Though the relationship of touch and sound is central to music performance, and audio-tactile metaphors are pertinent to musical discourse, few empirical studies have investigated systematically how musical parameters such as pitch height, loudness, timbre and their interactions affect auditory–tactile metaphorical mappings. In this study, 40 participants (20 musically trained) rated the appropriateness of six dichotomous tactile metaphors (sharp–blunt, smooth–rough, soft–hard, light–heavy, warm–cold and wet–dry) to 20 sounds varying in pitch height, loudness, instrumental timbre (violin vs. flute) and vibrato. Results (repeated measures MANOVA) suggest that tactile metaphors are strongly associated with all musical variables examined. For instance, higher pitches were rated as significantly sharper, rougher, harder, colder, drier and lighter than lower pitches. We consider several complementary accounts of the findings: psychophysical analogies between tactile and auditory sensory processing; experiential analogies, based on correlations between tactile and auditory qualities of sound sources in daily experience; and analogies based on abstract semantic dimensions, particularly potency and activity.
von BismarckG. (1974). Timbre of steady sounds: A factorial investigation of its verbal attributes. Acustica, 30, 146–159.
2.
BurroR.GrassiM. (2001). Experiments on size and height of falling objects. Phenomenology of Sounds Events, Sounding Object Group Report, 4, 31–39.
3.
ChenX.ShaoF.BarnesC.ChildsT.HensonB. (2009). Exploring relationships between touch perception and surface physical properties. International Journal of Design, 3(2), 67–77.
4.
EitanZ.GranotR. Y. (2006). How music moves: Musical parameters and images of motion. Music Perception, 23(3), 221–247.
5.
EitanZ.KatzA.ShenY. (2010, August). Effects of pitch register, loudness and tempo on children’s metaphors for music. Poster presented at the 11th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC11), Seattle, WA.
6.
EitanZ.SchupakA.MarksL. E. (2008). Louder is higher: Cross-modal interaction of loudness change and vertical motion in speeded classification. In MiyazakiK.HiragaY.AdachiM.NakajimaY.TsuzakiM. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Music Perception & Cognition (ICMPC10) (pp. 67–76). Sapporo, Japan: ICMPC10.
7.
EitanZ.TimmersR. (2010). Beethoven’s last piano sonata and those who follow crocodiles: Cross-domain mappings of auditory pitch in a musical context. Cognition, 114(3), 405–422.
8.
EitanZ.TubulN. (in press). Musical parameters and children’s images of motion. Musicae Scientiae.
9.
FoxeJ. J.MoroczI. A.MurrayM. M.HigginsB. A.JavittD. C.SchroederC. E. (2000). Multisensory auditory-somatosensory interactions in early cortical processing revealed by high-density electrical mapping. Cognitive Brain Research, 10(1), 77–83.
10.
FoxeJ. J.WylieG. R.MartinezA.SchroederC. E.JavittD. C.GuilfoyleD.. (2002). Auditory-somatosensory multisensory processing in auditory association cortex: An fMRI study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 88(1), 540–543.
11.
FreedD. J. (1990). Auditory correlates of perceived mallet hardness for a set of recorded percussive events. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 87(1), 311–322.
12.
GaverW. W. (1993a). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1–29
13.
GaverW. W. (1993b). How do we hear in the world? Explorations of ecological acoustics. Ecological Psychology, 5(4), 285–313
14.
GibsonJ. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
15.
GiordanoB. L. (2005). Sound source perception in impact sounds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Padova, Italy.
GuntherE.O’ModhrainS. (2003). Cutaneous grooves: Composing for the sense of touch. Journal of New Music Research32 (4), 369–381.
18.
HlushchukY. (2007). Tactile processing in human somatosensory and auditory cortices. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Helsinki, Finland.
19.
HöttingK.RöslerF.RöderB. (2003). Crossmodal and intermodal attention modulate event-related brain potentials to tactile and auditory stimuli. Experimental Brain Research, 148(1), 26–37.
20.
JousmäkiV.HariR. (1998). Parchment-skin illusion: Sound-biased touch. Current Biology, 8(6), 190.
21.
LedermanS. J. (1979). Auditory texture perception. Perception, 8(1), 93–103.
22.
LedermanS. J.KlatzkiR. L.MorganT.HamiltonC. (2002). Integrating multimodal information about surface texture via a probe: Relative contribution of haptic and touch produced sound sources. In Proceedings of the 10th Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems, 2002 (pp. 97–104). London: IEEE Computer Society’s Conference Publishing Services.
23.
LewkowiczD. J. (2000). The development of intersensory temporal perception: An epigenetic systems/limitations view. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 281–308.
24.
LewkowiczD. J.TurkewitzG. (1980). Cross-modal equivalence in early infancy: Auditory–visual intensity matching. Developmental Psychology, 16, 597–607.
25.
LipscombS. D.KimE. M. (2004). Perceived match between visual parameters and auditory correlates: An experimental multimedia investigation. In LipscombS.AshleyR.GjerdingenR.WebsterP. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC8), Evanston, IL, 3–8 August, 2004 (pp. 72–75). Adelaide: Causal Productions.
26.
MarksL. E. (2004). Cross-modal interactions in speeded classification. In CalvertG.SpenceC.SteinB. E. (Eds.), Handbook of multisensory processes (pp. 85–106). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27.
MarksL. E.HammealR. J.BornsteinM. H.SmithL. B. (1988). Perceiving similarity and comprehending metaphor. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 52 (1, Serial No. 215).
28.
MartinoG.MarksL. E. (1999). Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: Tests of the semantic coding hypothesis. Perception, 28(7), 903–923.
29.
MartinoG.MarksL. E. (2001). Synesthesia: Strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10(2), 61–65.
30.
MursellJ. L. (1937). The psychology of music. New York: Norton.
31.
NakamuraA. (1987). The communication of dynamics between musicians and listeners through musical performance. Perception and Psychophysics, 41(6), 525–533.
32.
NeuhoffJ. G.McBeathM. K. (1996). The Doppler illusion: The influence of dynamic intensity change on perceived pitch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(4), 970–985.
33.
NeuhoffJ. G.McBeathM. K.WanzieW. C. (1999). Dynamic frequency change influences loudness perception: A central, analytic process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(4), 1050–1059.
34.
OsgoodC. E. (1964). Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. American Anthropologist, 66, 171–200.
35.
OsgoodC. E.SuciG. J.TannenbaumP. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
36.
PeevaD.BairdB.IzmirliO.BlevinsD. (2004). Haptic and sound correlations: Pitch, loudness and texture. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information Visualization, (IV’04) (pp. 659–664). London: IEEE Computer Society.
37.
RovanJ.HaywardV. (2000). Typology of tactile sounds and their synthesis in gesture-driven computer music performance. In WanderleyM.BattierM. (Eds.), Trends in gestural control of music (pp. 389–405). Paris: IRCAM.
38.
SchroederC. E.LindsleyR. W.SpechtC.MarcoviciA.SmileyJ. F.JavittD. C. (2001). Somatosensory input to auditory association cortex in the macaque monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 85(3), 1322–1327.
39.
SchürmannM.CaetanoG.HlushchukY.JousmäkiV.HariR. (2006). Touch activates human auditory cortex. NeuroImage, 30(4), 1325–1331.
40.
SmithL. B.SeraM. D.(1992). A developmental analysis of the polar structure of dimensions. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 99–142.
41.
Soto-FaracoS.DecoG. (2009). Multisensory contributions to the perception of vibrotactile events. Behavioral Brain Research, 196, 145–154.
42.
StevensS. S. (1934). The volume and intensity of tones. American Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 397–408.
43.
WalkerP.SmithS. (1984). Stroop interference based on the synaesthetic qualities of auditory pitch. Perception, 13(1), 75–81.
44.
WalkerP.SmithS. (1986). The basis of Stroop interference involving the multimodal correlates of auditory pitch. Perception, 15(4), 491–496.
45.
WalkerR. (1987) The effects of culture, environment, age, and musical training on choices of visual metaphors for sound. Perception and Psychophysics, 42(5), 491–502.
46.
ZampiniM.GuestS.SpenceC. (2003). The role of auditory cues in modulating the perception of electric toothbrushes. Journal of Dental Research, 82(11), 929–932.
