Abstract
The ‘Molyneux problem’ is typically framed in terms of the crossmodal matching of shape information from touch to vision. Indeed, shape along with intensity have commonly been considered amodal stimulus properties/dimensions (at least by developmental researchers). However, it is important to note that what is common, if anything, to the senses differs in the two cases: It is the physical stimulus (and possibly also the associated phenomenology) that is thought to be the same in the case of crossmodal (or intermodal) shape matching between touch and vision, whereas it is the nature of the underlying neural encoding that is said to be similar in the case of crossmodal matching of auditory and visual stimulus intensity. While the first empirical data to have been published on these two forms of putatively amodal crossmodal matching appeared to suggest that they both emerge surprisingly early in the course of human development (i.e., within the first month of life), certain of these seminal findings have proved difficult to replicate. Ultimately, therefore, there is currently little convincing evidence to support the notion that such putatively innate crossmodal matching of amodal stimulus dimensions is actually different in kind from the various other crossmodal correspondences that are seemingly acquired at various points during the course of human development (typically as a result of the internalization of the crossmodal statistics of the environment). As such, there may be nothing particularly special about the type of crossmodal matching thought to underlie the ‘Molyneux problem’, and continued interest in the issue may inadvertently have helped to sustain a misguided account of the differences between different types of crossmodal correspondence.
References
Allen, D., Tyler, C. W., & Norcia, A. M. (1996). Development of grating acuity and contrast sensitivity in the central and peripheral visual field of the human infant. Vision Research, 36(13), 1945–1953. https://doi.org/10.1016/0042-6989(95)00257-x
Allen, R. E. (1997). Plato’s parmenides. Yale University Press.
Anstey, P. R. (2023). Condillac and the Molyneux problem. In D. Antoine-Mahut & A. Waldow (Eds.), Condillac and his reception (pp. 28–43). Routledge.
Bahrick, L. E., Lickliter, R., & Flom, R. (2004). Intersensory redundancy guides the development of selective attention, perception, and cognition in infancy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(3), 99–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00283.x
Berkeley, G. (1950). A new theory of vision. Dutton.
Bremner, A. J., & Spence, C. (2008). Unimodal experiences constrain while multisensory experiences enrich cognitive construction. Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 31(3), 335–336. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0800410X
Brown, K. W., & Gottfried, A. W. (1986). Cross-modal transfer of shape in early infancy: Is there reliable evidence? In L. P. Lipsitt & R. Rovée-Collier (Eds.), Advances in infancy research (Vol. 4, pp. 163–170). Ablex.
Bruno, M., & Mandelbaum, E. (2010). Locke’s answer to Molyneux’s thought experiment. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 27(2), 165–180.
Bushnell, E. W. (1994). A dual-processing approach to cross-modal matching: Implications for development. In D. J. Lewkowicz & R. Lickliter (Eds.), The development of intersensory perception: Comparative perspectives (pp. 19–38). Erlbaum.
Campbell, J. (1996). Molyneux’s question. Philosophical Issues, 7, 301–318. https://doi.org/10.2307/1522914
Cao, S., Kelly, J., Nyugen, C., Chow, H. M., Leonardo, B., Sabov, A., & Ciaramitaro, V. M. (2024). Prior visual experience increases children’s use of effective haptic exploration strategies in audio-tactile sound–shape correspondences. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 241(105856). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2023.105856
Chen, X., Striano, T., & Rakoczy, H. (2004). Auditory–oral matching behavior in newborns. Developmental Science, 7, 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2004.00321.x
Cowey, A., & Weiskrantz, L. (1975). Demonstration of crossmodal matching in rhesus monkeys, macaca mulatta. Neuropsychologia, 13(1), 117–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(75)90057-3
Davenport, R. K., & Rogers, C. M. (1970). Intermodal equivalence of stimuli in apes. Science, 168(3928), 279–280. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.168.3928.279
Degenaar, M. (1996). Molyneux’s problem (M. J. Collins, Trans.). Kluwer.
Deroy, O., & Auvray, M. (2013). A new Molyneux’s problem: Sounds, shapes and arbitrary crossmodal correspondences. UNILOG’2013, SHAPES, 4(2), 61–70.
Deroy, O., & Spence, C. (2013). Are we all born synaesthetic? Examining the neonatal synaesthesia hypothesis. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 37, 1240–1253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.04.001
Di Stefano, N., & Spence, C. (2023). Perceptual similarity: Insights from the crossmodal correspondences. Reviews in Philosophy & Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-023-00692-y
Diderot, D. (1977). Letter on the blind, for the benefit of those who see. In M. J. Morgan (Ed. & Trans.), Molyneux’s questions: Vision, touch and the philosophy of perception (pp. 25–58). Cambridge University Press.
Dionne-Dostie, E., Paquette, N., Lassonde, M., & Gallagher, A. (2015). Multisensory integration and child neurodevelopment. Brain Sciences, 5, 32–57. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci5010032
Ehli, B. (2020). Leibniz and the Molyneux problem. Journal of Modern Philosophy, 2(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.32881/jomp.58
Eilan, N. (1993). Molyneux’s question and the idea of an external world. In N. Eilan, R. McCarthy, & B. Brewer (Eds.), Spatial representation: Problems in philosophy and psychology (pp. 236–255). Blackwell.
Ernst, M. O. (2007). Learning to integrate arbitrary signals from vision and touch. Journal of Vision, 7(5), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1167/7.5.7
Ettlinger, G. (1967). Analysis of cross-modal effects and their relationship to language. In F. L. Darley & C. H. Millikan (Eds.), Brain mechanisms underlying speech and language. Grune & Stratton.
Evans, G. (1985). Molyneux’s question. In A. Phillips (Ed.), Gareth evans: Collected papers (pp. 364–399). Clarendon Press.
Farzin, F., Charles, E. P., & Rivera, S. M. (2009). Development of multimodal processing in infancy. Infancy, 14(5), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/15250000903144207
Filippetti, M. L., Orioli, G., Johnson, M. H., & Farroni, T. (2015). Newborn body perception: Sensitivity to spatial congruency. Infancy, 20, 455–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/infa.12083
Fine, I., Wade, A. R., Brewer, A. A., May, M. G., Goodman, D. F., Boynton, G. M., & MacLeod, D. I. (2003). Long-term deprivation affects visual perception and cortex. Nature Neuroscience, 6(9), 915–916. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1102
Gentner, D., & Medina, J. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65(2-3), 263–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(98)00002-X
Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Gibson, E. J., & Walker, A. S. (1984). Development of knowledge of visual-tactual affordances of substance. Child Development, 55(2), 453–460.
Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Erlbaum.
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Glenney, B. (2012). Leibniz on Molyneux’s question. History of Philosophy Quarterly, 29(3), 247–264.
Goldstone, R. L., & Barsalou, L. W. (1998). Reuniting perception and conception. Cognition, 65(2-3), 231–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(97)00047-4
Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2012). Similarity. In K. J. Holyoak & R. G. Morrison (Eds.), The oxford handbook of thinking and reasoning (pp. 155–176). Oxford University Press.
Goodman, N. (1972). Seven strictures on similarity. In Problems and projects (pp. 437–446). Bobs-Merril.
Goodnow, J. J. (1971). Eye and hand: Differential memory and its effect on matching. Neuropsychologia, 9(1), 89–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(71)90066-2
Green, E. J. (2021). The puzzle of cross‐modal shape experience. Noûs, 56(4), 867–896. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12384
Green, E. J. (2022). Representing shape in sight and touch. Mind & Language, 37(4), 694–714. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12352
Gregory, R. L. (2003). Seeing after blindness. Nature Neuroscience, 6(9), 909–910. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn0903-909
Guellaȉ, B., Callin, A., Bevilacqua, F., Schwarz, D., Pitti, A., Boucenna, S., & Gratier, M. (2019). Sensus communis: Some perspectives on the origins of non-synchronous cross-sensory associations. Frontiers in Psychology, 10(523). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00523
Held, R., Ostrovsky, Y., Gelder, B., Gandhi, T., Ganesh, S., Mathur, U., & Sinha, P. (2011). The newly sighted fail to match seen with felt. Nature Neuroscience, 14(5), 551–553. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2795
Helmholtz, H. L. (1878). Treatise on physiological optics: Vol. II. Dover Publications.
Huber, E., Webster, J. M., Brewer, A. A., MacLeod, D. I., Wandell, B. A., Boynton, G. M., & Fine, I. (2015). A lack of experience-dependent plasticity after more than a decade of recovered sight. Psychological Science, 26(4), 393–401. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614563957
Izard, V., Sann, C., Spelke, E. S., & Streri, A. (2009). Newborn infants perceive abstract numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the u.s.a, 106, 10382–10385. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812142106
Jacobs, R., Serhal, C. B., & Steenberghe, D. (1998). Oral stereognosis: A review of the literature. Clinical Oral Investigations, 2(1), 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840050035
Jacomuzzi, A. C., Kobau, P., & Bruno, N. (2003). Molyneux’s question redux. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 2(4), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHEN.0000007370.68536.2d
Jastrow, J. (1886). The perception of space by disparate senses. Mind, 11, 539–554.
Kassuba, T., Klinge, C., Hölig, C., Röder, B., & Siebner, H. R. (2013). Vision holds a greater share in visuo-haptic object recognition than touch. Neuroimage, 65, 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.09.054
Lacey, S., Pappas, M., Kreps, A., Lee, K., & Sathian, K. (2009). Perceptual learning of view-independence in visuo-haptic object representations. Experimental Brain Research, 198(2-3), 329–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-009-1856-8
Lawson, K. R. (1980). Spatial and temporal congruity and auditory-visual integration in infants. Developmental Psychology, 16(3), 185–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.16.3.185
Leibniz, G. W. F. (1981). New essays on human understanding (P. Remnant & J. Bennett, Eds.). Cambridge University Press.
Levin, J. (2008). Molyneux’s question and the individuation of perceptual concepts. Philosophical Studies, 139(1), 1–28.
Levin, J. (2018). Molyneux’s question and the amodality of spatial experience. Inquiry, 61(5-6), 590–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020174X.2017.1372306
Lewkowicz, D. J., & Minar, N. J. (2014). Infants are not sensitive to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences: A comment on walker et al. Psychological Science, 25(3), 832–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613516011
Lewkowicz, D. J., & Turkewitz, G. (1980). Cross-modal equivalence in early infancy: Auditory-visual intensity matching. Developmental Psychology, 16(6), 597–607. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.16.6.597
Locke, J. (1975). An essay concerning human understanding (P. H. Nidditch, Ed.). Oxford University Press.
Marks, L. E. (1974). On associations of light and sound: The mediation of brightness, pitch, and loudness. The American Journal of Psychology, 87(1-2), 173–188.
Marks, L. E. (1978). The unity of the senses: Interrelations among the modalities. Academic Press.
Marks, L. E. (1989). For hedgehogs and foxes: Individual differences in the perception of cross-modal similarity. In G. Ljunggren & S. Dornic (Eds.), Psychophysics in action (pp. 55–65). Springer Verlag.
Marks, L. E., Hammeal, R. J., & Bornstein, M. H. (1987). Perceiving similarity and comprehending metaphor. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 52(215), 1–102. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166084
Marks, L. E., Szczesiul, R., & Ohlott, P. (1986). On the cross-modal perception of intensity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 12(4), 517–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.12.4.517
Marlair, C., Pierret, E., & Crollen, V. (2021). Geometry intuitions without vision? A study in blind children and adults. Cognition, 216(104861). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104861
Maurer, D., Stager, C. L., & Mondloch, C. J. (1999). Cross-modal transfer of shape is difficult to demonstrate in one-month-olds. Child Development, 70(5), 1047–1057. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1132048.
McKyton, A., Ben-Zion, I., Doron, R., & Zohary, E. (2015). The limits of shape recognition following late emergence from blindness. Current Biology, 25(18), 2373–2378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2015.06.040
McRae, R. (1976). Leibniz: Perception, apperception, and thought. University of Toronto Press.
Mellers, B., & Birnbaum, M. H. (1982). Loci of contextual effects in judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 8(4), 582–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.8.4.582
Meltzoff, A. N. (1993). Molyneux’s babies: Cross-modal perception, imitation and the mind of the preverbal infant. In N. Eilan, R. McCarthy, & B. Brewer (Eds.), Spatial representation: Problems in philosophy and psychology (pp. 219–235). Blackwell.
Meltzoff, A. N., & Borton, R. W. (1979). Intermodal matching by human neonates. Nature, 282, 403–404. https://doi.org/10.1038/282403a0
Meng, X., Chen, N., Ishida, J., Watanabe, K., & Murakami, T. (2023). Crossmodal correspondences between visual features and tastes in preschoolers: An exploratory study. Frontiers in Psychology, 14(1226661). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1226661
Molina, M., & Jouen, F. (2003). Haptic intramodal comparison of texture in human neonates. Developmental Psychobiology, 42(4), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.10111
Morgan, M. (1977). Molyneux’s question: Vision, touch and the philosophy of perception. Cambridge University Press.
Ngo, M. K., Velasco, C., Salgado, A., Boehm, E., O’Neill, D., & Spence, C. (2013). Assessing crossmodal correspondences in exotic fruit juices: The case of shape and sound symbolism. Food Quality & Preference, 28(1), 361–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2012.10.004
Norman, J. F., Norman, H. F., Clayton, A. M., Lianekhammy, J., & Zielke, G. (2004). The visual and haptic perception of natural object shape. Perception & Psychophysics, 66(2), 342–351. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194883
Ostrovsky, Y., Andalman, A., & Sinha, P. (2006). Vision following extended congenital blindness. Psychological Science, 17 (12), 1009–1014. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01827.x
Ostrovsky, Y., Meyers, E., Ganesh, S., Mathur, U., & Sinha, P. (2009). Visual parsing after recovery from blindness. Psychological Science, 20(12), 1484–1491. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02471.x
Owens, J. (1982). Aristotle on common sensibles and incidental perception. Phoenix, 36(3), 215–236. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1087890.
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(2), 173–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.05.004
Pêcheux, M.-G., Lepecq, J.-C., & Salzarulo, P. (1988). Oral activity and exploration in 1- to 2-month-old infants. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 6, 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1988.tb01098.x
Piaget, J. (1937). La naissance de l’intelligence chez l’enfant [the birth of the child’s intelligence]. Delachaux & Niestle.
Picard, D. (2007). Tactual, visual, and cross-modal transfer of texture in 5- and 8-year-old children. Perception, 36(5), 722–736. https://doi.org/10.1068/p5575
Pietrini, P., Furey, M. L., Ricciardi, E., Gobbini, M. I., Wu, W.-H. C., Cohen, L., Guazzelli, M., & Haxby, J. V. (2004). Beyond sensory images: Object-based representation in the human ventral pathway. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(5), 5658–5663. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400707101
Piller, S., Senna, I., & O, E. M. (2023). Visual experience shapes the bouba kiki effect and the size weight illusion upon sight restoration from congenital blindness. Scientific Reports, 13(11435). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-38486-y
Proctor, R. W., & Cho, Y. S. (2006). Polarity correspondence: A general principle for performance of speeded binary classification tasks. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 416–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.3.416
Quine, W. V. (2000). Three networks: Similarity, implication, and membership. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, 6, 287–291.
Reeve, C. D. C. (2004). Plato. The republic. Hackett.
Ricci, D., Cesarini, L., Groppo, M., Carli, A., Gallini, F., Serrao, F., Fumagalli, M., Cowan, F., Ramenghi, L. A., Anker, S., Mercuri, E., & Mosca, F. (2008). Early assessment of visual function in full term newborns. Early Human Development, 84(2), 107–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.03.010
Root, R. T., & Ross, S. (1965). Further validation of subjective scales for loudness and brightness by means of cross-modality matching. American Journal of Psychology, 78, 285–289.
Rose, S. A., Gottfried, A. W., & Bridger, W. H. (1981). Cross-modal transfer in 6-month-old infants. Developmental Psychology, 17(5), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.17.5.661
Ryle, G. (1939a). Plato’s Parmenides (I). Mind, 48(190), 129–151.
Ryle, G. (1939b). Plato’s Parmenides (II). Mind, 48(191), 302–325.
Sann, C., & Streri, A. (2007). Perception of object shape and texture in human newborns: Evidence from cross-modal transfer tasks. Developmental Science, 10(3), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00593.x
Schwenkler, J. (2012). On the matching of seen and felt shape by newly sighted subjects. Perception, 3(3), 186–188. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0525ic
Schwenkler, J. (2013). Do things look the way they feel? Analysis, 73(1), 86–96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23359165
Schwenkler, J. (2019). Molyneux’s question within and across the senses. In T. Cheng, O. Deroy, & C. Spence (Eds.), Spatial senses: Philosophy of perception in an age of science (pp. 274–283). Routledge.
Segundo-Ortin, M., & Hutto, D. D. (2021). Similarity-based cognition: Radical enactivism meets cognitive neuroscience. Synthese, 198(5), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02505-1
Sidhu, D. M., Athanasopoulou, A., Archer, S. L., Czarnecki, N., Curtin, S., & Pexman, P. M. (2023). The maluma/takete effect is late: No longitudinal evidence for shape sound symbolism in the first year. PLoS ONE, 18(11).
Šikl,R.,Šimecek,M.,Porubanová-Norquist,M.,Bezdıćek,O.,Kremlácek,J.,Stodulka,P.,Fine,I.,&Ostrovsky,Y.(2013). Vision after 53 years of blindness. Perception, 4(8), 498–507. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0611
Slater, A., & Kirby, R. (1998). Innate and learned perceptual abilities in the newborn infant. Experimental Brain Research, 123, 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002210050548
Smith, L. B., & Sera, M. D. (1992). A developmental analysis of the polar structure of dimensions. Cognitive Psychology, 24(1), 99–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90004-L
Sourav, S., Kekunnaya, R., Shareef, I., Banerjee, S., Bottari, S., & Röder, B. (2019). A protracted sensitive period regulates the development of cross-modal sound–shape associations in humans. Psychological Science, 30(10), 1473–1482. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619866625
Speed, L. J., Croijmans, I., Dolscheid, S., & Majid, A. (2021). Crossmodal associations with olfactory, auditory, and tactile stimuli in children and adults. I-Perception, 12(6), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695211048513
Spence, C. (2011). Crossmodal correspondences: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 73(4), 971–995. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7
Spence, C. (2022). Exploring group differences in the crossmodal correspondences. Multisensory Research, 35(6), 495–536. https://doi.org/10.1163/22134808-bja10079
Spence, C., & Di Stefano, N. (2023). Sensory translation between audition and vision. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02343-w
Spence, C., & Di Stefano, N. (2024). What, if anything, can be considered an amodal sensory dimension? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02447-3
Stevens, J. C., & Marks, L. E. (1965). Cross-modality matching of brightness and loudness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 54(2), 407–411. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.54.2.407
Stevens, J. C., & Marks, L. E. (1980). Cross-modality matching functions generated by magnitude estimation. Perception & Psychophysics, 27, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204456
Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 64(3), 153–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046162
Stevens, S. S. (1971). Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review, 78(5), 426–450. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031324
Streri, A. (1987). Tactile discrimination of shape and inter-modal transfer in 2- to 3-month-old infants. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5(3), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1987.tb01056.x
Streri, A., & Gentaz, E. (2003). Cross-modal recognition of shape from hand to eyes in human newborns. Somatosensory and Motor Research, 20(1), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0899022031000083799
Streri, A., & Gentaz, E. (2004). Cross-modal recognition of shape from hand to eyes and handedness in human newborns. Neuropsychologia, 42(10), 1365–1369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.02.012
Streri, A., & Hevia, M. D. de. (2023). How do human newborns come to understand the multimodal environment? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02260-y
Streri, A., & Pecheux, M.-G. (1986). Vision-to-touch and touch-to-vision transfer of form in 5-month-old infants. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4(2), 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-835X.1986.tb01007.x
Teghtsoonian, R., & Teghtsoonian, M. (1970). Two varieties of perceived length. Perception & Psychophysics, 8(6), 389–392. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03207030
Todd, J. (2004). The visual perception of 3D shape. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(3), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.01.006
Trehub, S. E. (2012). Behavioral methods in infancy: Pitfalls of single measures. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1252(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06448.x
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84(4), 327–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
Ueda, Y., & Saiki, J. (2007). Viewpoint independence in visual and haptic object recognition. The Japanese Journal of Psychonomic Science, 26, 11–19.
Ueda, Y., & Saiki, J. (2012). Characteristics of eye movements in 3-d object learning: Comparison between within-modal and cross-modal object recognition. Perception, 41(11), 1289–1298. https://doi.org/10.1068/p7257
Van Cleve, J. (2007). Reid’s answer to Molyneux’s question. The Monist, 90(2), 251–270.
Walker, P., Bremner, J. G., Mason, U., Spring, J., Mattock, K., Slater, A., & Johnson, S. P. (2010). Preverbal infants’ sensitivity to synesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychological Science, 21(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797609354734
Walker, P., Bremner, J. G., Mason, U., Spring, J., Mattock, K., Slater, A., & Johnson, S. P. (2014). Preverbal infants are sensitive to cross-sensory correspondences: Much ado about the null results of Lewkowicz and Minar. Psychological Science, 25(3), 835–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613520170
Walker-Andrews, A. (1994). Taxonomy for intermodal relations. In D. J. Lewkowicz & R. Lickliter (Eds.), The development of intersensory perception: Comparative perspectives (pp. 39–56). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Waterman, J., C. N. (1917). Hand-tongue space perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 2(4), 289–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075127
Wilson, W. A. (1969). Cross-modal transfer in animals. In Paper read at the XIXth international congress of psychology.
Zhou, Y. D., & Fuster, J. M. (2000). Visuo-tactile cross-modal associations in cortical somatosensory cells. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences U.S.A, 97(17), 9777–9782. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.17.9777
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2024 Charles Spence, Nicola