↓ Skip to main content

Training, hypnosis, and drugs: artificial synaesthesia, or artificial paradises?

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Training, hypnosis, and drugs: artificial synaesthesia, or artificial paradises?
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00660
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ophelia Deroy, Charles Spence

Abstract

The last few years have seen the publication of a number of studies by researchers claiming to have induced "synaesthesia," "pseudo-synaesthesia," or "synaesthesia-like" phenomena in non-synaesthetic participants. Although the intention of these studies has been to try and shed light on the way in which synaesthesia might have been acquired in developmental synaesthestes, we argue that they may only have documented a phenomenon that has elsewhere been accounted for in terms of the acquisition of sensory associations and is not evidently linked to synaesthesia. As synaesthesia remains largely defined in terms of the involuntary elicitation of conscious concurrents, we suggest that the theoretical rapprochement with synaesthesia (in any of its guises) is unnecessary, and potentially distracting. It might therefore, be less confusing if researchers were to avoid referring to synaesthesia when characterizing cases that lack robust evidence of a conscious manifestation. Even in the case of those other conditions for which conscious experiences are better evidenced, when training has been occurred during hypnotic suggestion, or when it has been combined with drugs, we argue that not every conscious manifestation should necessarily be counted as synaesthetic. Finally, we stress that cases of associative learning are unlikely to shed light on two highly specific characteristic of the majority of cases of developmental synaesthesia in terms of learning patterns: First, their resistance to change through exposure once the synaesthetic repertoire has been fixed; Second, the transfer of conditioned responses between concurrents and inducers after training. We conclude by questioning whether, in adulthood, it is ever possible to acquire the kind of synaesthesia that is typically documented in the developmental form of the condition. The available evidence instead seems to point to there being a critical period for the development of synaesthesia, probably only in those with a genetic predisposition to develop the condition.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 6%
Germany 3 5%
Netherlands 2 3%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 55 85%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 20 31%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 8 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 38%
Neuroscience 7 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 9 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 October 2014.
All research outputs
#14,118,713
of 24,943,708 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,673
of 33,669 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,457
of 292,957 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#497
of 969 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,943,708 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 33,669 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,957 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 969 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.