Abstract
Auditory pitch is represented on a vertical continuum (e.g., high vs. low). In three experiments, we examined whether the kinesthetic experience of moving in a particular direction (e.g., walking up vs. down stairs; reaching up vs. down) would affect judgments of auditory pitch. Participants listened to three tones twice each, once while moving upward and once while moving downward, and estimated the pitch of each tone. In all experiments, participants’ judgments of the tones’ pitch were biased in the direction of their movement. Moreover, this effect is not due to visibility of the movement or to using a numerical response method. Our results suggest that kinesthetic information from one’s own bodily movements biases pitch estimation, and several possible mechanisms for the effect are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Apple Inc (2013) Logic Pro X (Computer software). Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/logic-pro/
Bach JS (1720) Unaccompanied cello suite no. 1 in G Major, BWV 1007: Prélude [Recorded by Yo-Yo Ma]. On The Six Unaccompanied Cello Suites [MP3 file]. Sony Classical (1983)
Bonetti L, Costa M (2017) Pitch-verticality and pitch-size cross-modal interactions. Psychol Music 46:340–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617710734
Brunetti R, Indraccolo A, del Gatto C, Spence C, Santangelo V (2018) Are crossmodal correspondences relative or absolute? Sequential effects on speeded classification. Atten Percept Psychophys 80:527–534. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1445-z
Casasanto D, Dijkstra K (2010) Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition 115:179–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.002
Chandler JJ, Reinhard D, Schwarz N (2012) To judge a book by its weight you need to know its content: knowledge moderates the use of embodied cues. J Exp Soc Psychol 48:948–952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.003
Connell L, Cai ZG, Holler J (2013) Do you see what I’m singing? Visuospatial movement biases pitch perception. Brain Cognit 81:124–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.09.005
Dolscheid S, Casasanto D (2015) Spatial congruity effects reveal metaphorical thinking, not polarity correspondence. Front Psychol 6:1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01836
Dolscheid S, Shayan S, Majid A, Casasanto D (2013) The thickness of musical pitch: psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychol Sci 24:613–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457374
Eitan Z, Granot RY (2006) How music moves: musical parameters and listeners’ images of motion. Music Percept Interdiscip J 23:221–247. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2006.23.3.221
Evans KK, Treisman A (2010) Natural cross-modal mappings between visual and auditory features. J Vis 10:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1167/10.1.6
Fernández-Prieto I, Spence C, Pons F, Navarra J (2017) Does language influence the vertical representation of auditory pitch and loudness? i-Perception. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517716183
Glenberg AM, Witt JK, Metcalfe J (2013) From the revolution to embodiment: 25 years of cognitive psychology. Perspect Psychol Sci 8:573–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613498098
Huron D, Shanahan D (2013) Eyebrow movements and vocal pitch height: evidence consistent with an ethological signal. Acoust Soc Am 133:2947–2952. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4798801
Huron D, Dahl S, Johnson R (2009) Facial expression and vocal pitch height: evidence of an intermodal association. Empir Musicol Rev 4:93–100
Imbo I, Vandierendonck A (2007) The role of working memory in simple-arithmetic strategies. Eur J Cognit Psycholgy 19:910–933. https://doi.org/10.1080/0954144601051571
Ito Y, Hatta T (2004) Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: evidence from the SNARC effect. Mem Cognit 32:662–673
Jaquet L, Danuser B, Gomez P (2012) Music and felt emotions: how systematic pitch level variations affect the experience of pleasantness and arousal. Psychol Music 42:51–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735612456583
Körner A, Topolinski S, Strack F (2015) Routes to embodiment. Front Psychol 6:940. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00940
Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognit Sci 4:195–208. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4
Lemaitre G, Scurto H, Franҫoise J, Bevilacqua F, Houix O, Susini P (2017) Rising tones and rustling noises: metaphors in gestural depictions of sounds. PLoS ONE 12:1–30. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181786
Maeda F, Kanai R, Shimojo S (2004) Changing pitch induced visual motion illusion. Curr Biol 14:R990–R991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.11.018
Mossbridge JA, Grabowecky M, Suzuki S (2011) Changes in auditory frequency guide visual-spatial attention. Cognition 121:133–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.003
Occelli V, Spence C, Zampini M (2009) Compatibility effects between sound frequency and tactile elevation. NeuroReport 20:793–797. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e32832b8069
Pratt CC (1930) The spatial character of high and low tones. J Exp Psychol 13:278–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072651
Roffler SK, Butler RA (1968) Localization of tonal stimuli in the vertical plane. J Acoust Soc Am 43:1260–1266. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1910977
Rusconi E, Kwan B, Giordano BL, Umiltà C, Butterworth B (2006) Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition 99:113–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.004
Sadaghiani S, Maier JX, Noppeney U (2009) Natural, metaphoric, and linguistic auditory direction signals have distinct influences on visual motion processing. J Neurosci 29:6490–6499. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5437-08.2009
Salgado-Montejo A, Marmolejo-Ramos F, Alvarado JA, Arboleda JC, Suarez DR, Spence C (2016) Drawing sounds: representing tones and chords spatially. Exp Brain Res 234:3509–3522
Spence C (2011) Crossmodal correspondences: a tutorial review. Atten Percept Psychophys 73:971–995. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7
Wagner S, Winner E, Cicchetti D, Gardner H (1981) “Metaphorical” mapping in human infants. Child Dev 52:728–731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1981.tb03106.x
Wilson M (2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon Bull Rev 9:625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322
Acknowledgements
We thank Ethel Mogilevsky for her assistance with data collection and Chelsea Miller for her assistance with data coding. We also thank Siu-Lan Tan for her advice regarding the design of Experiment 3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the results of these studies.
Ethical standards
All procedures performed in the studies described were in accordance with ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board at Kalamazoo College and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individuals who participated in the study, and there is no identifying information included about any individual participant.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Handling editor: Riccardo Brunetti (European University of Rome).
Reviewers: Claudia del Gatto (European University of Rome), Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos (Stockholm University).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hostetter, A.B., Dandar, C.M., Shimko, G. et al. Reaching for the high note: judgments of auditory pitch are affected by kinesthetic position. Cogn Process 20, 495–506 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-019-00929-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-019-00929-8