Save

Mixing up the Senses: Sensory Substitution Is Not a Form of Artificially Induced Synaesthesia

In: Multisensory Research
Authors:
Louise P. KirschInstitut des Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique (ISIR), Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

Search for other papers by Louise P. Kirsch in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Xavier JobInstitut des Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique (ISIR), Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

Search for other papers by Xavier Job in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Malika AuvrayInstitut des Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique (ISIR), Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

Search for other papers by Malika Auvray in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

$34.95

Abstract

Sensory Substitution Devices (SSDs) are typically used to restore functionality of a sensory modality that has been lost, like vision for the blind, by recruiting another sensory modality such as touch or audition. Sensory substitution has given rise to many debates in psychology, neuroscience and philosophy regarding the nature of experience when using SSDs. Questions first arose as to whether the experience of sensory substitution is represented by the substituted information, the substituting information, or a multisensory combination of the two. More recently, parallels have been drawn between sensory substitution and synaesthesia, a rare condition in which individuals involuntarily experience a percept in one sensory or cognitive pathway when another one is stimulated. Here, we explore the efficacy of understanding sensory substitution as a form of ‘artificial synaesthesia’. We identify several problems with previous suggestions for a link between these two phenomena. Furthermore, we find that sensory substitution does not fulfil the essential criteria that characterise synaesthesia. We conclude that sensory substitution and synaesthesia are independent of each other and thus, the ‘artificial synaesthesia’ view of sensory substitution should be rejected.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 700 256 47
Full Text Views 57 32 4
PDF Views & Downloads 97 60 3