia or OCD) is something systemic in the brain, probably due to differences in neurotransmitter levels, or in the receptors that respond to them. Neurological, on the other hand, normally means something where there is a discrete difference in the brain, so that Alzheimer's for example, would be neurological, as we can pinpoint a difference in the brain. It is in this manner that synesthesia, too, is a neurological condition. Part of the insistence on the part of the research community that it is a "neurological" condition is to acknowledge this fact, but more specifically, it is part of an overall campaign to get people to treat synesthesia seriously, and to not assume that "it's all just associations" or, worse, that it's "made up". (see e.g., the discussion at the beginning of Ramachandran and Hubbard, 2001 or our Sci. Am article in 2003). I agree that there is the danger that people will assume that it means something negative, which is why in the body of the article, we have taken pains to point out that it is generally pleasurable, or neutral. Note, however, that this is not universal, and some adults report being overwhelmed, and many children complain that their synesthetic experiences interfere with their ability to concentrate. So, to respond a little to your suggestion, I think that "benign" is out, since it pre-judges things in the other direction. Edhubbard21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
While it is of course possible to extend the term "neurological condition" to include phenomena like synesthesia, this risks misleading readers into thinking that synesthesia is a disorder comparable to the above. "Neurological condition" commonly implies not only physical instantiation in the brain or nervous system, but also disability, illness, or that something has gone wrong.
Yes, for the lay-person "condition" is negative, in the same way that "mutation" is. For professionals in medical and scientific fields, both words are neutral, in that they simply acknowledge some sort of difference (medical or genetic). For medical professionals, this is not an extension. This is what it should be called, given that synesthesia is a punctate difference in the brain of an individual. Hence, neurological condition. Many of us who study synesthesia straddle the boundary between medical and scientific fields, and tend to not see the term as being as negative as you do. Do a google search for synesthesia and neurological, and you will see that it has been widely disseminated in the media this way. On the other hand, I agree that it may scare some people, so we have to find something that makes it clear that this is a brain difference, which can vary from pleasurable (even sometimes called a gift) all the way to overwhelming. Edhubbard21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Recent research (e.g. Ward et al. 2005; Ward & Simner 2003; Witthoft & Winawer 2006; Rich, Bradshaw & Mattingley 2005) demonstrates the importance of learning and the cultural environment in the development of synesthesia. This points up the similarities between synesthesia and absolute pitch or just knowing how to read or play the violin. All are physically instantiated in the brain but one does not normally extend the range of the term "neurological condition" to cover the ability to read. Absolute pitch has even more similarities to synesthesia, but the excellent absolute pitch article in Wikipedia doesn't refer to absolute pitch as a neurological condition.
All of the studies that you cite show the importance of early experiences in determining which associations someone ends up with (i.e., A is red), but none of those studies question the basic, well-established fact that there is a genetic component to synesthesia (as there is to perfect pitch; you're right to note the similarities). Indeed, some of the same authors have been actively working on exploring the familial component to synesthesia (Jools Simner and Jamie Ward). Given this genetic component, synesthesia (and perfect pitch) are not like learning to read or play the violin. There is a genetic difference present in a minority of people (exactly how many is still being debated, in part depending on what is or isn't counted as synesthesia, see below), which acts through neural structure, and interacts with learning to lead to synesthetic experience. What wikipedia does regarding perfect pitch is irrelevant. Since anyone can edit wikipedia, plenty of things that should be here aren't and vice versa. Edhubbard21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The rest of the article, as well as the same recent research, also gives reason to question the idea that synesthesia has to do with "bodily senses." So unless someone can provide a convincing and well-grounded rebuttal I suggest revising this opening sentence to something like the following:
Yes, this is one of the things that most synesthesia researchers are unhappy with. There are a few "purists" that really stick to the "sensory modalities" definition, but most of us use it as something of a shorthand, to avoid going into all of the details. Consider my particular areas of research, grapheme-color syn, number-form syn, and personification. None of them really meet that definition, but I have been known to rely on the "sensory modalities" language, just as others do. Richard Cytowic, Julia Simner, Sean Day, and I had a long conversation about this in Spain a couple of years ago, and we never really came up with a definition that was sufficiently inclusive to cover all of these variants, while at the same time taking less than half a page to write. Edhubbard21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Synesthesia is "in its most common form, a benign cognitive phenomenon in which two sets of perceptual experiences are permanently coupled."
or, if one wants the broadest possible definition (including adventitious synesthesia) rather than focusing on the core of the concept: "Synesthesia is a phenomenon in which two sets of perceptual experiences are involuntarily coupled."
Perhaps others can make suggestions for improvements on the above, keeping in mind the goal of informing readers with no previous knowledge of synesthesia. Except19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The problem with both of these definitions is that they leave out the genetic and neural bases of the phenomenon entirely. Indeed, your proposed "cognitive" goes in exactly the wrong direction, given my comments above, and also leaves out the fact that the experiences are often perceptual in nature. These are important factors in any definition of synesthesia. As I mentioned above, benign is out, since it pre-judges the issue in the other way, and it certainly is not always the case. So, going down the road we travelled in Spain, we could try
Synesthesia is a neurologically based phenomenon in which stimulation of one sensory or cognitive pathway, leads to automatic, involuntary experiences in a second sensory or cognitive pathway.
Even in the adventitious cases, there is some sort of neural difference (e.g., reorganization after blindness, drug ingestion, etc). Similarly, your "broad" definition does not exclude intentionally learned associations, which would not be counted as synesthesia, but merely associative learning, although the link between the trigger and the learned association can be completely automatic and involuntary... You start to get some sense of the difficulty of trying to create a definition. As I said above, I've never been happy with the original definition used on this page, but at the same time, everytime I start to debate this issue, I end up remembering why I've just left it be for the past year, since Sean Day, Richard Cytowic, and I started working on the page (compare this with the current version... You'll note that despite all the other changes and additions, we still have that old definition). Edhubbard21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
More on "Neurological condition"
Hi Edhubbard -- I agree that it is difficult to come up with a good definition of synesthesia, and that this has long been a problem in the literature. It is important to change the current defintion. I accept your proposed definition for the time being, with two reservations. First, it would be good to develop a more precise formulation of “sensory or cognitive pathway,” but I'll leave this question aside for now. Second, I would also prefer to drop the two words “neurologically based,” not because they are not strictly correct, rather because they are not essential to a useful definition.
On “neurologically based”: as you say, a large reason for using the word “neurological” in a definition of synesthesia is a defensive reaction to the fear that people will treat synesthesia as not really real. And there is so much other evidence of synesthesia's reality presented in the article, and the studies that it cites, that emphasizing “neurologically based” up-front in the definition betrays this insecurity. The rest of the sentence, e.g. “sensory or cognitive pathway,” is actually more than enough to tell us that synesthesia is neurologically expressed. So why show defensiveness, through the peculiarity of unnecessarily emphasizing the neurological, when one has already mounted a very good offense?
In the absolute pitch literature no one questions that absolute pitch has a brain basis, and this is easily shown with imaging techniques. But people don't feel compelled to introduce absolute pitch as a “neurologically based phenomenon” (and not just in Wikipedia -- which I mentioned only for its accessibility). Anything that is unconsciously developed or deliberately learned has a neurological basis -- but most people don't find that the most salient feature worth focusing on in the first words of a definition. To give an absurd example involving a phenomenon which is not much like synesthesia, we don't typically introduce “riding a bicycle” as a “neurologically based skill” involving the ability to balance, pedal, steer, and move forward at the same time, even though it surely is one at some level.
By the way, though this is not the main point, in your response you are overstating the genetic aspects of synesthesia -- let's face it, no one has figured them out yet, several theories have gone by the wayside, and as synesthesia acts on learned cultural conventions (and for other reasons) there are some logical limits on the role that genetic factors can play. You say that the literature I referred to doesn't question synesthesia's genetic basis, but in fact it does, in exactly this way, while recognizing the well-established fact that synesthesia runs in families. (E.g. Ward and Simner 2003: “Although there are likely to be necessary genetic and biological dispositions to synaesthesia, the synaesthetic pattern itself may be shaped by experience. Learning would appear to be a logical necessity in some forms of synaesthesia . . .”) Though common sense can be wrong, it suggests that the role of genetics in synesthesia will turn out to be vaguely similar to the role of genetics in musical ability.
As well, I think your attention to the idea that synesthesia can be overwhelming is out of proportion, though I don't doubt it is well meant. The typical experience of letter-colors, number and calendar forms, and colored pitch is benign, and these synesthesias make up the vast majority of cases. While there are plenty of self-reports of intrusive and troubling synesthesias, and some seem quite believable, this is also an aspect of synesthesia where introspection is particularly liable to distortion through suggestion and the desire to tell an interesting story. So I still maintain that a sense of “typical benignness” should be one of the first things that an encyclopedia article directed at educating (and reassuring) the general public about synesthesia should get across, just as an article about coughing might try to convey that it is only exceptionally a sign of terminal lung cancer. Of course it is always debatable whether one wants to strive for a definition that covers all forms of a phenomenon or one that concentrates primarily on its most common manifestations.Except19:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I have many forms of synesthesia (a fact overwhelmingly confirmed during my participation in research). In my opinion the terms "neurological" and "condition" are both perfectly sensible ways to describe synesthesia. I can't think of a more value-neutral term than "condition". It's a whole lot better than terms such as "disorder" or "disease" or "syndrome" or "abnormality".
The idea that synesthesia is more like learning than something "neurological" is simply mistaken. Learning is a process involving changes in the brain, so learning could be described as "neurological", but it is also something that almost anyone can do. Within reason, almost anyone can make the brain changes associated with learning. In contrast synesthesia is not something that anyone can "do" or "be". It is not possible to make changes to the brain that would turn a non-synesthete into a synesthete, and I'm damn sure it isn't possible for a person such as myself to learn how to be a non-synesthete. Throughout my life I've often thought it's a silly thing to link colours with letters and numbers, but try as a may, the number 3 will always be green in my head. There it is in all of its emerald glory!
There's research showing that our brains are different, and there's no doubt in my mind that one could not have the brain that I have without also having the genes that shaped it's development. Synesthesia often runs in families. If this type of synesthesia is not genetically determined, then how is it transmitted from mother or father to child? The parent teaches the child how to be a synesthete? The child is raised in a synesthegenic environment? Such ideas are plainly absurd!
Having read Oliver Sacks' chapter about synesthesia in his recent book, I got the impression from reading it that people who had acquired synesthesia tended to find it more of a negative experience than those who have brains that have developed with the neurological condition. I think it is important to acknowledge both types of synesthesia experiences. If you don't some people will always object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.126.44 (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it's not absurd to think that such things could be transmitted non-genetically, even if it's unlikely. One possibiity, for example, would be if everyone were born with the "capability" to cross sensory lines but those who were raised in a controlling environment had such capabilities stifled as they learned how they "should" perceive things. Of course, this is just an example...there are many ways it could occur hypothetically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.72.162 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
"neuologically based phenomenon" is an inadaquate substitution for "neurological condition". It makes synethesia sound like some kind of superpower. While wikipedia should be accessible to a layman, you should not write down to the readers. "neurologically based phenomenon" is inprecise and is, if anything, more loaded with unfortunate connotations than "neurological condition". Voiceofreason01 (talk) 19:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Seeing a flash of color on being startled during near-sleep
Every once in a while, while in bed, not asleep but almost there, I'll be startled by a loud noise, and it is always accompanied by seeing a flash of a vivid color for a brief instant. Is this considered Synesthesia?
Sorry, unsigned user, I missed your question before. It's not exploding head syndrome, because the secondary experience is a light, while EHS is purely auditory. I've heard a number of people report this, who otherwise report no synesthesia-like experiences. I would be inclined to say that it's a borderline form of synesthesia, in that an experience in one sensory modality induces an experience in a second, unstimulated modality. However, given the fact that it only occurs right around the onset of sleep makes me think that it probably arises through completely different mechanisms. Additionally, unlike other forms of synesthesia, this experience arises from any sound, and (based on what other people have told me) only seems to be a simple flash. Given these differences, I would guess that this is mediated by the thalamus and that the "cross-talk" is in some way mediated by the gating that normally happens as you fall asleep, which makes you less sensitive to auditory, and visual input. Edhubbard14:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Link Between Synesthesia and Attention Deficit Disorder?
Is there a connection between Synesthesia and ADD? Both involve involuntary (uncontrolled) responses to stimuli. People with ADD often describe more intense perceptions, emotional reactions and involuntary responses to stimuli than most people experience. Furthermore, ADD may not be one condition, but a collection of conditions that varies between people and manifests itself differently depending on the degree to which different component conditions enhance or interfere with perception, learning and behavior. Could some degree of known or as yet undiscovered forms of Synesthesia play a role in ADD? BenM11:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I did a fair amount of research on Synesthesia about about a year and a half ago. You're not the first wonder about this, and there had been some speculation about it in the past. However, all of the recent studies I read did not find a correlation, though in particular I only specifically remember reading it in Rich, Bradshaw & Mattingley (2005). -- Craigtalbert12:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Neurolinguistics
I found this article in the jeneral category of neurology,
where it fits, and with reservations I stuck it in the
more specific category of neurolinguistics. The major form of the trait
seems to concern graphemes, numeric and phonic. The
only reservation I hav is colours with tone.
Perception seems to fit in neurology.
In my school it's a topic under psychology, but many of the
tests tell you about the peripheral nervous system.
Brewhaha@edmc.net07:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolute nonsense
The introduction of this article is far too technical and I can tell just by reading the first few lines that the majority of people won't understand what synesthesia is, somebody desperately needs to simplify it so a more easy-to-understand dictionary definition is put into place, with a description which follows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.131.142.163 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 8 August 2007.
Dear Unsigned:
Since you have a good feel for the need you see, why
don't you submit a starter dictionary summary yourself?
--BenM03:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. I came across this page at random, and I love scientific reads, but this one goes overboard. I can sort of understand what it is (Thanks solely to the pictures), but the way the article is worded is very complicated to understand. TheJudge31022:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
When you understand what is being talked about, you can start to relate to what is happening. I am a synesthete. None of it is made up. It is as real as the sun outside your window. People saying it is a disease, just do not understand what is going on.
curt1080 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.76.170 (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I also associate music with other things such as days of the week and people and such. Its a good question to ask. Is it synesthesia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curt1080 (talk • contribs) 13:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I would say so...I do the same thing but also have sure synesthesia because of color-letter association and color-note association. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.221.135 (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Saturation/Brightness in the Music→Color Section
The definitions were reversed, and the reference did not agree or seem focused on what was written. Perhaps they were defined according to some other model of color vision than I am familiar with but in that case they didn't seem as consistent or precise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.64.109 (talk) 20:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
References, again
I'm interested in doing what I can for this article, not being an expert on the subject, and not having a lot of time. I saw Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias's comment above about changing the reference style away from the Harvard references the article currently uses. There are a couple of different options and I wonder if the regular contributors of this article (or anyone else) has an opinion on that. That is, whether it should be changed, and if so to what style. I wouldn't mind working on doing that, but it seems like the sort of thing that needs consensus. See WP:REF for the possible styles.
I once walked into a room and there was a strong, distinct, unfamilar (to me) smell. Also, there was a new wave song playing.
For years afterwards, frequently when I'd hear that song again, I'd suddenly sense the same smell.
I have recently read about motion->sound synaesthesia, where people hear sounds when they see movement. When I listen to music or sounds, I feel internal movement of dotpoints and shape distortion of a 'mental plane'. I hate songs that don't "walk anywhere". Is this sound->motion synaesthesia? I've always had it. Postnote: However, it doesn't have color. Maybe some emotional involvement, probably normal but no color.
--80.109.82.248 (talk) 19:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see the emotion-color synesthesia and that's what I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.210.13 (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any mention of perceiving sounds as having certain shapes or visual forms (either with or without an associated color). That's the kind of synesthesia I have. — Loadmaster (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I also have that type of synesthesia. It isn't talked about as much which makes it more interesting to hear about from other peoples perspectives.
curt1080 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.76.170 (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
See Synesthesia#Sound_.E2.86.92_color_synesthesia. This part mostly talks about the color aspect, as this has been more intensively studied but almost everyone who reports colors reports that they have shapes, movement, etc. This list is not, and cannot be complete, as there are more than 50 forms of synesthesia that have been reported. See [2]. Edhubbard (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
i have this kind too, i see colors when i hear sound, but i more predominantly see a shape or form. the form is VERY precise and concrete. for example, i am seeing sharp angular white objects as i type this on my keyboars. with a single note the shape vibrates at the frequency of the note. i was also wondering for a description of this type. loadmaster, you (aside from me) are the only case of this type i've ever heard of. i have one question for you: for you, which would you consider the 'primary' manifestation and which the 'secondary'? the visual shape and color part or the actual sound part. for me, the actual sound strongly takes a back seat to the visual part. i was wondering if this was this way for you.
69.177.164.231, at the risk of deviating too much from the purpose of this talk page, I also have the type of synaesthesia you describe. If you're interested in discussing it, you're welcome to come over to my talk page, so as not to clutter up this space too much with stuff that's not about the article. I'm always interested in discussing synaesthesia stuff. ~ Torgo (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The visual shape imaging is more of a vague background sensation attached to the quality of the sounds (pitch, tone, timbre, rhythm, etc.). It's definitely a secondary effect for me. — Loadmaster (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Would synesthesia cover a situation where you watch a movie and then have a certain smell stick with you afterward? my own examples would be Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride, both of which had me smelling clay for about three days after the fact. is this synesthesia or just me being crazy?--208.103.64.204 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe that some forms of chi are a type of synesthesia in which visual stimuli generate a tactile sensation. The interesting thing is that the feeling of chi is developed through training. If this is a form of synesthesia, as far as I am aware, this is unusual in that it is developed through training in contrast to other forms mentioned here. The training involves imagining resistance to the slow tai chi movements while concentrating and focusing the eyes on the movements. Eventually this training results in a feeling of chi - a slight tingling feeling in the limbs. As a result of this training I have experienced a tingling feeling in my hands and arms - as if feeling an electric field - when placing them near another person. However, scientists testing this phenomena have demonstrated that by separating one person (chi emitter) from another (chi detector) with an opaque barrier (a cloth curtain) the "chi detector" does no better than chance at determining whether the "chi emitter" is behind the curtain or not. This suggests the feeling of chi as transmitted from another person is really a visual to tactile form of synesthesia. If you have any understanding of this form of synesthesia please share your experiences. There have been similar tests performed on people who see auras around people, with similar results.Neworion (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I have another kind of Synesthesia when I switch th light on and off I can hear a buzzing sound, or when I read an article and I scroll fast down the page and a picture, or something that contrasts what I saw until then, a sound apears, or the sounds in the room (like my pc) change pitch. Is this Synesthesia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.81.33.226 (talk) 09:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I have a very odd kind of synesthesia. What happens with mine is that I will connect songs with events, people, or other ideas. It's so strong that I can't listen to the song I've synesthized without thinking about the thing I connected it to! It's pretty weird and happens with several but not all songs. I also have color-word synaethesia ('mythology' is silvery-blue)and word-image synesthesia. ("attention" is a pan of stir-fry) It's very weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.226.116 (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I have a form of synesthesia that I have not heard of anyone else having, perhaps because of the taboo nature of it. I actually have several forms; grapheme → color, music → color, and intercourse → color. Sexual intercourse results in a very similar "color fireworks" sensation as does music for me. I was wondering how common this is, as the article doesn't mention it at all. Granted there are far too many synesthetic combinations to list them all, but I thought this one might be notable if it is at all common. Harperska (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
ZOMG! P0rn!
Does anyone know why searching synesthesia on google images with strict safesearch on comes up with topless women? I thought it might have something to do with a famous person, but I could be wrong. Any ideas? 71.212.111.54 (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's not happining now, with or without the safesearch filtering. It would be various things. 1) Google sometimes puts jokes in their searches. 2) There is a photo company Synesthesia, it does take pics of rock stars, so, maybe that's it? 3) Google searches are biased in certain ways, so one doesn't always get what one would expect.
Any particular reason why red seems to be so common in the letter "A"?
Every picture on this article seems to portray A as red, and it's even mentioned in the text. Is there any evidence behind this? I'm just wondering because I perceive A as blue and didn't know it was strongly associated with red. 70.44.144.118 (talk) 06:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Coincidence? I see A as red, as the pictures in the article are (however, the rest of my alphabet is very different). One thing that springs to mind is those little flashcard-type things up on walls in classrooms for young children when learning the alphabet. They tend to be all, "A is for Apple", and the apple is red most of the time... Just a theory, excuse my thoughts. Futuremyst (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Sean Day has done some research on this. That link is all I could find, but I seem to recall a more detailed analysis too. The short version of the theory is that A is the first letter learned, and red is developmentally (culturally?) the first color concept apart from black & white. Blokhead (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
I have synesthesia and I see it as as dark forest green...but that's just me =P
the 'apple' thing doesnt make sense to me, as my synesthesia is automatic and in no way was learned. im sure the first time i saw an A, it was red for me. i really dont know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.195.4 (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Interesting idea... Perhaps the cultural associations have been informed by synesthetes. Of course it could also be the Bouba/Kiki thing.
As a synesthiate, I change favorite colors daily, even hourly. Although always a darker bolder color, it can vary from forest green to cardinal or ocean blue. Interesting possibility I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.221.135 (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Quick suggestions for this article
1. The opening section is heavily cited (I added some white space, it's cheap!) and unusually lengthy. It should be enough to quickly summarize some common varieties in the opening, and then move the details to the main body. 2. The readability of the article is rather difficult for general readership. Twang (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Generally, one sentence paragraphs, of the sort you created by adding whitespace are discouraged. See especially Tony1's repeated comments on this in various Featured Article discussions. As for the readability, do you mean the actual content of the text? Without turning this article into a general textbook, what specific suggestions do you have to make it clearer to the novice reader? Edhubbard (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
2. I think this article is astonishing - in usefulness, interest, detail, thoroughness - as someone who has the borderline condition. It should be much more than a 'start class'. It's by far the most interesting article I have read in the years of using Wikipedia. Congrats to all contributors. Thanks for the time you have given.Spanglej (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Pharrell Williams
The part of the article that says he's a "known synesthete" is not accurate. From what I've gathered, he's never been diagnosed with synesthesia. He's said that when he hears music, he sometimes sees things in his head. That's not synesthesia. I can see things in my head when I listen to music, but I'm not a synesthete either. Basically, Pharrell has an active imagination, and watches the discovery channel.
He's described synesthesia as such: "Synesthesia is stimulated by sensory deprivation, like when the showerhead is making so much noise it blocks out everything else. Once the senses are blocked out, then your mind is free to run wild and think about whatever."
Now, it's obviously just my opinion that he's not a synesthete, and I'm no doctor. But given the fact that he doesn't really seem to understand what synesthesia is, and I haven't seen an interview in which he describes actually being diagnosed with it, I think to say he's a "known synesthete" would qualify as hearsay, so I'm going to remove mentions of him being a "known synesthete" from this article, and the article on Pharrell Williams Dog13ert (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The issue here is that Pharrell himself claims to be a synesthete. Being "diagnosed" with synesthesia is not quite the same as being "diagnosed" with other mental conditions, like depression or schizophrenia, which traditionally depend on a trained medical practitioner (i.e., a doctor). Rather like color-blindness or left-handedness, this is something that can be "diagnosed" on the basis of an individual's own reports. In deference to your concerns, I've changed the passage to say:
"Although this has not been verified, Pharrell Williams of the hip-hop production group The Neptunes and band N.E.R.D. claims to experience synesthesia,[1] and used this concept as the basis of the N.E.R.D. album Seeing Sounds."
Please note that the source for this is Pharrell himself, so "claims" is correct here, no matter whether you think that he is or is not a synesthete. Edhubbard (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I knew little of synesthesia before reading this entry, though an occupational-therapist friend had identified it in me a few years ago. I realize from the entry that I have had at least ordinal-spatial and personification forms; but since going through this entry, I don't seem to perceive the same anymore and can't even call to mind very clearly the way it was--it's similar to trying to recall a dream. This is rather disconcerting. Others discussing their synesthesia on here don't seem to have lost it when focusing on it, and I'm curious if any metacognitively induced loss has been noted in the literature (or if I'm an oddball case). Perhaps if it's in the literature, it should be included in the entry--though I admit that my curiosity is personal, too. 68.83.72.162 (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Brainport
Would it be accurate to say that Brainport creates a sense of synaesthesia? The device works by allowing blind people to 'see' by transferring a electrotactile sensation to the tongue. 90.217.185.70 (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with these changes, as they overly medicalize synesthesia. As the article notes, synesthesia is not listed in the DSM or the ICD classifications. Similarly, as people who experience synesthesia do not normally report that it interferes with normally daily functioning, there is no "treatment" or attempt to "cure" synesthesia. Referring to the experiences of synesthetes as "signs and symptoms", while conforming to WP:MEDMOS, is inaccurate, as it incorrectly treats synesthesia as indicative of an underlying pathology. What would synesthetic experiences be a sign or a symptom of? In general, synesthesia research is conducted by experimental psychologists, cognitive neuroscientists, occasionally by neurologists interested in brain functioning, and more recently geneticists, but not typically by medical professionals. While medical professionals (especially those in the mental health fields) need to be aware of synesthesia because it may superficially sound like psychiatric or neurologic conditions that they would typically treat, such as hallucinations due to schizophrenia, or migraine auras, this resemblance is very superficial. Edhubbard (talk) 12:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Comment moved from the article
I am moving the following paragraph from the article:
I think for one to clearly understand synesthesia, one has to have lived as a synesthete. Although tests have been developed that may differentiate types of synesthesia, there is so much more to learn. I am a synesthete and have been both delighted and frustrated with it throughout my life. The type of synesthesia I have is keen perception that pairs with other sensory abilities, such as; feeling the emotions of others, hearing environmental sounds, or smelling fragrances that relate somehow to the subject I am focusing on, all remotely. For example: In a telephone conversation with a client I picked up the overwhelming fragrance of oranges. I asked if she lived near an orange grove and my client revealed she had an orange tree growing in her back yard. In another situation involving an adult abduction, I heard the sound of footsteps on a gravel road, distant factory noises and the metallic sound of a train moving slowly down a track. I also developed a spontaneous severe headache and my wrists felt raw and sore. The victim was found with a blunt blow injury to his head, his wrists had been bound and he was nearby a location such as the one I described. This occured in New Jersey, I lived in California at the time and had never been to New jersey to the date of that incident. Academically it is frustrating, I absorb and comprehend, but during tests I pick up the angst of other students, go into sensory overload and spiral downward. Synesthesia challenges many areas of life, but also adds greater depth and perception to the people and our world around us. Teresa Dell www.zenbody.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeresaDell (talk • contribs)
Teresa -- thank you for the comment -- if you have specific suggestions for how to improve the article please leave them here on the talk page. Thanks! Antandrus (talk)16:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Sight -> Touch Synesthesia
Even though I've seen many cases of synesthesia documented, I've yet to see any references that correspond to this one, which affects me. The leading example in my case is that when I play intense perspective combat games, such as Halo or Armored Core, I sort of "feel" it when my character or avatar receives damage, and my heart has been recorded to skip a beat when it or I "die." It can very closely be related to phantom pains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.17.129.24 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just wondering if I have this. Colours, number and punctuation are always percieved as being male or female to me. For example, the single digit odd numbers are all male, except 9, who is female. The same applies to the even numbers, except 8, who is male. Multiple digit numbers are ahrder. Numbers like 42, who contain both female letters, appear to me as male. 0 is also male. And letters such as B (capitalisation matters), F, G, A, etc. are all male, while a, c, and T (not t) are female. Most punctuation is male. The font of a letter or number never matters. It's really strange. I was just wondering if this is me or if I have synesthesia. --darksoulknighttalk • mail17:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Should vOICe system and similar to be mentioned in Synthetic synesthesia part of article. here is web page which talks about vision system for blind and it mentions that they gain artificial synesthesia when using this system. if some one wants to check reliability of information here link http://www.seeingwithsound.com/
I see there are threads above that I guess were just overwhelmed by wikifaction. 'Neurological condition' implies an opposition to normal neurological function, a disease model. This is jaw dropping shit here. You might want to look this up in a pre-internet encyclopædia, an English literature textbook, etc. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 14:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
In the German article the "warmth" of colors is also mentioned as an example of (weak) synesthesia. E.g. most (but not all!) people associate colors from yellow to red as "warm" and bluish colors as "cold", which also leads to the inverse naming of color temperature regimes (i.e. "warm white" for low-temperature blackbody radiators and "cool white" for high-temperature ones). Or is this phenomenon not related to synesthesia in current neurology/psychology?--SiriusB (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Do I have Synaesthesia...?
I have been wondering for a while; am I possibly developing Synaesthesia or something like that? I don't know if that's how it works, but it seems that when my interest in Synaesthesia went up (met a guy on a forum, Wikipedia did the rest...), I noticed some out-of-the-usual things about me. For instance, I can almost immediately relate (I don't perceive these, just think of them) certain (but not all) graphemes with colours (oh, and guess what? The letter "A" unsurprisingly relates to red), also the number nine to me is a weird, out-of-place number that I don't like to even think about, some years' numbers feel indescribably different to others (2008 feels much better in a sense than 2007 or 2009, 2015 feels oddly further away than 2013, 2013 of which I immediately relate to brilliant and a sort of greenish colour (again I don't perceive this, as such)), and something that I've noticed for a while before my random interest in the subject; when I'm in a wide, open space, I feel cold and unprotected, and when I'm in a small, closed space, I feel safe and sure (my sister has said you feels this too). And when I say what I just said, I don't just mean there's a breeze; I can feel those thoughts when playing video games, too.
If I do have Synaesthesia, then... well... I shall party until the dawn. I mean, Synaesthesia seems like such a good thing to have (although it would help if I could actually pronounce the word, herp derp (note, I can finally pronounce it!). I don't understand why people think synesthetes are crazy people. In my opinion, synesthetes are, in the winning words of Charlie Sheen, super fricking rock stars from Mars.
Zode Xyphr (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
P.S.: When looking at not very spaced out chunks of letters (like a wordsearch, for example), I can make out faint lines between letters outside of my focus of vision. Is this Synaesthesia, or is it just that black dots optical illusion? I'm betting on the latter, but it may not be.
P.P.S.: And I know how cliché this is, it just intrigues me.
I've been syntheses for as long as I can remember, in the sense that I see color to letters, numbers, names and all that kind of stuff. (I also see spaces in front of me when thinking about time, numbers e.t.c.) But since I got to know what synesthesia was and that I had it (about a year ago) it has grown stronger and stronger and now I find myself, whenever listening to a piece of music, see patters and colors appear in front of my eyes. Patterns that I can partly control just by myself (like "move that way, do this"). I see all the different sounds in a song make shapes that appear, then flutter away and become new. Most instruments got their own colors to, just as letters or numbers. Is this a form of synesthesia, or just some other shit my brain makes up...?
edit: I know this place is not for discussing if I got synesthesia or not (we already know I do), but then, is sound -> pattern synesthesia explored yet?
StainlessSteelStyle 18:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
In this section, it says that Liszt and Rimsky-Korsakov disagreed about the color of notes, but I think it was Scriabin and Rimsky-Korsakov. Does anyone know? Citation needed. Let99 (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Removed pictures
Pictures were removed because (edit summary): clicking on this figure made a mention of T. Alani and clicking on this name lead to pornographic material. Seems as an covert add for pornography business of that person. I looked and found these pictures. As far as I know, it is fine to upload these kind of pictures to Wikimedia commons, but if it is not, it is the commons page that should take care of it, not this article. Yet I did not revert the deletion of the pictures because they are very much a primary source, or maybe even original research. User:Taric25 has drawn the pictures and explains how he sees the parts of the pictures. Lova Falktalk15:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I agree that these pictures are of concern because they violate no original research, and are not published in a reliable source. In addition, as they seem to be placed here to drive traffic towards this person's blog, they are at least in violation of the spirit of WP:NOT, and perhaps are even a unique form of WP:SPAM, a sort of "picture spam". Personally, I would advocate going through and removing these images in all the places that they were added, and then, if the image description leads to porn as suggested in the edit summaries above, we should delete the pictures, too, as spam. Edhubbard (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Excuse me, the images I added were my own synesthetic associations I have had from Childhood. They have nothing to do with any porn content, as you allege, whatsoever. The blog linked is the source of my emotions that contribute to the colors, since I see colors as emotions, giving the reader an idea to why I associate them, thank you very much. Taric25 (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
There are two separate issues here. The first is that, if the reader follows the links to your profile wikipedia commons page (which you linked in at least one of the uploaded images), there are images of you ejaculating, auto-fellating, etc. This is problematic for some readers, and was the rationale for at least two different editors removing the pictures. My rationale is more based on the fact that your experiences, although quite real to you, do not meet our standards for inclusion in wikipedia, as they have not been reported in a peer-reviewed, reliable source, and therefore constitute original research. So, independent of whether your bio has pictures that some wikipedians consider objectionable, the images you have added do not belong in any of the synesthesia family of articles on wikipedia. Edhubbard (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Words,numbers,music = symbols,culture Smell,touch,taste,see,hear = actual, factual Synesthesic relation = something cultural becoming actual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.224.205 (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Sourcing
There are 15 review articles on this topic from the last 5 years on pubmed. None of them mentions EM Hubbard. Our article mentions him twice by name in the text and 8 times in the ref section. This is a little disconcerting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
This issue is not confined to this article. I was looking through some of the articles listed on this user's userpage, and some have the same author in the references. A gander at WP:Conflicts of interest (medicine) might be required for future contributions please. I am also against naming experts, researchers etc in articles unless they have some very major contribution like they were the first to describe a condition or something. Certainly a researcher should not be adding their own name to Wikipedia articles. Lesion (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hum. Wikipedia is not for self promotion agree. One needs to have a high quality third party source mentioning the researcher in question before we comment on that research IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Cut all the primary sources, rewrite the article to the reviews. (Oh, I can't say that; Looie496 will get mad at me :) Sorry, but we have reviews, there's no excuse for this. Once I catch up on other areas, I'll be glad to help flag the reviews v. primary sources so primary sources can be removed, but I've not got the time nor the interest to do the rewrite here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that Doc James' search is woefully incomplete. Perhaps he's only searched under one spelling of synesthesia? First of all, as I noted above, the Oxford Handbook of Synesthesia, which just came out is a major reference work from a reputable publisher, of which I am co-editor (http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199603329.do A preview of a large proportion of the book is freely available in google books [3] and it will be easy to see that I am highly cited in those reference work chapters). Additionally, a pubmed search for "synesthesia or synaesthesia" and then selecting review will turn up a review I published in 2011 of the neuroimaging work. Going to google scholar and looking at my citations shows that my 2005 fMRI study has been cited over 200 times [4] as has the review I wrote in 2005 [5]. Note that these are articles in peer-reviewed journals (Neuron, in particular). Another review, critically evaluates some of the neonatal ideas [6] and specifically cites the 2001 papers I wrote with Ramachandran. The Journal of Neuropsychology review article here [7][8] cites multiple articles that I am an author on. So, Doc James' first point is simply in error. There are 25 reviews, and I can show quickly that my work has been cited in those reviews.
Until recently, the article had been edited by myself, Sean Day, Richard Cytowic, Cretien Van Campen, and had received support through authorizations to use artwork from Carol Steen and Marcia Smilack. It hardly seems a conflict of interest to have some of the world's experts on a topic edit an article.
I think the primary issue here is that this really isn't a MED article. It's an article about a perceptual/cognitive phenomenon, which has a neural/genetic basis, but MEDMOS and MEDRS are not quite appropriate here. Just because the researchers who study this topic use the word "condition" for wont of a better term, it really doesn't make this akin to the other topics. This is what I have been arguing above, and it appears that people have failed to engage in discussion above, and have simply ignored those points to impose this on the article. Edhubbard (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
One more: In his article in the Annual Review of Psychology, Jamie Ward cites five of my peer-reviewed articles related to synesthesia, and the neural basis thereof [9]. The main point here is two-fold. First, obviously, to challenge Doc James' argument that an expert editing an article in the area of their expertise is a conflict of interest. Second, and more importantly, it's important to note that this review is in the Annual Review of Psychology. It is not primarily a medical review, consistent with the case I've been making above that synesthesia should not be considered first and foremost a medical condition, and so re-organizing to MEDMOS and restricting references to MEDRS is overly restrictive. Edhubbard (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Respectfully, you should not add your own publications. It is impossible for you to be objective about them. Suggest the WP:edit request service, making it clear that you are the author, so impartial editors can be recruited. If the sources are helpful additions to the encyclopedia articles, then there should be no issue and they will be added. Lesion (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I reject the assumption that one cannot be objective if one is an expert. To provide some context, I made my first edit to this article on July 25, 2006. When I came to it, this was the state of the article [10]. It had a tag stating that it needed attention from an expert. As I had just completed my PhD studying the mechanisms of synesthesia at UCSD [11], I felt that I was such an expert. I did not add only references to my own work, which would have been unfair, but to the body of scholarship that I was familiar with at the time. In addition to myself, I recruited other experts, including Sean Day, Richard Cytowic and several others who have contributed to the article, so a concern about one editor's viewpoint is, to a certain extent, mitigated by the fact that multiple contributors edited material. I obtained permission to include the images from my peer-reviewed publications, and asked others, like Carol Steen and Marcia Smilak to contribute artwork to illustrate the article. Carol and Seen are not just editors here, but faculty members, synesthetes and part of the board of the American Synesthesia Association [12]. Richard Cytowic is the author of several books, published by MIT Press, about synesthesia. We diligently added peer-reviewed sources, bringing the article to a standard that one reviewer of the synesthesia article in scholarpedia noted that the first draft of the scholarpedia article there was "... a very poor counterpart to the wikipedia entry" [13]. Indeed, the history of this article reflects one of the fundamental tensions of wikipedia: anyone can edit, so the initial article in 2006 was a jumbled disastrous mess. It ended up with a tag saying that expert attention was needed. Now that the article has been more or less stable for six years, as a result of the work of those experts, other people want to come along and complain that experts (even multiple experts) cannot be objective, and therefore, should not edit an article in their area of expertise (see WP:Expert_retention). In the intervening years, the body of knowledge has grown, and my ability to work on the article has waxed and waned with my career and life changes, and I have spent less time on it recently than I would like. For that reason, I will agree that the article is somewhat out of date, but it is not the gross distortion of scientific consensus that Lesion's comment suggests it might be. Edhubbard (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I said cannot be objective specifically in relation to deciding if one's own publications should be added to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has evolved over time and it is recognized now that conflicts of interest edits occur and are generally not beneficial to the encyclopedia. I do not add my own publications, and I'm sure that most regular editors do not either, but if you feel this is necessary please in future use the edit request service that is specifically designed for this scenario. Also, I did not suggest any "gross distortion of scientific consensus", thank you. Lesion (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Based on your argument that wikipedia standards of contribution have changed, it's worth noting
1 Most of the citations to my work were made in the initial massive round of edits in 2006/2007.
2 Out of 99 references, there are six citations to my work. This does not seem excessive/inordinate given, as I noted above, that these articles have been highly cited (the Ramachandran and Hubbard, 2001 review/theory article has been cited over 600 times [14].
3 Numerous other editors have worked on the article, including many experts, and all of them felt that the inclusion of these citations was appropriate.
So, I'd like to lay to rest what is a borderline personal attack, since the COI points suggest that I've been doing something inappropriate. Instead, I'd like to start a new topic below on what I see as the fundamental issue. Edhubbard (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
No one is saying that you should not be editing in your area of expertise. What some of us are uncomfortable with is you mentioning yourself by name within the article and quoting your own primary research. This is listed as a case report [15]
I do stand corrected. I missed this review of yours from 2011 [16]. I would have less of a concern of it being used in the article however it hasn't been. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Removed for sourcing
Starting a section for a first pass at removing primary-sourced information and uncited to talk; if secondary reviews are found, can be restored. There is still much more, there are some sources I couldn't identify, and there is not a single book page number for verification (one book lists page 309, but it is unlikely that much text came from one page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Even within one type, synesthetic perceptions vary in intensity[4]
While cross-sensory metaphors (e.g., "loud shirt," "bitter wind" or "prickly laugh") are sometimes described as "synesthetic", true neurological synesthesia is involuntary. It is estimated that synesthesia could possibly be as prevalent as 1 in 23 persons across its range of variants.[5]
Synesthesia runs strongly in families, but the precise mode of inheritance has yet to be ascertained.[medical citation needed] Synesthesia is also sometimes reported by individuals under the influence of psychedelic drugs, after a stroke, during a temporal lobe epilepsy seizure, or as a result of blindness or deafness.[medical citation needed] Synesthesia that arises from events after birth is referred to as "adventitious synesthesia" to distinguish it from the more common congenital forms of synesthesia. Adventitious synesthesia involving drugs or stroke (but not blindness or deafness) apparently only involves sensory linkings such as sound → vision or touch → hearing; there are few, if any, reported cases involving culture-based, learned sets such as graphemes, lexemes, days of the week, or months of the year.[medical citation needed]
Signs and symptoms
Additionally, some grapheme → color synesthetes report that they experience their colors strongly, and show perceptual enhancement on the perceptual tasks described below, while others (perhaps the majority) do not,[4] perhaps due to differences in the stage at which colors are evoked.
but has come to be re-appreciated by modern researchers. Some grapheme → color synesthetes report that the colors seem to be "projected" out into the world (called "projectors"), while most report that the colors are experienced in their "mind's eye" (called "associators").[6] It is estimated that approximately one or two per hundred grapheme-color synesthetes are projectors; the rest are associators.[6]
Number form synesthesia
Later research has identified them as a type of synesthesia.[7][8] In particular, it has been suggested that number-forms are a result of "cross-activation" between regions of the parietal lobe that are involved in numericalcognition and spatial cognition.[unreliable source?][9][10]In addition to its interest as a form of synesthesia, researchers in numerical cognition have begun to explore this form of synesthesia for the insights that it may provide into the neural mechanisms of numerical-spatial associations present unconsciously in everyone.
Diagnosis
Synesthetic colors can also improve performance for some synesthetes. Inspired by tests for color blindness, Ramachandran and Hubbard presented synesthetes and non-synesthetes with a matrix of 5s in which embedded 2s formed a hidden pattern such as a square, diamond, rectangle or triangle.{[rs}}[9] For someone who sees 2s as red and 5s as green, for example, synesthetic colors help zero in on the embedded figure. Subsequent careful studies have found substantial variability among synesthetes in their ability to do this.[4][6] It certainly does not happen instantaneously; while synesthesia is evoked very early in perceptual processing, it does not occur prior to attention.[11][12]
Modified versions of the Stroop effect are popular. In the standard paradigm, it is harder to name the ink color of the word "red," for example, when it is printed in blue ink than when the ink is red. Similarly, if a grapheme → color synesthete is shown the digit 4 (which he sees as red, say) in blue ink, he is slower to name the ink color than when it is printed in red. He sees the blue ink, but the same sort of conflict responsible for the standard Stroop effect occurs between the ink color and the automatic synesthetic color of the grapheme. The conflict is strongest when the ink color is the opponent color to the synesthetic one (e.g., red vs. green), indicating that synesthetic color perception uses the same mechanism as the perception of real colors.[13]
Cross-sensory Stroop tests are possible: for example, a music → color synesthete must name a red swatch while listening to a sound that produces a blue sensation,[14] or a musical key → taste synesthete must identify a bitter taste while hearing a musical interval that tastes sweet .[15] Likewise, Stroop tests work even in those for whom merely thinking about a numeral elicits color. Take a person who sees 7 as yellow and 9 as blue, and make the task one of having to say a math solution out loud followed by naming a color square. In the illustration, having to answer "7" and then "yellow" is congruent with the subject’s synesthesia, which unconsciously primes him to respond faster than controls. The automatic blueness of 9, however, interferes with naming the green square, slowing him down compared to controls.
It was once assumed that synesthetic experiences were entirely different from synesthete to synesthete, but recent research has shown that there are underlying similarities that can be observed when large numbers of synesthetes are examined together. For example, sound-color synesthetes, as a group, tend to see lighter colors for higher sounds[16] and
Genetics
Many studies noted that synesthesia runs in families, consistent with a genetic origin for the condition. Francis Galton's 1880 report noted a familial component. Studies from the 1990s[17][18] that noted a much higher prevalence in women than men (up to 6:1) most likely suffered from a sampling bias due to the fact that women are more likely to self-disclose than men. A more recent study, using a non-self-referred sample, has found a prevalence of only 10% more females than males.[5]
Mechanism
One line of thinking is that a failure to prune synapses that are normally formed in great excess during the first few years of life may cause such cross-activation.[medical citation needed]
Functional neuroimaging studies using PET and fMRI demonstrate significant differences between the brains of synesthetes and non-synesthetes. fMRI shows V4 activation in both word → color and grapheme → color synesthetes.[4][19][20]Diffusion tensor imaging allows visualization of white matter fiber pathways in the intact brain. This method demonstrates increased connectivity in fusiform gyrus, intraparietal sulcus and frontal cortex in grapheme-color synesthetes.[21] The degree of white matter connectivity in the fusiform gyrus correlates with the intensity of the synesthetic experience.
Genetics
At first, the observed patterns of inheritance were consistent with an X-linked mode of inheritance because there had been no verified reports of father-to-son transmission, whereas father-to-daughter, mother-to-son and mother-to-daughter transmission were readily observed[22][18][23] However, the first genome-wide association study failed to find X-linkage,[24] and furthermore verified two cases of father-to-son transmission.
Suggestive of incomplete gene penetrance is the situation of identical twins in which only one member of the pair is synesthetic,[25][26] and the observation that synesthesia can skip generations within a family.[27] It is furthermore common for family members to experience different types of synesthesia, suggesting that the gene(s) involved do not lead to invariably specific types of synesthesia.[23] Developmental factors such as gene expression and environment must also play a role in determining which types of synesthesia an individual has (for example, children must interact with culturally learned artifacts such as alphabets and food names).
Epidemiology
Early estimates of prevalence varied widely (from 1 in 20 to 1 in 20,000). These studies all had the methodological shortcoming of relying on self-selection, meaning individuals reporting their experience to investigators. Random population studies later determined that 1 in 23 individuals have some kind of synesthesia, while 1 in 90 have colored graphemes.[5]
Associated cognitive traits
Autism and epilepsy occur with synesthesia more often than chance predicts. Daniel Tammet, the savant who set a European record for reciting the digits of pi, has all three conditions indicating that they might share an underlying genetic cause. Synesthesia has so far been linked to a region on chromosome 2 that is associated with autism and epilepsy.[24]
Pesonification
Ordinal-linguistic personification (OLP, or personification for short) is a form of synesthesia in which ordered sequences, such as ordinal numbers, days, months and letters are associated with personalities.[original research?][2][28] Although this form of synesthesia was documented as early as the 1890s,[29][30] modern research has, until recently,[22] paid little attention to this form.
One synesthete says, "T’s are generally crabbed, ungenerous creatures. U is a soulless sort of thing. 4 is honest, but… 3 I cannot trust… 9 is dark, a gentleman, tall and graceful, but politic under his suavity."[30] Likewise,
this piece is book-sourced, but makes no sense with everything around it removed
Cytowic's subject MT says, "I [is] a bit of a worrier at times, although easy-going; J [is] male; appearing jocular, but with strength of character; K [is] female; quiet, responsible...."[22]
For some people in addition to numbers and other ordinal sequences, objects are sometimes imbued with a sense of personality. Recent research has begun to show that alphanumeric personification co-varies with other forms of synesthesia, and is consistent and automatic, as required to be considered a form of synesthesia.[2]
Chromesthesia
however, synesthetes show the same trends as non-synesthetes do. For example, both groups say that loud tones are brighter than soft tones, and that lower tones are darker than higher tones. Synesthetes nevertheless choose more precise colors than non-synesthetes and are more consistent in their choice of colors given a set of sounds of varying pitch, timbre and composition.[31]
Mirror-touch synesthesia is a form in which seeing someone else being touched leads to one feeling the touch as well. This means that people can literally feel the pain of others when they see them get hurt. Such a process is hypothesized as being important for understanding and empathising with others.[unreliable medical source?][32]
In the rare lexical → gustatory synesthesia, individual words and the phonemes of spoken language evoke taste sensations in the mouth. According to James Wannerton, "Whenever I hear, read, or articulate (inner speech) words or word sounds, I experience an immediate and involuntary taste sensation on my tongue. These very specific taste associations never change and have remained the same for as long as I can remember."
Jamie Ward and Julia Simner have extensively studied this form of synesthesia, and have found that the synesthetic associations are constrained by early food experiences.[33][34] For example, James Wannerton has no synesthetic experiences of coffee or curry, even though he consumes them regularly as an adult. Conversely, he tastes certain breakfast cereals and candies that are no longer sold.[medical citation needed]
Additionally, these early food experiences are often paired with tastes based on the phonemes in the name of the word (e.g., /I/, /n/ and /s/ trigger James Wannerton’s taste of mince) although others have less obvious roots (e.g., /f/ triggers sherbet). To show that phonemes, rather than graphemes are the critical triggers of tastes, Ward and Simner showed that, for James Wannerton, the taste of egg is associated to the phoneme /k/, whether spelled with a "c" (e.g., accept), "k" (e.g., York), "ck" (e.g., chuck) or "x" (e.g., fax). Another source of tastes comes from semantic influences, so that food names tend to taste of the food they match, and the word "blue" tastes "inky."[medical citation needed]
Misophonia
Miren Edelstein and her colleagues have compared misophonia to synesthesia in terms of connectivity between different brain regions as well as specific symptoms. They formed the hypothesis that "a pathological distortion of connections between the auditory cortex and limbic structures could cause a form of sound-emotion synesthesia"[35]
Research
Ramachandran and Hubbard suggest the kiki/bouba effect has implications for the evolution of language, because the naming of objects is not completely arbitrary.[unreliable source?][9] The rounded shape may intuitively be named bouba because the mouth makes a more rounded shape to produce that sound, while a more taut, angular mouth shape is needed to articulate kiki. The sound of K is also harder and more forceful than that of B. Such "synesthesia-like mappings" suggest that this effect might be the neurological basis for sound symbolism, in which sounds are non-arbitrarily mapped to objects and actions in the world.
Artistic investigations
The word "synesthesia" has been used for 300 years to describe very different things, from poetry and metaphor to deliberately contrived mixed-media applications such as son et lumière shows or odorama. It is crucial[why?] to separate artists using synesthesia as an intellectual idea—pseudo-synesthetes such as Georgia O'Keeffe who used such titles as "Music-Pink and Blue"—from those who had the genuine perceptual variety, such as Wassily Kandinsky orOlivier Messiaen.
Synesthetic art can refer to either art created by synesthetes or art that attempts to convey the synesthetic experience. It is an attempt to understand the relation between the experiences of born synesthetes, non-synesthetes, and an appreciation of such art by both groups. These distinctions are not mutually exclusive given that art by a synesthete might also evoke synesthesia-like experiences in the viewer.
Sources
Collapge
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
^It just always stuck out in my mind, and I could always see it. I don't know if that makes sense, but I could always visualize what I was hearing... Yeah, it was always like weird colors." From a Nightline interview with Pharrell
^ abc[non-primary source needed] Simner J, Holenstein E (2007). "Ordinal linguistic personification as a variant of synesthesia". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (Case report). 19 (4): 694–703. doi:10.1162/jocn.2007.19.4.694. PMID17381259. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)Cite error: The named reference "pmid17381259" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^Hubbard EM, Piazza M, Pinel P, Dehaene S (2005). "Interactions between number and space in parietal cortex". Nat. Rev. Neurosci. (Review). 6 (6): 435–48. doi:10.1038/nrn1684. PMID15928716. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ ab[non-primary source needed] {cite journal|author = Asher, JE, Lamb, JA, Brocklebank, D, et al. |title = A Whole-Genome Scan and Fine-Mapping Linkage Study of Auditory-Visual Synesthesia Reveals Evidence of Linkage to Chromosomes 2q24, 5q33, 6p12, and 12p12|journal = The American Journal of Human Genetics | volume = 84|issue = 2|pages= 1–7|year = 2009 | doi = 10.1016/j.ajhg.2009.01.012 |pmid = 19200526|pmc = 2668015}}
^[unreliable source?] Hubbard EM, Ramachandran VS (2003). "Refining the experimental lever: A reply to Shanon and Pribram". Journal of Consciousness Studies. 10 (3): 77–84.
^[non-primary source needed] Ward J, Huckstep B, Tsakanikos E (2006). "Sound-colour synaesthesia: To what extent does it use cross-modal mechanisms common to us all? Cortex, 42, 264-280". Cortex. 42 (2): 264–80. doi:10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70352-6. PMID16683501. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The article can be rewritten to recent reviews. There are still quite a few sources left in the article which I am not sure are actually reviews ... without full journal access, I can't check, but if I left something in the article, but did not mark it either as a primary source or a review, it's because I wasn't sure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
de Broucker T (2013). "[Synaesthesia, an augmented sensory world: phenomenology and literature review]". Rev. Neurol. (Paris) (Review) (in French). 169 (4): 328–34. doi:10.1016/j.neurol.2012.09.016. PMID23434143. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Typically health topics are organized per WP:MEDMOS. Not sure why these changes were reverted? There are a number of conditions that are not diseases yet we still organize them as a health state. Organizing them like this does not mean that they are a disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:25, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
It is listed as Wikiproject Medicine and WikiProject Psychology. I am not sure what sort of order this article was following before? Anyway I guess we could have a RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
See previous discussions above about "neurological condition" and my comments about DSM and ICD classifications. When I undid this three years ago, you never replied to those comments. The concern is that synesthesia, although a consequence of neural differences, does not interfere with daily living, and there is no treatment. Indeed, synesthetes typically report that synesthesia does not interfere with daily functioning, and even for those who say it can be disruptive say that they would not want a treatment. The organization previously was not following a particular manual of style, but I (as many others) am concerned about inappropriately medicalizing synesthesia. The majority of synesthesia researchers would consider this to be more in the realm of psychology, in particular in the realms of cognitive psychology/sensation and perception. For example, the recently published Oxford Handbook of Synesthesia, published by Oxford University Press (full disclosure: I am the co-editor of this book), categorizes it as psychology & neuroscience -> cognition & cognitive psychology: http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199603329.do, not medicine. Simply making something part of a wikiproject does not necessarily make it so. Edhubbard (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I hate to say this after all that work, but I have to agree with Edhubbard. I do think that synesthesia is relevant to medicine and that this article appropriate falls into the domain of WPMED, but I don't think it should be thought of as a disease or pathology. If it were, then getting rid of it would be a good thing, and as far as I know hardly anybody believes that. It could be characterized as a symptom, but not as a disease. Looie496 (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure I do not think anyone here is saying it is a disease. It is however a condition. I do not see how these changes indicate it is a disease? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Layout of the article
The new layout can be seen here [17]. The old layout is here [18]. Wondering which people prefer?
New layout As it fits with other articles about health conditions per WP:MEDMOS. Makes it easier to navigate. Do not see any order to the previous layout. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I find the new layout much simpler to navigate, and it is also what is applied in most of our articles. Its implementation does in no way convey that synesthesia is a disease. CFCF (talk) 20:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The organization looks good, but there are sourcing and copyedit issues that are extensive enough that I stopped after only a brief look-- getting something out of this will take sustained attention. There is a lot of editorializing, and primary sources. I see the main contributor is Edhubbard, and the article cites an EM Hubbard frequently.[19]SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Prefer the new layout. Ignoring the disease/health condition/psychological phenomenon controversy and the serious issues raised by SandyGeorgia, organizing sections according to MEDMOS has improved the flow of the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
As noted above, I disagree fundamentally about calling synesthesia a "disease" as Doc James does, and I still contend that moving this to the MEDMOS unfairly medicalizes synesthesia. For example, MEDMOS would have us include a section on treatment when there is no known, no desired, "treatment" for this perceptual anomaly/condition. Edhubbard (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Can you please provide a recent dif of were I called synesthesia a disease? In fact just a couple of sentences above I write "Sure I do not think anyone here is saying it is a disease" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
There are two reasons to prefer the psychological outline, not the medical:
1. Synesthesia is not a health condition. It is not a disease and also, not a known factor that prevents a disease. Words like „symptoms“, „neurological condition“, „diagnosis“ and „epidemiology“ have a stronger association with a disease than with other phenomena. Since many people already believe that synesthesie is an illness, this words could reinforce this misinformation in people, that don't read all parts of this article carefully enough. In fact, there is only one reason to put this article into the medical section: to inform misinformed people (and doctors) that synesthesia is NOT an illness. But the medical outline doesn't do that.
2. Synesthesia is a hot topic in the basic psychological and neuropsychological research. This research is not yet included in this article, but there is a huge body of research on synesthesia as part of normal perception and cognition. For example:
- sequence-space synesthesia is part of the research on how numbers are represented in our minds. Most people have a unconscious number line in there heads and there exists a SNARC effect.
- Mirror-touch synesthesia is part of the psychological and neuropsychological basic research on empathy and socially contagious phenomena.
- all forms of synesthesia are part of the research on crossmodal correspondences, that exist in (almost) all people (e.g. the association of musical pitch with lightness).
- all forms of synesthesia are also part of the neuropsychological basic research on binding mechanisms (how we bind features like colour, shape and direction into a single conscious percept).
In psychology and neuropsychology, synesthesia is not a stand-alone topic, but part of this basic research on normal human perception and thinking. The further development of this article needs an outline, that will allow the inclusion of this fundamental research in psychology and neuropsychology. A medical outline does not have appropriate sections to include that. Rosanick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosanick (talk • contribs) 14:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
What is the "psychology outline" you mention? Why does the a research section not allow further discussion of ongoing research? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
psychological outline = the older outline. Research doesn't focus only on the "condition" synesthesia. Much research has a focus on synesthesia and other topics together (like empathy and mirror-touch synesthesia or feature binding in synesthetes and non-synesthetes). Such topics are major research topics in neuropsychology, not subcategories of research on synesthesia. It's mostly the other way round: research on various types of synesthesia are part of the research on many major topics in psychology and neuropsychology. This article needs space for a brief description of this ongoing research in its own right and in own sections, in addition to a section with research exclusively on synesthesia. The other, already mentioned reason to prefer the old outline, is that the new outline would misinform many people, that don't read all parts of the article, and make them think, that synesthesia is an illness. An article on wikipedia should not misinform people. Rosanick.
This confirms that many people are misinformed and it demonstrates the necessity of not medicalizing synesthesia with a medical outline. Rosanick (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Diagnosis ?
@SandyGeorgia: Could you please find a better word for "Diagnosis"? In the medical context, it's too strongly associated with an illness. Synesthesia is not a medical diagnosis. Rosanick (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to come up with something, but am hitting two obstacles:
The article now says: "Neurologist Richard Cytowic identifies the following diagnostic criteria of synesthesia in his first edition book." If that's the case, we have contradictory messages here.
The article also uses "Definitional criteria", which is also troubling, since it's not clear to me there actually are "criteria" in a diagnostic sense.
Except that wording might leave the impression there is some sort of DSM proposal in the works. Since synesthesia isn't really a "diagnosis", there is a precedent for just using the word "Definition" at Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Symptoms or signs, but I'd like to hear from others before making a change. I have similarly objected to the heading "Diagnosis" at PANDAS since it's not a diagnosis, it's a hypothesis, but I've not gained consensus in that case. The two are similar: not diagnoses, not every likely to be, so we need another term. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
The sources are missing page numbers throughout, but from what is there now, it appears that Cytowic discusses "diagnosis" in not one but three books; could someone supply the page numbers and the exact quotes from the books for the mention of "Diagnosis"? I am less concerned about the "treatment" discussion, because we don't have to have a treatment section unless we have something from sources on treatment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
synesthesia is clearly a perceptual or cognitive phenomenon, not an illness. If you want to use "Diagnosis", it's a diagnosis of a healthy phenomenon, not a medical diagnosis of an illness, and this must be stressed with using "Diagnosis of the healthy phenomenon" or a similar term. Since we are in the medical section of wikipedia, the single word "Diagnosis" could be misunderstood as a medical diagnosis by some readers. The title "Diagnosis of the healthy phenomenon" sounds really bad, therefore, I strongly prefer "Definition" oder "Definition criteria". Rosanick (talk) 23:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I may be repeating myself, but we can't really base text on personal preferences; it would be most helpful if someone would provide quotes from Cytowic's three books where, according to our article, he has criteria for "diagnosis". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
(undent) In his 2002 book (which you can see on google books [22], he discusses this in section 3.2 "Diagnostic criteria for synesthesia" (p. 67-69) Edhubbard (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Definitional aspects
These two articles also seem to point towards an overreliance in this article on Cytowic, Hubbard and others:
PMID22229768 "I then investigate the possible benefits of moving from a behavioural definition to a neurobiological one and explore the ways in which this might force a rethink about the potential outermost boundaries of this fascinating condition."
PMID22229770 "She specifically takes issue with the following assumptions: (1) synaesthesia is strictly a sensory-perceptual phenomenon."
Besides the COI editing, there are numerous book sources without page numbers, a good deal of uncited text, indiscriminate lists in the appendices, and considering the number of recent reviews available, a reliance on old reviews. Alarmingly, there is an extreme reliance on case reports.
There are also multiple statements with a string of citations after them-- usually an indication of either original research, controversy, or someone trying to push their own theories and research into an article. If text belongs here, there should be one good review supporting it.
Also, DOIs and PMIDs link to the article abstract; when an article is behind a paywall, providing the URL gives no additional information-- URL is for free full text.
Further, there is no doubt there is an extremely large amount of health and medical info here; the argument that MEDRS does not apply is absurd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
+1 to those points. I am also concerned that the editor involved is still denying any COI, despite adding their own publications and name to the article, and has shown no indication of planning to changes this aspect of their editing in future. Unsure what is best to proceed ... COI noticeboard? Lesion (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I would remove all of the primary-sourced original research so that the article can be rebuilt from reviews. And remind the editors posting above that a Research section can be used for research that is mentioned in secondary sources-- not as a parking place for more primary-sourced original research. This article is almost all primary research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Cudos Sandy for all this hard work. I came across this just now in the MEDMOS: "Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers." which I thought was very relevant to what has been going on this article. We should remove all mention of the names of researchers unless they are notable. In my opinion this is confined to those who first described the condition, and perhaps a few other truly landmark developments since. Lesion (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
I consider the impoliteness toward the editors Day, Cytowic, Hubbard and Cretien as unnecessary. The four mentioned editors are researchers that act in good faith. All that impolite discussion about COI editing while (first) mostly ignoring our big concerns about using words like „symptoms“ and „diagnosis" was unnecessary in my opinion. These researchers are normal people, it's possible to just ask them to add some more content from other research groups. Rosanick (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Previously it was claimed that I had made personal attacks. I did not at any point. Now you say there is impoliteness, which I also dispute. The issues raised here are purely based on breach of guidelines and policies. Any offense perceived is not intended, and I think I speak for all here on this point. It is difficult to convey tonality in text, and it is easy to get defensive when you feel your hard work is being criticized. Primarily we all need to remember we are here to write an encyclopedia.
Regarding your wording above that these researchers are normal people, can we not take the next step of this logic and conclude that normal people are not notable to be named in person in an encyclopedia article? Lesion (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I mentioned "normal" in context of polite communication, I did not mention "normal" in context of achievements or abilities.Rosanick (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Rosanick, you can thread your posts correctly by adding one more colon to the number of colons on the post before yours. Correcting the COI editing here is not a matter of "just ask[ing] them to add some more content from other research groups". Our sourcing guidelines call for secondary, not primary sources: it's a matter of using the best secondary sources, while refraining from posting any primary research, whether their own or someone else's. And yes, it is unfortunate that offense may be taken when policy and guideline must be applied-- it is often the case that people writing medical content on Wikipedia don't understand that Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. Here, it seems that Edbhubbard does recognize that, but has expressed some disagreement with the fundamental policies and guidelines of the website.
as far as I know, citing primary literature is not defined as a conflict of interest. Also, Hubbard actively encouraged other research groups from different countries to edit this article. This is clearly not compatible with the conception of a conflict of interest. Also, it is possible to simply ask to change things on the article. Therefore, the COI flags are not necessary. I suggest to remove them as soon as possible. These flags also discourage new editors from working on this article. Rosanick (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem with citing primary research (besides the general problems with doing that over reviews) is that one might (inadvertently or otherwise) favor their own research. At any rate, moot now, since we have multiple new reviews from which the article can and should be rebuilt. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
(undent): I don't know that it's a MEDMOS approved term, but I tend to use the term "identifying" rather than "diagnosing". Perhaps "Identification" rather than "Diagnosis"? Edhubbard (talk) 04:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
We should follow whatever term the majority of recent, reliable secondary and tertiary sources (WP:MEDRS) are using. If this is some other term from diagnosis, then I support using a different term. Lesion (talk) 04:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Edhubbard for supplying the information from the book above; with a recognized expert in the field most decidedly referring on more than one occasion to "diagnostic criteria", I am uncomfortable changing the section heading. But, I'm also uncomfortable using the term "diagnosis" for non-recognized conditions (eg PANDAS). Dilemma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Conflicting projects/conflicting standards (or, what is synesthesia, anyway?)
I think the fundamental problem here is that synesthesia straddles the line between the medical world, which falls underWP:Medicine and a normal perceptual variant, which falls under WP:Psychology, with correspondingly different standards/expectations. For example, WP:Medicine assumes mostly a disease model, while WP:Psychology assumes a mostly behavioral/cognitive model. To date, this article has largely been written from the context of synesthesia being a normal perceptual variant, with a neural/genetic basis. However, we also use the term "neurological condition" which has brought in the wikiprojects on neurology and medicine.
Indeed, this conflict is present even in the published literature on synesthesia. In 2001, we referred to synesthesia as a "bizarre phenomenon" [23], and in 2005 as a "condition" [24]. In 2006, Ward and Mattingley argued that synesthesia might be better thought of as a "trait", and one editor considered it a "benign cognitive variant" [25]. In a series of articles in 2012 in the British Journal of Psychololgy, Julia Simner [26], Roi Cohen Kadosh [27] and David Eagleman [28] explicitly discuss the definition of synesthesia (these articles likely need to be added to the article under definition) and note these definitional difficulties.
WP:medicine has a very clear manual of style (WP:MEDMOS) and a very clear set of rigorous standards for sourcing, including the exclusive use of secondary sources(WP:MEDRS). A couple of editors from the medicine project have seen this article, as a medicine article, and note that it does not meet the medicine MEDMOS WP:MEDMOS#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes for the most appropriate section) and MEDRS (WP:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)). So, following these standards, they want to change the order of topics, the heading titles and the referencing standards to conform to MEDMOS and MEDRS.
However, as the article currently notes (see citations in the article), synesthesia is not primarily a disorder or medical condition.
It is not included in the ICD or DSM classifications
It does not interfere with daily functioning
There is no cure, and indeed, synesthetes report that they would not want their synesthesia eliminated.
Synesthesia even confers certain advantages, for example in the domain of memory.
Synesthetes are not seen by clinicians, except as they may present with other medical issues, or in situations of misdiagnosis of synesthetic experiences as signs/symptoms of something else like schizophrenia.
Synesthesia is primarily a perceptual/cognitive phenomenon, and is studied by researchers in psychology, neuroscience and genetics. It is also used by synesthetes in artistic expressions.
As such, MEDMOS is inappropriate in various ways.
The signs/symptoms heading suggests that synesthesia is a sign or a symptom of an underlying pathology.
There is no treatment, so that section of MEDMOS does not and cannot apply.
As a field that is primarily an active domain of research, by experimentalists, rather than clinicians, research is moving quickly and anhand adherence to MEDRS means that we're leaving out important new work. Additionally, one of the main rationales for MEDRS is that wikipedia is "nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information." On the other hand, if synesthesia is not a "health" condition, but rather a perceptual/cognitive variant, this higher standard of MEDRS is inappropriate (standard RS would obviously still apply).
So, the heart of the issue is, do we treat synesthesia as primarily a perceptual/cognitive phenomenon with neural/genetic basis, or is it primarily a medical phenomenon, which would mean that it should be held to the standard medicine project (including MEDMOS/MEDRS) standards? I obviously believe it is more of a perceptual/cognitive phenomenon with a neural/genetic basis... but, on that logic, if these types of phenomena, like synesthesia, are as medical, then we need to treat intelligence, handedness, etc. as also being part of WP:Medicine. This seems to me to be creeping medicalization taken too far. It seems to me that, before we get to these discussions of MEDMOS and MEDRS, this fundamental issue needs to be resolved. Edhubbard (talk) 05:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:RS also states that we should be using secondary sources (it is not just in WP:MEDRS). As mentioned above there are at least 15 from the last 5 years listed on pubmed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
In reply:
The signs/symptoms heading suggests that synesthesia is a sign or a symptom of an underlying pathology.
It does not. This is simply the signs and symptoms of a condition. It does not need to be a pathology.
There is no treatment, so that section of MEDMOS does not and cannot apply.
Many conditions have no treatments. Not all sections are required.
As a field that is primarily an active domain of research, by experimentalists, rather than clinicians, research is moving quickly and anhand adherence to MEDRS means that we're leaving out important new work. Additionally, one of the main rationales for MEDRS is that wikipedia is "nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information." On the other hand, if synesthesia is not a "health" condition, but rather a perceptual/cognitive variant, this higher standard of MEDRS is inappropriate (standard RS would obviously still apply).
MEDRS applies to health and medicine-- the argument that this article isn't about health is meritless (starting with the statement in the article that it is linked to autism, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we have any sources to back any of these statements? I do not have full journal access, but a google scholar search on "synesthesia treatment" returns many hits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
That was easy; a PubMed search shows that this notion of "no treatment, no treatment wanted" is inaccurate. For example, PMID23115347 "Grapheme-color synesthesia appears to be associated with PTSD among veterans who had been deployed. This finding may have implications for PTSD diagnostic screening and treatment." That's just the first hit. It's not a review, but clearly there are treatment implications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
There is also a connection between intelligence and certain pathologies, but intelligence itself is not a disease, that needs treatment. Similar, if there are connections between synesthesia and certain pathologies, this does not mean that synesthesia itself would need treatment. In veterans, traumatized from war, a "treatment" of grapheme-colour synesthesia is probably not a appropriate choice. Rosanick (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Hum good point. Some people who are deaf do not want it treated either as it is a huge part of their identity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Is there even any consensus as to whether synesthesia is a sensory impairment, for which special measures might be appropriate (even if treatnent is neither possible nor appropriate), or a sensory enhancement that might be of benefit or which should be actively enjoyed? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
But Wikipedia text depends on reliable secondary sources, eg:
PMID22229768 "I then investigate the possible benefits of moving from a behavioural definition to a neurobiological one and explore the ways in which this might force a rethink about the potential outermost boundaries of this fascinating condition."
Yes, they think it could be, to some extend, a cognitive phenomenonen instead of a strictly sensory-perceptual phenomenon.Rosanick (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Several of the points above by Edhubbard are irrelevant to whether we can use the MEDMOS layout. For example:
It does not interfere with daily functioning
Interference, distress, or impact is not necessary for Tourette syndrome (TS) either.
There is no cure, and indeed, synesthetes report that they would not want their synesthesia eliminated.
Again, that entire sentence is also true for TS.
Synesthesia even confers certain advantages, for example in the domain of memory.
Ditto again for TS.
These are not valid arguments relative to article organization. As to:
... adherence to MEDRS means that we're leaving out important new work.
It seems to be more of a case of the multitude of reviews that are available have not been used, and one set of researchers brought forward their own primary source views in this article. Adherence to Wikipedia polices, (whether RS or MEDRS) will help assure balance. See also WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOT (news), and WP:NOR-- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia based on information published by other secondary sources-- it is not our job to make news. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 8 January 2014 (UT
I'm not even sure where the right place to add this to the discussion is, anymore, but here's a few sources and quotes about synesthesia and whether it interferes with functioning, whether there's a cure (or one desired, etc).
"Lastly, Baron-Cohen has wondered if the synesthesia gene might be maladaptive. Among nearly 200 contacts I have not encountered more than a handful of synesthetes for whom the condition is umpleasant or disabling, and then only once in a while. Even when my proband case with taste-touch synesthesia (MW) claimed to be sometimes "overwhelmed" by the shapes, textures and movements that he felt, it was, upon closer inquiry, no more than a matter of distractability. Much like the gourmand who doesn't want to be disturbed while savoring his foie gras, MW sometimes wished to ignore ongoing events so that he could attend to a particularly pleasurable synesthesia...." (Cytowic, 2002 p. 56-57)
"As mentioned above, synesthesia is not considered a problem in most cases. However, lack of knowledge about synesthesia-within the medical and scientific community, and, more broadly, among the general public-is considered a major problem by the synesthete community. Synesthetes do not need a cure for synesthesia. Rather we need and want non-synesthete experts, family members, and concerned others to be informed about the occurrence and nature of our experiences so that it stops being thought of as an aberration, but rather a normal variant of perception. Together, we all need to work at finding ways to get rid of biases, misconceptions, pseudoscientific misinformation, dogmatism, and intolerance, is that far many more synesthetes can finally feel a sense of relief and acceptance." (Day p. 31 Some demographic and socio-cultural aspects of synesthesia in Robertson & Sagiv, 2005
"Although awareness of, and interest in, synesthesia continues to rise, there is much yet to be done. Despite well over a century of interest in synesthesia, we are still just now learning the basic tenets of not only how synesthesia works but also what synesthesia is. One key will be to increase public awareness of synesthesia, both to facilitate recruitment of research participants and also to allay any remaining stigma that may be associated with experiencing synesthesia. Having a term defined in this way tends to imply that there is an association with some sort of disorder or psychopathology. In fact, little evidence exists to suggest that synesthesia may be consistently linked with any disorder or illness (although see Banissy et al. 2012). However, the popular press writers often use unfortunate headlines, such as “ 500,000 Children Suffer From Cross-sensory Condition” (DailyMail.co.uk 2008), or The Illness That Confuses the Senses (Garner 2001). (p. 428 Lovelace in Simner and Hubbard, 2013; http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199603329.do)
Note that all of these are either single author books (Cytowic, 2002) or edited volumes (Day in Robertson & Sagiv, 2005 and Lovelace in Simner and Hubbard, 2013) published by reputable academic publishing houses (MIT Press and Oxford University Press). Additionally, I have intentionally sought out different authors in different years during the recent wave of synesthesia research to show that this is not an opinion espoused by just one person, at one limited point in time.
In general, (I've mentioned this above, but it's worth saying again, clearly) for a comprehensive secondary source for much of the article, you might look at the Oxford Handbook of Synesthesia, published by Oxford University Press on December 12 of 2013. Of course, as an editor of the book, me even mentioning it might be considered a WP:COI. But, objectively, it is a book and therefore a secondary source. It is a major Handbook (49 chapters, 1100+ pages) by a major academic publishing house, and therefore reputable, and as Martin Evans notes above, Julia Simner is a widely recognized and respected synesthesia researcher. Edhubbard (talk) 04:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
The 2013 books sounds like a very good source. Edhubbard, how about the following approach? If you (or anyone who has that book or the time) can cite any of the removed text below to that book, the text can be readded. How about grabbing all of the removed text section below, put it in sandbox, cite what can be cited to the book or recent reviews, and someone/anyone can re-add it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm swamped today by the imminent beginning of the semester and a new baby girl, but here's some pointers for people who might want to add stuff from the OUP book. If you want to help out, you can see a large portion of the book for free online through google books (http://books.google.com/books?lr=lang_en&id=ESH7AAAAQBAJ). Note, though that the book is the actual source, and google books is just a convenient way for many people to verify the source.
We certainly need a review on the genetics of synesthesia (Chapter 2; I think is the first *review* of the recent GWAS studies out there)
Personification (Ch. 12)
Individual differences (Chapters 13 and 22)
Perceptual reality of synesthesia (Chapter 15; see also Ch. 14 for limits to automaticity)
History (chapters 19-21; with different authors covering different eras)
Synesthesia in literature (Ch. 33) , memory (Ch. 34), artificial synesthesia (Ch. 42).
"Sequence space synesthesia" (also time-space and number-form synesthesia, which might be considered subtypes of SSS, see our introductory comments xxi-xxii) (chapter 7).
Sound = Shape/Texture or Color synesthesia (fades with age?)
Hi. I have read this article many times in the past hoping to find a name for the synesthesia experiences I had as a child. I seem to have outgrown these, and actually miss it - but I still remember many examples quite well.
Specifically, sounds associated with both colors and shapes in some circumstances, such as "Orange and Round," whereas with others, it was a color and a texture, such as "brown and wooden" or even a color and a sense of an encompassing volume, such as "brown and 20 gallons."
I would appreciate any input (and/or questions) regarding this. Please contact me: plvinoski@hardynet.com. Thanks
Synesthesia and Ideasthesia are Tested as neurological phenomena but are part of the Natural evolution of instinct, sensation, emotion, and mentation; our means for meaning...
The effort to understand at this level of life's inducements, interactions and transformations can simplify or complicate observations of evolution...Arnlodg (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[1]
Memorization in Conjunction with Synaesthesia is Often an Unconscious Process
In the article it seems to imply that people with Synaesthesia use their Synaesthesia to facilitate in memorizing numbers, for example, but that's not what happens. Numbers just seem to stick in the brain, perhaps aided by their association with color.
I never tried to memorize my credit card number, my two library cards, my social security and drivers license #s, but they just stick in my mind. This is common among synaesthetes. It is a conjecture that this phenomenon happens because of the associations of colors with those numbers.
The caption for the first image in this article is as follows:
"How someone with synesthesia might perceive (not "see") certain letters and numbers. Synesthetes see characters just as others do (in whichever color actually displayed), yet simultaneously perceive colors as associated to each one."
To me, there are some problems with this wording which create confusion and ambiguity.
1) The verb perceive includes all the ways we perceive the world through the five senses, including seeing. Thus, the phrase "not 'see'" is not necessary and is confusing.
2) In the first phrase, I do not see the necessity for the word "certain". "How someone with synesthesia might perceive letters and numbers" ought to be sufficient.
3) In "Synesthetes see characters....", I think the word "characters" creates confusion. Characters generally refer to letters, not numbers. Numbers are figures. I think it would be clearer to say, "Synesthetes see letters and numbers just as others do...."
4) The phrase "yet simultaneously perceive colors as associated to each one" is not clear. It is the last part of this that is ambiguous. The phrase "each one" could mean "each character (or each letter and number)" or "each color".
I suggest the following wording:
"How someone with synesthesia might perceive letters and numbers. Synesthetes see letters and numbers just as others do (in whatever color actually displayed) yet simultaneously perceive certain other colors associated with each letter or number."
I realize that "letters and numbers" or the singular "letter or number" appears three times. Another alternative might be to use only the first phrase as the caption and leave the rest for the body of the article.
If there is something I am not aware of that caused me to misunderstand what was intended, I would be glad to learn of it. – CorinneSD (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The caption currently reads: "How someone with synesthesia might perceive (not "see") certain letters and numbers. Synesthetes see characters just as others do (in whichever color actually displayed), yet simultaneously perceive colors as associated to each one." Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Since the colors "perceived" are there on the picture "to see" for the readers, i found the emphasis put in the caption on differentiation between "actually seen" and "not seen yet somehow perceived" quite helpful.
On another note: in my mind (what i got as "common cnowledge") synesthesia and music composer Claude Debussy used to be very strongly associated, eg all that I have ever heared about synesthesia I have heard in connection with "Debussy the most known synesthetic", so I am rather surprised to see no mention of Debussy in the article, neither as synesthetic, nor as "commonly thought of as synesthetic". 80.98.114.70 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello! I am Ampo00182. I am enrolled in a summer course at my university. Our assignment is to find a citation needed and add a short passage of new information with appropriate citation. I am currently in my third year majoring in Psychology, we just learned about Synesthesia! I will be finding the citation for the follow passage:
Depending on the study, researchers have suggested 1 in 2,000 people have some form of synesthesia, while others have reported 1 in 300 or even as many as 1 in 23. One problem with statistics is that some individuals will not self-classify as they do not realize that their perceptions are different from those of everyone else.[30]
Grapheme-color, chromesthesia, or anything color-related, appear to be the most common forms of synesthesia. Some of the rarest are reported to be auditory-tactile, mirror-touch, and lexical-gustatory.[citation needed]
As part of the wikipedia project we were asked to add new content. This is new content I will be adding to the epidemiology sections:
Old paragraph: Grapheme-color, chromesthesia, or anything color-related, appear to be the most common forms of synesthesia. Some of the rarest are reported to be auditory-tactile, mirror-touch, and lexical-gustatory
New paragraph with added information: Grapheme-color, chromesthesia, or anything color-related, appear to be the most common forms of synaesthesia, they have a prevalence rate of 64.4% in the synaesthesia population. Some studies have found that colour related grapheme can account for 86%. Time related words-colour synaesthesia is the second most common with a prevalence rate of 22%-62%. Music-colour is also prevalent at 18%, some studies found that music-colour was shown in 41% of patients. Some of the rarest are reported to be auditory-tactile, mirror-touch, and lexical-gustatory
The eyeborg section at the very bottom should be explained more if it is used.
You can also differentiate between child and adult synesthesia. There are special cases of children synesthesia that differ from adult.
You can also add more about how it effects memory and how it has affected memory contests or mental athletes.
The intro paragraph can also be worded more clearly. This concept is really interesting and can attract a lot of attention with the first paragraph.
make sure to elaborate different cases of different types of synesthesia from diverse senses.
@Ampo00182: what is your source for the added information? If you’re not sure how to format a reference, just post the information here and someone else can code it up. Citations aren‘t needed for every general statement, but IMO statistics are the kind of information that particularly calls for sourcing. And a minor point: this article is in American English, so the spelling of synesthesia should be kept consistent (and match the title) per our style guidelines. Similarly, although I write colour myself, in AmE articles I take care to spell it color; it’s quite jarring to see both in the same paragraph.—Odysseus147902:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Odysseus1479: One source is already cited, I coded it earlier and added it. I do have a second source, I could not get the cite formats to work. The source I used was: Niccolai, V., Jennes, J., Stoerig, P., & Leeuwen, T. M. V. (2012). Modality and variability of synesthetic experience. The American Journal of Psychology, 125(1), 81-94. PMID: 22428428. I fixed all spelling to match the rest of the article. Thanks Ampo00182 (talk) 02:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Disease of the skin?
I disagree with the disease infobox on this article. Nowhere in the article is the condition or phenomenon called a disease, and AFAICT at least some of those ‘afflicted’ (and those who know them) seem to regard it as a gift or talent. Moreover the ICD-10 link is to “Other and unspecified disturbances of skin sensation” under skin diseases conditions, which seems scarcely appropriate. If there’s no better diagnostic category for it, better to remove the parameter than to confuse readers.—Odysseus147907:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
P.S. If it is to be called a disease there should be support with citations in the article body, and surely something like R44.8 would be a better choice of code! (One word changed above.) —Odysseus147908:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Note that the Diagnostic criteria section of this article states in the first sentence: "Although often termed a 'neurological condition, synesthesia is not listed in either the DSM-IV or the ICD since it most often does not interfere with normal daily functioning.", with reference to PMID17521514. Unless that's inaccurate or out of date, these codes should not be present at all. Looie496 (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The ICD is not just for diseases but also for medical conditions. Simply because it is listed does not mean it is a disease. And I do not think anyone here is saying it is a disease. Synesthesia is definately listed here [29] and they also recommend seeing "disturbance, sensation"
Pregnancy is also in the ICD9 and ICD10 and it is not a "disease" either [30]
Per the ref you link, it is not directly listed as its own number in the ICD9/10 but it is rather included in another classification. So that is technically correctDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that on the continuum of synesthesia, most who experience it would not consider it to be a "medical condition" at all. So I think the ICD10 is borderline. The ICD9 does not seem justified, especially as skin is not mentioned anywhere in this article. Unless a diagnostic taxonomy contains the word "synesthesia" I'm not convinced any such classification is fully justified. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
I mean this: 1). When I follow the link to ICD-10, I don't see the word "Synesthesia". 2). Can any of the 347 articles you mention be used as sources in this article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I do not really understand the reason for the ICD-code... it seems to be original research, since a google scholar search with this ICD-code and "synesthesia" yields exactly zero results. This categorization is also quite discriminating. I mean, synesthesia is not a disease and it is surely not more related to diseases than other variables, like hair colour, intellectual giftedness or specific human races. The ICD-code (and also the MeSH-code) in this synesthesia article is about as appropriate as a similar code in the wikipedia articles about intellectual giftedness or specific skin colours. Rosanick (talk) 09:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Synesthesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Synesthesia. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I feel there should be a better continuity of information. I would like to move the History section towards the beginning, perhaps right before Characteristics. And then I would put Causes and Mechanisms after Characteristics. Forms would come after that. However, the average reader probably only cares about the forms of synesthesia the most, so maybe having this section further down may not be a good idea? RosaYang (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that you should rearrange the headings. Start with history (like more other wiki pages do) and then move to characteristics. Forms could even be arguably combined with characteristics since they are very similar. Then cause and mechanisms could be combined. I think forms should stay close to the top of the middle rather than the bottom as well, since they seem to be the main "meat" of the article.
I agree making the history closer to the top would better align the article with other wiki entries. I would also suggest moving the research section up higher, because currently it seems as though it is the least important as it comes last. I feel that the Society and Culture section is better fitted for that space in the article. Courtney Crump (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that there should be better continuity, but I think moving Forms so low down wouldn't be the best idea. It is, like you said, probably one of the main questions that people have about synesthesia and thus they would like to easily access it. Otherwise I think that the rearranging of the sections makes sense and would make the page clearer. Ehardiman (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, I would like to add a bit more info about Solomon Shereshevsky under the "Notable Cases" subheading. He is mentioned once at the beginning of the Forms section but I feel there should be some more explanation about his synesthesia since he is the most famous synesthesia subject in the psychology field. Sources will also be added. RosaYang (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I think that would be an excellent addition to the article, especially if you detail the negative aspects of synesthesia with which S. had to live. The article briefly mentions the concept of sensory overload in the very beginning (under the characteristics section). You can expand on this by detailing S.'s difficulty with reading, for example, or his initial inability to empty his memory palaces. Sowallabear (talk) 00:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the comments made about rearranging the article. I would also recommend that you include some information about the distinction between a synesthete and a mnemonist. I think these terms are frequently confused and since both are used to achieve feats of great memory, I think it is feasible to assume people might believe a synesthete is just a mnemonist. Zoeberk (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Introduction
I'm going to remove the section in the introductory section about "Grapheme-color synesthesia." It's repeated below and plus it has own page. Any objections?
I know somebody who associates people with colors (apparently I'm medium green) and another person who tastes names. We should add a section talking about those, assuming they are common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.136.118 (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Pictures and Graphs
Hello fellow Wikipedians! I would like to see more illustrations or pictures and possibly links to videos that show more of what a person with this condition sees on a daily basis. I feel that would allow us the readers to better see this state of awareness.Christian Barrow (talk) 06:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
As with many psychological conditions, I would have thought that it would be very difficult to illustrate this condition with "illustrations or pictures" of any kind. Personally I find the current lead image quite contrived and artificial. What sort of "graphs" were you thinking of? Do you have any sources in mind that currently use illustrations? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Although we currently have four citations in the first paragraph, there is no need to include them there if they are given later. In fact, there is often good reason to given them only later where topics are considered in more detail. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
synthesthesia and me
Thanks for the information. I am a synesthesiast, I see colours, patterns pictures, imagery movement (colour and shapes dancing) from music. Singular notes have their own colour, chords have their own singular colour but a melody/song has different colour formations, depending the formation of all the instruments, the melody, blending of notes, pitch, beat, tempo, vocals, harmonys, tones, word pronounciation, the feelings and emotions omitted from the vocals and music. One song performed my various artists/bands even in the exact same key will have a totally different colour formations and totally different images because the sound will be different and the performers emotions omitted from the music are personal, creating their own different vibe. I also feel very strong physical sensation from music, from tingling in various places in my body, spasms, the feeling of various physical things touching my skin, being held tight, to feeling absolutely nothing, painful touches to comforting and gentle touches. My moods, emotions, health and thoughts are strongly affected and my energy levels too. Numbers have colours as do letters and formations of letters (words). Feelings have colours too. All environmental and industrial sounds have colours too. Touch has colours, smell has colours. All my sensory funtions have colour attached to every single sense used. Story's and conversations have pictures or images attached. My senses and brain are over active and colourful.
Author Rachael Sushames Rachael Sushames (talk) 18:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I think the sections need to be written with a more critical eye. I have heard people talk about Synesthesia before, and in many cases I suspect the person is just projecting their need to feel more smarter than others onto a made up condition. The medical angle I think is an echo of the 'savant' syndrome / genius obsession Americans in partiuclar seem to propogate. I highly suspect most people who claim they have this medical condition' are in reality using mnemonic techniques that have been used since the Ancient Greeks. The fact it is color that is is the medium by which meaning and associations are attached is no more different than other standard mnemonic technique that associate chunks of information with preloaded support signals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1940:9550:E164:46F7:B5A0:A327 (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Errors in illustration descriptions
There’s something wrong with the descriptions below the illustrations on this page. They both mention a clock face, but this doesn’t make any sense. I can’t find a clock face, upside down or any way around. I believe the descriptions need editing by whoever made the original post. Paulinewatson (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
I didn't add the illustrations and it took me a while but I eventually saw it. I have altered the descriptions to better indicate the point. Captainllama (talk) 21:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsteph98.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Upton.brooklynn.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2020 and 25 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChelseaMcMullens.
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jsteph98.