Search

This paper is an author response to two commentaries on 'Defining Synaesthesia' (Simner, 2012) by David M. Eagleman ('Synesthesia in its protean guises', 2012), and Roi Cohen Kadosh and Devin B. Terhune ('Redefining synaesthesia?', 2012). Together with these authors, I seek to more closely examine existing criteria on which definitions of synaesthesia have been based. In particular, I focus on the fact (a) that existing definitions paint synaesthesia as an overly homogenous condition, (b) synaesthesia may have multiple neurological causes, and (c) synaesthetes and non-synaesthetes may lie on a continuum. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a thought-provoking paper, highlights and criticizes a number of assumptions concerning synaesthesia. She specifically takes issue with the following assumptions: (1) synaesthesia is strictly a sensory-perceptual phenomenon; (2) consistency of inducer-concurrent pairs is the gold standard for establishing the authenticity of an individual's synaesthesia; and (3) synaesthesia is not heterogeneous. In the wake of this critique, Simner advances a working definition of synaesthesia as a neurological hyper-association that aims to be more inclusive of its variants. We are very sympathetic to Simner's approach and believe that it raises important points that will advance our understanding of synaesthesia. Here we supplement, and sometimes challenge, some of these ideas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vision research has made very substantial progress towards understanding how we see. It is one area of psychology where the three-way thrust of behavioural measurements (psychophysics), brain imaging, and computational studies have been combined quite routinely for some years. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate a relatively unusual form of computational modelling that we characterise as involving image descriptions. Image descriptions are statements about structures in images and relationships between structures. Most modelling in vision is either conceived in fairly abstract terms, or is done at the level of images. Neither is entirely satisfactory, and image descriptions are a simple formulation of age-old ideas about a Vocabulary of image features that are detected and parameterized from actual digital images. For our example, we use the domain of the visual perception of printed text. This is an area that has been characterized by thorough, robust psychophysical experiments. The fundamental requirements of visual processing in this domain are: grouping of some parts if the image into words; at the same time segmenting words from each other. We show how these are readily understood in terms of our model of image descriptions, and show quantitatively that typographical practice, refined over centuries, is about optimum for the visual system at least as represented by our model. In addition, we show that the same notion of image descriptions could, in principle, support word recognition in certain circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On the basis of the authors' own research it is suggested boredom may be viewed as having cognitive and affective components. The cognitive component is subjective monotony and the affective component is a high level of frustration. An attempt is made to integrate the evidence supporting this view of boredom with other evidence from the literature to present an integrated model of boredom in which the roles of personality, situational and task characteristics influencing boredom are outlined. Psychophysiological changes occurring during the performance of boring tasks are examined. It is argued that the nature and extent of changes in heart rate and heart-rate variability are not a consequence of boredom but of a task feature (mental load). It is concluded that no clear psychophysiological component of boredom can be detected at present. In this paper we attempt to integrate our own research findings (Perkins, 1981; Perkins & Hill, 1985) with those of other investigators to offer a tentative account of the nature and origins of boredom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]