Advertisement

I know that “Kiki” is angular: The metacognition underlying sound–shape correspondences

  • Yi-Chuan Chen
  • Pi-Chun Huang
  • Andy Woods
  • Charles Spence
Brief Report

Abstract

We examined the ability of people to evaluate their confidence when making perceptual judgments concerning a classic crossmodal correspondence, the Bouba/Kiki effect: People typically match the “Bouba” sound to more rounded patterns and match the “Kiki” sound to more angular patterns instead. For each visual pattern, individual participants were more confident about their own matching judgments when they happened to fall in line with the consensual response regarding whether the pattern was rated as “Bouba” or “Kiki”. Logit regression analyses demonstrated that participants’ confidence ratings and matching judgments were predictable by similar regression functions. This implies that the consensus and confidence underlying the Bouba/Kiki effect are underpinned by a common process, whereby perceptual features in the patterns are extracted and then used to match the sound according to rules of crossmodal correspondences. Combining both matching and confidence measures potentially allows one to explore and quantify the strength of associations in human knowledge.

Keywords

Bouba/Kiki effect Crossmodal correspondences Consensuality principle Confidence rating Radial frequency patterns 

Supplementary material

13423_2018_1516_MOESM1_ESM.docx (366 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 365 kb)
13423_2018_1516_MOESM2_ESM.docx (19 kb)
ESM 2 (DOCX 19 kb)

References

  1. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., … Grothendieck, G. (2015). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using “eigen” and S4 classes. Retrieved December 10, 2015, from https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/package=lme4
  2. Bremner, A. J., Caparos, S., Davidoff, J., de Fockert, J., Linnell, K. J., & 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, 165–172. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.09.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen, Y.-C., Huang, P.-C., Woods, A., & Spence, C. (2016). When “Bouba” equals “Kiki”: Cultural commonalities and cultural differences in sound-shape correspondences. Scientific Reports, 6:26681.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen, Y.-C., & Spence, C. (2017). Assessing the role of the “unity assumption” on multisensory integration: A review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 445. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00445 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, Y.-C., Woods, A., & Spence, C. (2018). Sensation transference from plateware to food: The sounds and tastes of plates. International Journal of Food Design, 3, 41–62. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, R. (1961). The fitness of names to drawings. A cross-cultural study in Tanganyika. British Journal of Psychology, 52, 259–268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (2013). Why we are not all synesthetes (not even weakly so). Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 643–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (2016). Crossmodal correspondences: Four challenges. Multisensory Research, 29, 29–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Deroy, O., Spence, C., & Noppeney, U. (2016). Metacognition in multisensory perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20, 736–747.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Faivre, N., Filevich, E., Solovey, G., Kühn, S., & Blanke, O. (2018). Behavioural, modeling, and electrophysiological evidence for supramodality in human metacognition. Journal of Neuroscience, 38, 263–277.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Gigerenzer, G., Hoffrage, U., & Kleinbölting, H. (1991). Probabilistic mental models: A Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychological Review, 98, 506–528. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.4.506 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Holland, M. K., & Wertheimer, M. (1964). Some physiognomic aspects of naming, or, maluma and takete revisited. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 19, 111–117.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Juslin, P., & Olsson, H. (1997). Thurstonian and Brunswikian origins of uncertainty in judgment: A sampling model of confidence in sensory discrimination. Psychological Review, 104, 344–366. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.344 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Knoeferle, K., Li, J., Maggioni, E., & Spence, C. (2017). What drives sound symbolism? Different acoustic cues underlie sound-size and sound-shape mappings. Scientific Reports, 7:5562. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05965-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Köhler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  17. Köhler, W. (1947). Gestalt psychology: An introduction to new concepts in modern psychology. New York: Liveright.Google Scholar
  18. Koriat, A. (2008). Subjective confidence in one’s answers: The consensuality principle. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 945–959. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.945 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Koriat, A. (2011). Subjective confidence in perceptual judgments: A test of the self-consistency model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140, 117–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koriat, A. (2012). The self-consistency model of subjective confidence. Psychological Review, 119, 80–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lu, Z.-L., & Dosher, B. (2013). Visual psychophysics: From laboratory to theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marks, L. E. (1987). On cross-modal similarity: Auditory–visual interactions in speeded discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 384–394. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.13.3.384 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Marks, L. E. (1996). On perceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 11, 39–66. doi: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327868ms1101_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maurer, D., Pathman, T., & Mondloch, C. J. (2006). The shape of boubas: Sound–shape correspondences in toddlers and adults. Developmental Science, 9, 316–322. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00495.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nielsen, A., & Rendall, D. (2011). The sound of round: Evaluating the sound-symbolic role of consonants in the classic Takete–Maluma phenomenon. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 115–124.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ozturk, O., Krehm, M., & Vouloumanos, A. (2013). Sound symbolism in infancy: Evidence for sound-shape cross-modal correspondences in 4-month-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 114, 173–186.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Ramachandran, V. S., & Hubbard, E. M. (2001). Synaesthesia—A window into perception, thought and language. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8, 3–34.Google Scholar
  28. Reber, R., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Effects of perceptual fluency on judgments of truth. Consciousness and Cognition, 8, 338–342.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Spector, F., & Maurer, D. (2008). The colour of Os: Naturally biased associations between shape and colour. Perception, 37, 841–847.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Spector, F., & Maurer, D. (2011). The colors of the alphabet: Naturally-biased associations between shape and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 37, 484–495.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73, 971–995. doi: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walker, P., Bremner, J. G., Mason, U., Spring, J., Mattock, K., Slater, A., & Johnson, S. P. (2010). Preverbal infants’ sensitivity to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychological Science, 21, 21–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609354734 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Walker, R. (1987). The effects of culture, environment, age, and musical training on choices of visual metaphors for sound. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 491–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Westbury, C., Hollis, G., Sidhu, D. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2018). Weighing up the evidence for sound symbolism: Distributional properties predict cue strength. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 122–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilkinson, F., Wilson, H. R., & Habak, C. (1998). Detection and recognition of radial frequency patterns. Vision Research, 38, 3555–3568. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(98)00039-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Woods, A. T., Spence, C., Butcher, N., & Deroy, O. (2013). Fast lemons and sour boulders: Testing crossmodal correspondences using an internet-based testing methodology. i-Perception, 4, 365–379.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yi-Chuan Chen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Pi-Chun Huang
    • 3
  • Andy Woods
    • 2
  • Charles Spence
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of MedicineMackay Medical CollegeNew Taipei CityTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations