Talk:Synesthesia

Archive1 here

Talk:Synesthesia/Archive 1. This archive is grouped by topic, and includes discussions on the following topics:

• Am I a Synaesthete?
• An old discussion on External links (although this is an issue that might bear revisiting)
• Reading as synesthesia
• Synaesthesia and drugs
• Fitzgerald Reference
• Alphabet books as source of letter colours (another topic that might bear revisiting)
• Fingernails on a chalkboard
• "Only We Matter" sentence
• Confused
• Article in need of rewriting

This archive was created by Edhubbard 20:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Added

• Confused
• Synaesthesia in art

to the archive by Edhubbard 20:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive 2 here

Talk:Synesthesia/Archive 2. This archive is grouped by topic, and includes discussions on the following topics:

• Previous discussion of archiving the talk page
• Discussion of Associated Cognitive Traits section
• Discussion of Possible Neural Basis section
• "More specific please"
• Clinical description section
• Bouba/kiki
• Spelling
• Technobabble
• Synaestheticwiki image
• Reorg: Moved kiki/bouba
• Spelling! We need consistency...
• Commenting on Personification Synaesthesia
• A modest request
• Creation of a category tag
• "Impressive"
• Lexical → gustatory
• Music → color synesthesia
• Grapheme → color synesthesia
• Revert
• Spatial-sequence synesthesia

I have double checked and the majority of these discussions come from July - October 2006, when we were making lots of edits to the page. Nothing I have archived is from 2007, so at the conversations on those topics have been dead for at least three months. Edhubbard 13:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians with Synaesthesia

If you're a synaesthete and want to state it on your userpage, there is now a handy userbox for you to do so!

Code	Result
{{User synaesthesia}}	SYNThis user is a synaesthete.

Use it wilfully. Felicity Knife 23:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• The box looks all wrong. - Xvall

Damn, those colors smell so good from here I can almost taste them. (;--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 17:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I might make that much more complicated. Every letter would hav two colours. Brewhaha@edmc.net 07:37, 8 August 2007 (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 M 23:51, 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. Edhubbard 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

CFR of interest

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 4#Category:Synesthetes — coelacan — 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

References

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 Lacatosias 08:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, it's also hideously ugly. But this is subjective.--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 08:24, 18 April 2007 (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. --MilFlyboy 10:12, 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. Edhubbard 12:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Bouba/kiki effect

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|Ť 20:48, 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. Edhubbard 17:09, 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|Ť 12:36, 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. Edhubbard 19:30, 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|Ť 10:27, 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? Edhubbard 10:33, 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. Edhubbard 11:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Psychedelics

Anyone got any good information to share regarding synaesthesia induced by psychedelic drugs? 193.60.93.206 23:44, 28 May 2007 (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. Edhubbard 19:24, 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? 193.60.93.206 20:33, 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. Edhubbard 19:34, 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. Hypnosifl 06:23, 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. Edhubbard 06:39, 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. Edhubbard 21:34, 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. Edhubbard 21:34, 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. Edhubbard 21:34, 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. Edhubbard 21:34, 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. Edhubbard 21:34, 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. Except 19:51, 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). Edhubbard 21:34, 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.Except 19:56, 1 August 2007 (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?

No, that is a separate syndrome called Exploding head syndrome. Communisthamster 13:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Edhubbard 14:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The page states that there is a flash of light associated with exploding head syndrome. Jumping cheese 05:03, 28 August 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? BenM 11:42, 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). -- Craigtalbert 12:35, 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.net 07:47, 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?
                 --BenM 03:27, 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. TheJudge310 22:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Musical Notes and Days

Is automatically associating musical notes with days of the week (for example: Monday is C, Tuesday is D), considered synesthesia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.104.51 (talk) 03:00, 15 September 2007 (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'd love to see this article get to FA status. I'm willing to do some of the grunt work for my part. Torgo (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Relation to Olfactory and/or Auditory Memory'?

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've read that this isn't uncommon, but today all I can find is this: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/8736.php

Just was wondering if this is the same as or related to Synesthesia?