A deafening flash! Visual interference of auditory signal detection

Fassnidge, Christopher; Marcotti, Claudia Cecconi; Freeman, Elliot

doi:10.1016/j.concog.2016.12.009

Cited by 14 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(67 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fassnidge et al (2017), however, report a prevalence rate much higher than us (22%) but this was based on a single question at debrief. We suggest that further research needs to combine both the more detailed phenomenological report from our Study 1 with the objective measures used by Saenz and Koch (2008) and Fassnidge et al (2017). Cluster analysis avoids arbitrary cutoffs and offers a bottom-up approach for defining groups based on multiple dimensions (e.g.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

“…A recent report by Fassnidge, Marcotti, and Freeman (2017) attempted to replicate the Saenz and Koch (2008) paradigm, and also introduced a new task in which participants had to detect the presence/absence of an auditory stimulus in either the presence/absence of visual motion. The latter should elicit an interfering auditory experience for the synaesthetes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Electrophysiological correlates and psychoacoustic characteristics of hearing-motion synaesthesia

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People with hearing-motion synaesthesia experience sounds from moving or changing (e.g. flickering) visual stimuli. This phenomenon may be one of the most common forms of synaesthesia but it has rarely been studied and there are no studies of its neural basis. We screened for this in a sample of 200+ individuals, and estimated a prevalence of 4.2%. We also document its characteristics: it tends to be induced by physically moving stimuli (more so than static stimuli which imply motion or trigger illusory motion); and the psychoacoustic features are simple (e.g. "whooshing") with some systematic correspondences to vision (e.g. faster movement is higher pitch). We demonstrate using event-related potentials that it emerges from early perceptual processing of vision. The synaesthetes have a higher amplitude motion-evoked N2 (165-185ms), with some evidence of group differences as early as 55-75ms. We discuss similarities between hearing-motion synaesthesia and previous observations that visual motion triggers auditory activity in the congenitally deaf. It is possible that both conditions reflect the maintenance of multisensory pathways found in early development that most people lose but can be retained in certain people in response to sensory deprivation (in the deaf) or, in people with normal hearing, as a result of other differences (e.g. genes predisposing to synaesthesia).

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 75%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Electrophysiological correlates and psychoacoustic characteristics of hearing-motion synaesthesia

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It would be imprudent to exclude any potential directed or non‐directed energy sources at this time. For example, perceptions of sound can occur in response to energy exposures that include microwave pulses in the audible ultrasonic range (10–15 kHz peak sensitivity) or as synesthetic effects to light . Pulsed microwave stimulation is known to produce ultrasonic cochlear microphonics in guinea pigs, which are suggestive of local propagation of energy in that frequency range .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, perceptions of sound can occur in response to energy exposures that include microwave pulses in the audible ultrasonic range (10-15 kHz peak sensitivity) or as synesthetic effects to light. 10,11 Pulsed microwave stimulation is known to produce ultrasonic cochlear microphonics in guinea pigs, which are suggestive of local propagation of energy in that frequency range. 12 The ultrasonic frequency range is represented at the base of the cochlea ("hook portion") in close proximity to the vestibule.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acute findings in an acquired neurosensory dysfunction

Hoffer

Levin

Snapp

et al. 2018

Laryngoscope Investig Oto

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In the Autumn of 2016, diplomatic personnel residing in Havana began to present with symptoms of dizziness, ear pain, and tinnitus that emerged after perception of high frequency noise and/or a pressure sensation. Understanding the acute symptoms of this disorder is important for better defining the disorder and developing optimal diagnostic, preventive, and treatment algorithms. Objectives To define the presenting symptoms in a cohort of patients in the acute time period after perceiving a noise/pressure exposure in Havana. Design/Settings/Participants Review of 25 symptomatic individuals who reported a localized sensation of noise/pressure and 10 asymptomatic individuals (roommates of those affected) who did not experience the sound/pressure. Results Immediately after the exposure, the majority of individuals reported intense ear pain in one or both ears and experienced tinnitus. All of the individuals noticed unsteadiness and features of cognitive impairment. On presentation to our center, dizziness (92%) and cognitive complaints (56%) were the most common symptoms. Formal testing revealed that 100% of individuals had an otolithic abnormality and evidence of cognitive dysfunction. Conclusion and Relevance This study focuses on the acute presentation of a phenomenon in which symptoms emerge after perception of a localized noise/pressure and in which the acute symptomology includes the universal nature of vestibular injuries and select cognitive deficits. The findings presented in this acute group of patients begin to provide a better picture of the initial injury pattern seen after this exposure and may allow for more accurate diagnosis of this disorder in future cases. Level of Evidence Retrospective review

show abstract

“…• Results suggest that vEAR depends on disinhibition of normally-occurring latent inter-cortical connections, not just on abnormally increased crossconnectivity Introduction Some people can hear what they see: flashing car indicator lights, animated webbrowser adverts, neon shop displays, and people's footsteps may all evoke an auditory sensation (Fassnidge, Cecconi Marcotti, & Freeman, 2017;Guttman, Gilroy, & Blake, 2006;Rothen, Bartl, Franklin, & Ward, 2017;Saenz & Koch, 2008). This 'visuallyevoked auditory response' (vEAR) is also referred to as 'hearing-motion synaesthesia' (Saenz & Koch, 2008).…”

Section: Highlightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hearing through Your Eyes: Neural Basis of Audiovisual Cross-activation, Revealed by Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation

Fassnidge

Ball

Kazaz

et al. 2019

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some people experience auditory sensations when seeing visual flashes or movements. This prevalent synaesthesia-like visually evoked auditory response (vEAR) could result either from overexuberant cross-activation between brain areas and/or reduced inhibition of normally occurring cross-activation. We have used transcranial alternating current stimulation (tACS) to test these theories. We applied tACS at 10 Hz (alpha band frequency) or 40 Hz (gamma band), bilaterally either to temporal or occipital sites, while measuring same/different discrimination of paired auditory (A) versus visual (V) Morse code sequences. At debriefing, participants were classified as vEAR or non-vEAR, depending on whether they reported “hearing” the silent flashes. In non-vEAR participants, temporal 10-Hz tACS caused impairment of A performance, which correlated with improved V; conversely under occipital tACS, poorer V performance correlated with improved A. This reciprocal pattern suggests that sensory cortices are normally mutually inhibitory and that alpha-frequency tACS may bias the balance of competition between them. vEAR participants showed no tACS effects, consistent with reduced inhibition, or enhanced cooperation between modalities. In addition, temporal 40-Hz tACS impaired V performance, specifically in individuals who showed a performance advantage for V (relative to A). Gamma-frequency tACS may therefore modulate the ability of these individuals to benefit from recoding flashes into the auditory modality, possibly by disrupting cross-activation of auditory areas by visual stimulation. Our results support both theories, suggesting that vEAR may depend on disinhibition of normally occurring sensory cross-activation, which may be expressed more strongly in some individuals. Furthermore, endogenous alpha- and gamma-frequency oscillations may function respectively to inhibit or promote this cross-activation.

show abstract

A deafening flash! Visual interference of auditory signal detection

Abstract: This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link:

Cited by 14 publications

References 31 publications

Electrophysiological correlates and psychoacoustic characteristics of hearing-motion synaesthesia

Electrophysiological correlates and psychoacoustic characteristics of hearing-motion synaesthesia

Acute findings in an acquired neurosensory dysfunction

Hearing through Your Eyes: Neural Basis of Audiovisual Cross-activation, Revealed by Transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About