Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so).

Area of Science:

• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Psychology
• Sensory Perception

Background:

• The claim that intuitive crossmodal matchings are a weak form of synesthesia has been influential for over a decade.
• Many researchers have implicitly or explicitly agreed with this position, assimilating crossmodal correspondences to synesthesia.
• This assimilation risks conflating two distinct phenomena, potentially leading to inappropriate and misleading interpretations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To defend the separatist view, arguing that crossmodal correspondences and synesthesia are distinct phenomena.
• To critically evaluate the evidence for both crossmodal correspondences and synesthesia, highlighting their differences.
• To propose a general definition and framework for understanding crossmodal correspondences.

Main Methods:

• Critical evaluation of existing research on the descriptive and constitutive features of crossmodal correspondences and synesthesia.
• Comparative analysis to delineate the differences between the two phenomena.
• Theoretical framework development for defining and integrating crossmodal correspondences.

Main Results:

• Crossmodal correspondences and synesthesia, despite superficial similarities, represent distinct types of phenomena.
• Assimilation of crossmodal correspondences to synesthesia is inappropriate and potentially misleading.
• Evidence suggests crossmodal correspondences are acquired, malleable, relative, and transitive pairings between sensory dimensions.

Conclusions:

• Crossmodal correspondences should be studied as independent phenomena, not as a variant of synesthesia.
• A clear distinction is necessary for accurate scientific understanding and explanation.
• A proposed framework will help integrate the growing catalog of crossmodal correspondence cases.