Chemosensory Perception

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 45–52 | Cite as

Composing with Cross-modal Correspondences: Music and Odors in Concert

  • Anne-Sylvie Crisinel
  • Caroline Jacquier
  • Ophelia Deroy
  • Charles Spence
Article

Abstract

We report two experiments designed to investigate cross-modal correspondences between a range of seven olfactory stimuli and both the pitch and instrument class of sounds as well as the angularity of visually presented shapes. The results revealed that odors were preferentially matched to musical features: For example, the odors of candied orange and iris flower were matched to significantly higher pitches than the odors of musk and roasted coffee. Meanwhile, the odor of crème brûlée was associated with a more rounded shape than the musk odor. Moreover, by simultaneously testing cross-modal correspondences between olfactory stimuli and matches in two other modalities, we were able to compare the ratings associated with each correspondence. Stimuli judged as happier, more pleasant, and sweeter tended to be associated to both higher pitch and a more rounded shape, whereas other ratings seemed to be more specifically correlated with the choice of either pitch or shape. Odors rated as more arousing tended to be associated with the angular shape, but not with a particular pitch; odors judged as brighter were associated with higher pitch and, to a lesser extent, rounder shapes. In a follow-up experiment, we investigated whether people could match specific pieces of music (composed to represent odors) to three of the odors (candied orange, crème brûlée, and ginger cookies). In one case (candied orange), a majority of the participants matched the odor to the intended piece of music. In another case (ginger cookies), another piece of music (than the one intended) was preferred. Finally, in the third case (crème brûlée), people showed no preference in matching the odor to the pieces of music. Both theoretical and practical implications of these results are discussed.

Keywords

Cross-modal correspondences Emotion Musical notes Odors Pitch Shapes 

References

  1. Belkin K, Martin R, Kemp SE, Gilbert AN (1997) Auditory pitch as a perceptual analogue to odor quality. Psy Sci 8:340–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berglund B, Berglund U, Engen T, Ekman G (1973) Multidimensional analysis of twenty-one odors. Scand J Psychol 14:131–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bremner AJ, Caparos S, Davidoff J, de Fockert J, Linnell KJ, Spence C (2013) “Bouba” and “Kiki” in Namibia? A remote culture make similar shape-sound matches, but different shape-taste matches to Westerners. Cognition 126:165–172Google Scholar
  4. Chrea C, Grandjean D, Delplanque S, Cayeux I, Le Calvé B, Aymard L, Velazco MI, Sander D, Scherer KR (2009) Mapping the semantic space for the subjective experience of emotional responses to odors. Chem Senses 34:49–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crisinel A-S, Spence C (2010) As bitter as a trombone: synesthetic correspondences in non-synesthetes between tastes and flavors and musical instruments and notes. Atten Percept Psycho 72:1994–2002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crisinel A-S, Spence C (2012a) A fruity note: crossmodal associations between odors and musical notes. Chem Senses 37:151–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crisinel A-S, Spence C (2012b) Assessing the appropriateness of “synaesthetic” messaging on crisps packaging. Food Qual Prefer 26:45–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crisinel A-S, Cosser S, King S, Jones R, Petrie J, Spence C (2012) A bittersweet symphony: systematically modulating the taste of food by changing the sonic properties of the soundtrack playing in the background. Food Qual Prefer 24:201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Demattè ML, Sanabria D, Spence C (2006a) Cross-modal associations between odors and colors. Chem Senses 31:531–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demattè ML, Sanabria D, Sugarman R, Spence C (2006b) Cross-modal interactions between olfaction and touch. Chem Senses 31:291–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Deroy O, Crisinel A-S, Spence C (2013) The ubiquity of crossmodal correspondences: lessons from olfaction. Psychon B Rev (in press)Google Scholar
  12. Deroy O, Valentin D (2011) Tasting liquid shapes: investigating the sensory basis of cross-modal correspondences. Chemosens Percept 4:80–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ernst MO (2007) Learning to integrate arbitrary signals from vision and touch. J Vis 7(5/7):1–14Google Scholar
  14. Evans KK, Treisman A (2010) Natural cross-modal mappings between visual and auditory features. J Vision 10(1:6):1–12Google Scholar
  15. Gilbert AN, Martin R, Kemp SE (1996) Cross-modal correspondence between vision and olfaction: the color of smells. Am J Psychol 109:335–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hanson-Vaux G, Crisinel A-S, Spence C (2013) Smelling shapes: Crossmodal correspondences between odors and shapes. Chem Senses 38:161–166Google Scholar
  17. Klink RR (2000) Creating brand names with meaning: the use of sound symbolism. Mark Lett 11:5–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Köhler W (1929) Gestalt psychology. Liveright, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Lakoff G, Johnson M (2003) Metaphors we live by, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. Lyman B (1979) Representation of complex emotional and abstract meanings by simple forms. Percept Motor Skill 49:839–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Macdermott MM (1940) Vowel sounds in poetry: their music and tone-colour. Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Maric I, Jaquot M (2013) Contribution to understanding odour–colour associations. Food Qual Prefer 27:191–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marks LE (1974) On associations of light and sound: the mediation of brightness, pitch, and loudness. Am J Psychol 87:173–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marks LE, Hammeal RJ, Bornstein MH, Smith LB (1987) Perceiving similarity and comprehending metaphor. Monogr Soc Res Child 52:1–100Google Scholar
  25. Melara RD, O’Brien TP (1987) Interaction between synesthetically corresponding dimensions. J Exp Psychol Gen 116:323–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mesz B, Trevisan MA, Sigman M (2011) The taste of music. Perception 40:209–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mesz B, Sigman M, Trevisan MA (2012) A composition algorithm based on crossmodal taste–music correspondences. Front Hum Neurosci 6:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ngo M, Misra R, Spence C (2011) Assessing the shapes and speech sounds that people associate with chocolate samples varying in cocoa content. Food Qual Prefer 22:567–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. North AC (2012) The effect of background music on the taste of wine. Brit J Psychol 103:293–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. North AC, Hargreaves DJ, McKendrick J (1997) In-store music affects product choice. Nature 390:132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. North AC, Hargreaves DJ, McKendrick J (1999) The influence of in-store music on wine selections. J Appl Psychol 84:271–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Boyle MW, Tarte RD (1980) Implications for phonetic symbolism: the relationship between pure tones and geometric figures. J Psycholinguist Res 9:535–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Palmer SE, Schloss KB (2012) Color, music and emotion. In École thématique interdisciplinaire CNRS. Coloeur: Approaches multisensorielles. Ôkhra SCIC SA, Roussillon, pp 43–58Google Scholar
  34. Pratt CC (1930) The spatial character of high and low tones. J Exp Psychol 13:278–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Schiffman S, Robinson DE, Louis S, Erickson RP (1977) Multidimensional scaling of odorants: examination of psychological and physiochemical dimensions. Chem Sens Flav 2:375–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Seo H-S, Hummel T (2010) Auditory–olfactory integration: congruent or pleasant sounds amplify odor pleasantness. Chem Senses 36:301–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Seo H-S, Arshamian A, Schemmer K, Scheer I, Sander T, Ritter G, Hummel T (2010) Cross-modal integration between odors and abstract symbols. Neurosci Lett 478:175–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sester C, Deroy O, Sutan A, Galia F, Desmarchelier J-F, Valentin D, Dacremont C (2013) “Having a drink in a bar”: an immersive approach to explore the effects of context on food choice. Food Qual Prefer 28:23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shankar MU, Levitan C, Spence C (2010) Grape expectations: the role of cognitive influences in color-flavor interactions. Conscious Cog 19:380–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spence C (2011a) Crossmodal correspondences: a tutorial review. Atten Percept Psycho 73:971–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Spence C (2011b) Wine and music. World Fine Wine 31:96–104Google Scholar
  42. Spence C (2012a) Auditory contributions to flavour perception and feeding behaviour. Physiol Behav 107:505–515Google Scholar
  43. Spence C (2012b) Synaesthetic marketing: cross sensory selling that exploits unusual neural cues is finally coming of age. The Wired World in 2013, 104–107Google Scholar
  44. Spence C, Gallace A (2011) Multisensory design: reaching out to touch the consumer. Psychol Mark 28:267–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stevenson RJ, Rich A, Russell A (2012) The nature and origin of cross-modal associations to odours. Perception 41:606–619CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Von Hornbostel EM (1931) Über Geruchshelligkeit [On odor/smell brightness]. Pflug Arch Gesamte Phys 227:517–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Walker L, Walker P, Francis B (2013) A common scheme for cross-sensory correspondences across stimulus dimensions. Perception 41:1186–1192Google Scholar
  48. Yeshurun Y, Sobel N (2010) An odor is not worth a thousand words: from multidimensional odors to unidimensional odor objects. Annu Rev Psychol 61:219–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zarzo M (2008) Psychologic dimensions in the perception of everyday odors: pleasantness and edibility. J Sens Stud 23:354–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anne-Sylvie Crisinel
    • 1
  • Caroline Jacquier
    • 2
  • Ophelia Deroy
    • 3
  • Charles Spence
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Crossmodal Research Laboratory, Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Institut Paul Bocuse Research CentreEcullyFrance
  3. 3.Centre for the Study of the Senses, School of Advanced StudyUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations