http://pom.sagepub.

com/
Psychology of Music
http://pom.sagepub.com/content/39/4/449
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0305735610377592
2011 39: 449 originally published online 8 November 2010 Psychology of Music
Zohar Eitan and Inbar Rothschild
mappings
How music touches: Musical parameters and listeners' audio-tactile metaphorical

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

Society for Education, Music and Psychology Research

can be found at: Psychology of Music Additional services and information for

http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://pom.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://pom.sagepub.com/content/39/4/449.refs.html Citations:

What is This?

- Nov 8, 2010 OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Oct 24, 2011 Version of Record >>

at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
How music touches: Musical
parameters and listeners
audio-tactile metaphorical
mappings
Zohar Eitan and Inbar Rothschild
School of Music, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Abstract
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
auditorytactile metaphorical mappings. In this study, 40 participants (20 musically trained) rated
the appropriateness of six dichotomous tactile metaphors (sharpblunt, smoothrough, softhard,
lightheavy, warmcold and wetdry) 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.
Keywords
cross-modal interaction, haptic, loudness, metaphor, music performance, tactile
Background
For most performing musicians, there is an immediate, embodied connection between tactile
and auditory qualities: touch produces sound, while tactile and haptic information serve,
together with audition and vision, as feedback gauging the performed outcome (Rovan &
Hayward, 2000). These intimate inter-modal relationships are often expressed in the terminol-
ogy used to describe sound: musical sounds are commonly referred to as warm, soft, sharp
Corresponding author:
Zohar Eitan, School of Music, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 69978, Israel.
[email: zeitan@post.tau.ac.il]
Psychology of Music
39(4) 449467
The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermission.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0305735610377592
pom.sagepub.com
Article
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
450 Psychology of Music 39(4)
or rough, mappings that seem to be applied with notable consistency that strongly suggests a
connection more than associative and external between tone and tactile values (Gunther &
OModhrain, 2003, after Mursell, 1937).
Recent psychophysical and neurophysiological research indeed suggests that the relation-
ships of tone and tactile values may be deeply rooted in behavior and its related cortical pro-
cesses. Psychophysical studies indicate that concurrent vibro-tactile stimuli facilitate hearing
(e.g., Schrmann, Caetano, Hlushchuk, Jousmki, & Hari, 2006), while auditory stimuli may
change concurrent tactile perception (Guest, Catmur, Lloyd, & Spence, 2002). Correspondingly,
Schroeder et al. (2001), Schrmann et al. (2006), and Hlushchuk (2007) all demonstrate that
tactile input is processed in the auditory cortex (posterior auditory belt area). Foxe at al. (2002)
show auditorytactile interaction in the left superior temporal gyrus, such that the responses to
auditorytactile stimulus pairs were stronger than the sum of responses to the unimodal stim-
uli presented alone, suggesting combined processing of the two modalities; and Htting, Rsler,
and Rder (2003), in an event-related potential (ERP) study, demonstrate that attending to
auditory stimuli affects early (50170 ms) brain processing of tactile stimuli located in the
same position and vice versa.
Little is confidently known, however, about how basic auditory qualities such as pitch height,
loudness or timbre affect listeners audio-tactile mappings. In contrast with the wealth of psy-
chophysical and cognitive studies examining interactions of auditory parameters with visual
or spatial dimensions such as brightness, size or elevation (for reviews of recent research, see
Eitan & Granot, 2006; Marks, 2004), few empirical studies have investigated audio-tactile map-
pings directly, and results are often inconclusive. Walker and Smith (1984, 1986) applied both
adjective ratings and the Stroop paradigm to examine the interaction of low- (50 Hz) and high-
pitched (5500 Hz) sinusoids with antonymous cross-modal metaphors. While many visual or
kinesthetic adjectives were strongly associated with pitch height, tactile antonyms, including
roughsmooth, coolwarm, and hardsoft, were weakly associated with high and low pitch.
Eitan and Timmers (2010) examined similar cross-modal metaphors in a musical context, ask-
ing participants to rate how appropriate they are to musical segments differing in pitch register.
Unlike Walker and Smiths, their results demonstrate highly significant correlations between
touch-related adjective and pitch: high register music was rated as lighter, smoother and softer
than low register music; heat, though, was not significantly related to pitch height. Recently,
Eitan, Katz, and Shen (2010) systematically manipulated (using factorial design) pitch height,
loudness and tempo in two musical phrases from Vareses Density 21.5 for flute solo, and asked
children (aged 8 and 11) and adults to rate how appropriate 15 metaphor antonyms are,
including smoothrough, sharpround and lightheavy, to each manipulated phrase. Results
indicate that higher pitch is significantly associated with roughness, sharpness and lightness,
and increased loudness with roughness, sharpness, and heaviness.
Several psychophysical studies, with conflicting results, have examined audio-tactile rough-
ness perception. Peeva, Baird, Izmirli and Blevins (2004) asked subjects to match loudness and
pitch levels to a given roughness and vice versa. Subjects associated louder sounds with rougher
textures; they also showed strong correlation between pitch and roughness, though the direc-
tion of the correlation (highersmoother or higherrougher) varied among subjects. Guest et al.
(2002) and Zampini, Guest and Spence (2003) show that reducing loudness and attenuating
high frequencies increases perceived tactile smoothness. In contrast, subjects in Jousmki and
Hari (1998) judged tactile smoothness to increase as loudness and frequency increased.
Finally, though not using actual musical or auditory stimuli, results of Osgoods well-known
Semantic Differential experiments may be particularly relevant to the issue of tactile-auditory
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Eitan and Rothschild 451
metaphorical mapping. In the Semantic Differential (SD) technique (Osgood, Suci, &
Tannenbaum, 1957) diverse objects (e.g., my mother, snow, death, United Nations) are rated
on a large number of bipolar adjective scales (e.g., goodbad, fastslow, hardsoft). Typically,
factor analysis on the different adjective ratings reduces into three main independent factors,
interpreted as evaluation (e.g., goodbad, pleasantunpleasant) activity (e.g., fastslow, active
passive) and potency or power (e.g., strongweak, bigsmall). These three factors have emerged
in different experimental paradigms, performed cross-linguistically and cross-culturally.
The 50 adjective scales used by Osgood in many early SD experiments include the antonyms
loudsoft and basstreble, denoting the poles of pitch height and loudness. In addition, several
tactile antonyms are used, including hardsoft, heavylight, roughsmooth, sharpblunt, hot
cold, and wetdry. Notably, for American English speakers (Osgood et al., 1957, Table 1) both
auditory antonyms loudsoft (.44) and basstreble (.47) feature relatively high loadings into
the potency factor. So do several of the tactile antonyms: the tactile dimension heavylight
presents the highest loading of all adjective pairs constituting the potency factor (.62), while
hardsoft (.55) and roughsmooth (.36) are also loaded highly into this factor. Later analysis
(Osgood, 1964) suggests that sharpdull (.45) and hotcold (.47) are also strongly associated
with potency (though they also relate to activity). Thus, the tactile qualities of heavy, hard,
rough, sharp and hot, and the auditory qualities low (for pitch) and loud are all associated with
qualities denoting high potency and power. This semantic association of tactile and auditory
qualities should be noted and we will look at it again when interpreting our own results.
Predictions?
What do the existing empirical data suggest regarding audio-tactile metaphorical mappings?
Table 1 summarizes the tactile mappings of pitch height and loudness, as suggested by the stud-
ies surveyed above. As the table indicates, only few of the predictions are unequivocal: louder
sound is sharper, heavier, harder and warmer, while higher pitch is lighter. Furthermore, of
these correlations, two (loudwarm and loudhard) are not based on studies involving actual
auditory or tactile stimuli, but are implied indirectly from semantic differential data (see above).
Predictions concerning other audio-tactile relationships are contradictory or simply missing.
Louder and higher sounds were associated, in different studies, with both poles of the smooth
rough dimension, and higher pitch was likewise associated with both sharp and dull.
Mappings of pitch into the softhard and hotcold dimensions are indicated by some studies,
Table 1. Summary of audio-tactile mappings, as suggested by Eitan & Timmers, 2010 (E & T); Guest et al.,
2002 (G); Jousmki & Hari, 1998 (J & H); Eitan et al., 2010 (E, K, & S); Osgood, 1964 (O), Osgood et al., 1957;
Peeva et al., 2004 (P); Walker & Smith, 1984 (W & S), Zampini et al., 2003 (Z).
Louder volume Higher pitch
SoftHard Hard (O) Soft (E & T, O), None (W & S)
SmoothRough Smooth (J & H) Rough
(E, K, & S; P; G; Z, O)
Smooth (E & T; Z; G; O), Rough
(E, K, & S; J & H), None (W & S)
SharpDull Sharp (E, K, & S; O) Sharp (E, K, & S) Dull (O)
HeavyLight Heavy (E, K, & S; O) Light (E & T, O)
WarmCold Warm (O) Cold (O), None (W & S)
WetDry ? ?
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
452 Psychology of Music 39(4)
but others do not suggest any significant correlations between these dimensions; and no study
known to us has examined how pitch and loudness map into the wetdry dichotomy. As to
other musical variables, such as vibrato and specific instrumental timbre both investigated in
this study as far as we know, only anecdotal evidence (e.g., expressions such as warm vibrato,
or smooth flute sound, sometimes uttered by musicians) can serve as a basis for predictions.
Aims and general design
This study systematically investigates how loudness, pitch height, instrumental timbre (flute
vs. violin), vibrato and their interactions affect listeners application of tactile metaphors for
musical sound. As shown above, the small body of empirical research addressing comparable
issues is inconclusive with regard to some audio-tactile interactions, while others were never
examined empirically. Several critical gaps in this literature thus need to be addressed. First, the
effects of musical or auditory variables, except pitch, on audio-tactile associations have hardly
been examined. Second, no study has systematically examined how interactions of different
auditory parameters affect the tactile associations of sound. Lastly, previous studies did not
examine listeners tactile mapping of musical sound per se: independent variables were either
verbal only (Eitan & Timmers, 2010, Experiment 1; Osgood et al., 1957), sinusoids (Walker &
Smith, 1984), noise (Peeva et al., 2004) or, on the other hand, entire musical complexes (Eitan
& Timmers, 2010, Experiment 3; Eitan et al., 2010). The present study thus provides a neces-
sary intermediate level in the range of converging experiments examining audio-tactile map-
pings. It bridges the gap between experiments using controlled, artificial auditory stimuli with
no similarity to actual musical sound and experiments applying actual music (which necessar-
ily involves many uncontrolled musical variables) by using natural sound of musical instru-
ments, played by professional performers, while controlling musical variables. Comparing our
results with those of experiments using other stimuli artificial or ecological may provide a
fuller picture of audio-tactile mappings in musical contexts.
As independent variables we have chosen four musical features: the basic auditory
parameters of pitch height and loudness; instrumental timbre, as represented by two instru-
ments (violin and flute) similar in their pitch range but contrasting in timbre (the violins
harmonics-rich sound contrasts with the flutes, which, particularly at its higher register,
approaches pure tone); and vibrato, an important tool in musicians (particularly string
players) expressive manipulation of sound. As dependent variables we use ratings for six
tactile antonyms: sharpblunt, smoothrough, softhard, lightheavy, warmcold
1
and
wetdry. These terms are commonly used to describe sound, in music and elsewhere. Sharp
shrill, rough, hoarse voice, a blunt thud, or a still and soft voice (Kings I, 19, King James
translation) are but a tiny sample of the expressions applying such audio-tactile mappings.
Google, for instance (accessed 29 September 2009), lists about 253,000 instances of the
term soft sound or soft sounds, 205,800 of warm sound/sounds, 183,200 heavy sound/
sounds, 159,300 rough sound/sounds, 92,300 sharp sound/sounds and 91,500 dry
sound/sounds. Furthermore, as the above survey indicates, these tactile terms have been
used in most relevant research; their employment here may thus enable comparison with
that research.
The present study examines, then, how several musical variables and their interactions
affect the application of common tactile metaphors for sound, while using actual musical
sounds, systematically manipulated. The study employs 18 sound stimuli, comprising all com-
binations of three pitch registers, three loudness levels and two instrumental timbres (violin
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Eitan and Rothschild 453
and flute). Two additional sounds introduced vibrato, using medium pitch and loudness levels.
Participants (musicians and non-musicians) rated each sound on six bipolar adjective scales:
sharpblunt, smoothrough, softhard, lightheavy, warmcold and wetdry. Using repeated
measures MANOVAs, we examined how the musical variables related to each of the six adjec-
tive ratings.
Method
Participants
Forty participants, 21 women, 19 men; mean age: 28.85, range 1860, SD = 10.77. 20 par-
ticipants were musically trained (undergraduate or graduate music students and music pro-
fessionals, with >4 years of formal musical studies; 15.2 years of musical training or
professional musical activity, on average), while the remaining 20 had little or no formal
musical training (1.1 years of musical training, on average). The musicians group was, on
average, younger than the non-musicians (mean age 25 vs. 32.7). Participants were paid for
their services.
Sound stimuli
Twenty 4-second sounds, each consisting of a single tone with constant loudness, were played
by a professional violinist and a professional flute player (10 sounds each), and recorded
through a single Schoephs CMC5-U condenser microphone to a CD. Eighteen sounds, played
without vibrato, created a 3 3 2 matrix, containing all combinations of two instrumental
timbres (flute and violin), three pitches (A4, A5, A6) and three distinct loudness levels; two
additional sounds (A5, medium loudness) were played with vibrato by the two instruments.
Sound editing (using Wavelab 5.1) included equalizing the duration of all sounds to 4 minutes,
introducing onset and decay gradations (<200 ms), and equalization of each of the three loud-
ness levels across pitch and instrument, based on evaluations of four expert musicians.

The
peak amplitudes of all sounds used (in dB-SPL) are presented in Table 2.
2
Procedure
Participants were tested individually in a quiet room, using David Clark 10S/DC sound-isolating
earphones. They listened to each sound two to three times, as needed, with intervals of approxi-
mately 10 seconds between reiterations, and 30 seconds between different sounds. A break of
2 minutes was introduced in mid-session. Twenty different quasi-randomized orderings of the
stimuli were used, each starting with a different tone.
Participants rated each sound on six bi-polar 5-degree scales: sharpblunt, smoothrough,
softhard, lightheavy, warmcold and wetdry. Scales were presented as horizontal lines
between each two dichotomous adjectives, divided by five short vertical lines (e.g.,
Wet |____|____|____|____| Dry). Participants circled one of the vertical lines to indicate
which antonym was more appropriate as a metaphor for the sound, and to what degree; ratings
were converted into numerical scales (15). The order of antonyms within each pair (right/left
of the scale) was counterbalanced among participants, and the order of the six pairs was quasi-
randomized, such that for each six or seven participants, a different adjective pair appeared first
on the form. Orderings were kept constant for each participant.
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
454 Psychology of Music 39(4)
At a sessions end, participants were requested to freely comment on their rating criteria, the
relative difficulty of the categories, and any other issue concerning the experiment. They were
also asked to select of the 12 adjectives the three most appropriate metaphors for musical
sound. Participants provided demographic information, including age, gender, musical instru-
ments played, years of musical training, and current musical occupation (if any).
Results
The effects of musical variables on ratings of tactile metaphors
Statistical analysis. Since the dependent variables have shown considerable co-variation (see
Correlations between adjective pairs below), Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was
conducted (Wilks Lambda). Multivariate tests of significance were first conducted on the
entire data set (excluding vibrato stimuli), showing highly significant main effects (p < .00001)
for Instrument (F = 9.27), Pitch (F = 25.26), and Loudness (F = 13.39), and a significant
Loudness Instrument interaction (F = 2.28, p < .05); a similar analysis was conducted for the
four stimuli used in examining vibrato effects, showing a significant effect of Vibrato (F = 6.11,
p < .005) and a significant VibratoInstrument interaction (F = 3.45, p < .01). These analyses
were followed by separate multivariate tests for repeated measure for each of the six dependent
variables (adjective pairs ratings). For each adjective pair, a repeated measures MANOVA was
conducted for ratings of the 18-sound non-vibrato matrix, with Loudness (pp, mf or ff), Pitch
(A4, A5 or A6) and Instrument (violin or piano) as within-subject independent variables,
Musical Training as a between-subject independent variable, and adjective ratings (15) as the
dependent variable. Results for the two vibrato sounds were compared only to non-vibrato
sounds with the same Loudness (mf) and Pitch (A5) levels, in repeated-measures MANOVAs
with Vibrato and Instrument as within-subject independent variables.
Table 2. Peak amplitudes of all stimuli (dB-SPL).
Instrument Dynamics Pitch Vibrato dB-SPL
Violin pp A4 N 63.1
Violin pp A5 N 59.1
Violin pp A6 N 62.2
Violin mf A4 N 70.2
Violin mf A5 N 72.5
Violin mf A6 N 69.8
Violin ff A4 N 79.5
Violin ff A5 N 79.8
Violin ff A6 N 81
Violin mf A5 Y 77.8
Flute pp A4 N 66.5
Flute pp A5 N 72.5
Flute pp A6 N 69.6
Flute mf A4 N 76.2
Flute mf A5 N 78
Flute mf A6 N 82
Flute ff A4 N 83.5
Flute ff A5 N 83.8
Flute ff A6 N 90
Flute mf A5 Y 84.5
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Eitan and Rothschild 455
Results are presented in Table 3, which summarizes MANOVA results, and in the box-plots of
Figure 1, depicting the distributions of adjective ratings as related to the musical variables of
Loudness, Pitch Height, Instrument and Vibrato.
Table 3. Significant effects of musical and population variables on ratings for tactile metaphors (repeated
measures MANOVAWilks test).
Tactile Metaphor Musical
variable
F value p M * (SE) M ** (SE) M *** (SE)
SharpBlunt Instrument 13.13 0.0008 2.84 (0.13) 2.47 (0.14)
Pitch 81.72 0.0000 3.53 (0.14) 2.47 (0.15) 1.97 (0.15)
Loudness 20.69 0.0000 3.05 (0.17) 2.67 (0.16) 2.26 (0.16)
SmoothRough Instrument 47.24 0.0000 2.85 (0.13) 3.50 (0.12)
Pitch 5.78 0.0065 2.97 (0.15) 3.15 (0.15) 3.4 (0.16)
Loudness 35.67 0.0000 2.77 (0.15) 3.11 (0.14) 3.65 (0.15)
Instrument
Loudness
6.4 0.004
PitchLoudness 3.89 0.0102
Instrument
Vibrato
5.69 0.0221
Instrument
Training
6.89 0.0124
SoftHard Instrument 14.07 0.0005 2.82 (0.14) 3.26 (0.13)
Pitch 38.51 0.0000 2.52 (0.16) 3.12 (0/16) 3.49 (0.16)
Loudness 75.03 0.0000 2.26 (0.14) 3.01 (0.15) 3.85 (0.14)
Instrument
Loudness
4.1 0.0246
Instrument
Training
5.06 0.0302
Loudness
Training
3.31 0.0474
LightHeavy Pitch 18.8 0.0000 3.27 (0.15) 2.75 (0.14) 2.52 (0.14)
Loudness 26.6 0.0000 2.30 (0.14) 2.83 (0.13) 3.41 (0.15)
Vibrato 5.78 0.0211 2.7 (0.24) 3.06 (0.25)
Instrument
PitchLoudness
6.04 0.0008
WarmCold Instrument 9.82 0.0033 3.08 (0.13) 3.39 (0.13)
Pitch 35.54 0.0000 2.60 (0.15) 3.32 (0.14) 3.79 (0.15)
Loudness 18.74 0.0000 2.92 (0.15) 3.24 (0.15) 3.55 (0.16)
Vibrato 12.59 0.0012 2.65 (0.23) 3.34 (0.27)
Instrument
Vibrato
6.83 0.0128
WetDry Instrument 23.8 0.0000 3.09 (0.12) 3.50 (0.12)
Pitch 4.8 0.014 3.05 (0.14) 3.26 (.14) 3.58 (0.15)
Vibrato 25.75 0.0000 2.46 (0.24) 3.3 (0.23)
Instrument
Pitch
4.7 0.015
Instrument
Vibrato
11.32 0.0017
Ratings were translated to numerical values of 15: Left antonym: 1; Right antonym: 5.
N: Pitch 240 Loudness: 240 Instrument 360 Vibrato 80
M * (SE) Pitch: A4 Loudness: pp Instrument: Flute Vibrato: +
M ** (SE) Pitch: A5 Loudness: mf Instrument: Violin Vibrato: -
M *** (SE) Pitch: A6 Loudness: ff
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
456 Psychology of Music 39(4)
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Median Quartile
SharpBlunt (15) box plots for instrument, pitch and loudness
SmoothRough (15) box plots for instrument, pitch and loudness
SoftHard (15) box plots for instrument, pitch and loudness
LightHeavy (15) box plots for pitch, loudness and vibrato
WarmCold (15) box plots for instrument, pitch, loudness and vibrato
WetDry (15) box plots for instrument, pitch and vibrato
Figure 1. Distributions of adjective ratings as related to the musical variables of Loudness, Pitch,
Instrument and Vibrato.
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Eitan and Rothschild 457
Results indicate significant main effects for all four musical variables (Pitch, Loudness,
Instrument, and Vibrato), and some significant interactions among variables.
Highly significant main effects of pitch height for all six adjective pairs. Higher pitches
were rated as sharper, rougher, harder, lighter, colder and drier than lower pitches.
Highly significant main effects of loudness for five adjective pairs. Louder sounds were
rated as sharper, rougher, harder, heavier and colder than quieter sounds. Note that
results for louder dynamics and higher pitch are parallel in all but one measure: higher
pitch is more lightweight, but louder sound is heavier.
Significant main effects of instrument: violin sound was rated as blunter (less sharp),
rougher, harder, colder and drier, as compared to flute. Instrument did not affect light
heavy ratings.
Significant main effects of vibrato: vibrato sounds were rated as lighter, warmer and wet-
ter than non-vibrato sounds. Vibrato did not affect sharpblunt and softhard ratings.
Several significant interactions between musical dimensions were found. Most of these interac-
tions involve the Instrument variable (flute or violin), suggesting that the effects of the other musi-
cal variables examined (Pitch, Loudness, and Vibrato) on the application of tactile metaphor may
vary for different musical instruments. Note, however, that significant interactions are limited
to few metaphors, particularly smoothrough and softhard; moreover, only one interaction
(InstrumentVibrato for smoothrough) presents opposite effects of the two interacting variables.
In all other interactions, only the magnitude of the effect, rather than its direction, is involved.
Significant interactions between Instrument and Loudness were found for the smooth
rough antonym (F = 6.4; p = .004), where rating differences between instruments were
larger at lower dynamic levels, and for softhard, where rating differences were larger at
higher dynamic levels (F = 4.1; p = .025).
A significant interaction between Instrument and Pitch was found for the wetdry antonym
only. For the flute, rating differences occurred between the two higher pitch registers, while
for the violin, they occurred mainly between the two lower registers (F = 4.7; p = .015):
Significant interactions between Instrument and Vibrato were found for the warmcold
(F = 6.83; p = .012) and wetdry (F = 11.3; p = .0017) antonyms, in which rating differ-
ences between vibrato and non-vibrato were considerably larger for the violin, and for
the smoothrough antonym, in which vibrato was rated as smoother than non-vibrato
for the violin, while for the flute it was rated as rougher (F = 5.27; p = .022).
A significant interaction between Pitch Height and Loudness was found for the smooth
rough antonym only (F = 3.89; p = 0.01). While for low and medium dynamic levels
(pp, mf), middle register pitch was rougher than low-register pitch, this was not the case
for the loudest dynamics (ff).
The effect of musical training. No main effect was found for Musical Training. However, Musical
Training interacted with Instrument for the smoothrough (F = 6.89; p = .012) and softhard
(F = 5.06; p = .03) dichotomies, and with loudness for softhard (F = 3.31; p = .047), such that
differences between ratings for the two instruments, as well as for loudness values, were larger
for the musically trained participants. In addition, a significant three-way interaction between
Instrument, Vibrato and Musical Training emerged for sharpblunt ratings (F = 4.82; p =
.034), such that musicians associated reduced sharpness with violin non-vibrato, while
non-musicians associated reduced sharpness with flute non-vibrato.
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
458 Psychology of Music 39(4)
Preferred adjectives and easy/difficult categories. In their free verbal responses participants noted,
among other things, which of the antonym pairs were the easiest, and which were the most
difficult to rate. In addition, they were asked to choose, out of the 12 adjectives presented, up to
three that they believe are most suitable as metaphors for sound. Table 4 quantifies these
responses. As these responses were adapted from freely composed comments and are limited in
number, we do no analyze them statistically. Nevertheless, data indicate that the easiest pair to
apply as a metaphor to sound was by far softhard, while the most difficult pair was wetdry.
Most participants considered warm and soft highly suitable metaphors for sound, while
wet, dry, blunt and cold were considered suitable by very few participants. Note the strong
preference toward one of the two terms in some pairs: warm rather than cold, heavy rather
than light, sharp rather than blunt.
Correlations between adjective pairs. To examine whether different tactile metaphors for sound
tend to associate with each other, we computed Pearson correlation coefficients, based on the
entire data set, between all adjective pairs (Table 5). Several significant correlations (p < .05)
can be observed, most involving the pair softhard (which, as mentioned above, was also con-
sidered the tactile dimension easiest to apply to sound). Softhard correlates positively with
warmcold and lightheavy, and negatively with sharpblunt. Soft, then, tends to associate
with warm, lightweight and blunt, while hard associates with cold, heavy and sharp. In addi-
tion, smoothrough correlates positively with wetdry, and (marginally) with lightheavy, and
sharpblunt presents a marginal negative correlation with warmcold.
Discussion
This study indicates that tactile metaphors applied to sound are systematically affected by musi-
cal factors, particularly pitch height and loudness, and suggests specific relationships between
Table 4. Preferred adjectives and easy/difficult categories.
Category SharpBlunt SmoothRough SoftHard LightHeavy WarmCold WetDry
Easy 6 8 15 3 8 3
Difficult 3 8 2 9 7 18
Preferred 15 3 8 7 25 11 8 17 30 4 3 1
Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficients between adjectives pairs, based on the entire data set.
SharpBlunt SmoothRough LightHeavy HotCold WetDry
SoftHard -0.34* 0.21 0.42** 0.51*** 0.05
SharpBlunt 0.20 0.08 -0.30(*) -0.17
SmoothRough 0.27(*) 0.23 0.39*
LightHeavy 0.03 0.21
WarmCold 0.002
(*) p < .1 * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Eitan and Rothschild 459
the two modes. Only few of the cross-modal interactions investigated here have been empiri-
cally studied before, and fewer were examined using actual musical sound. Thus, for instance,
highly significant associations, rarely studied before, were established between loudness and
the dimensions of softness, smoothness, weight, heat and wetness.
In the following, we shall briefly discuss several central issues stemming from the results.
These include the correspondence between pitch height and loudness, as revealed by their
shared tactile metaphors, as well as several complementary accounts of tactile mappings for
sound. Finally, the issue of ecological validity will be addressed. We shall discuss supporting
evidence suggesting that results of this study its rarified experimental settings notwithstand-
ing are musically relevant, and briefly suggest how further studies may examine the present
results in the context of musical performance.
Pitch and loudness: similarities and an important contrast
Importantly, the effects of pitch and loudness on tactile metaphors are similar for all dimen-
sions but one, as higher pitch and louder sound were both rated as sharper, rougher, harder and
colder. This congruence is consistent with studies indicating perceptual correlation of rising
and falling pitch with increasing and decreasing loudness, respectively (Nakamura, 1987;
Neuhoff & McBeath, 1996; Neuhoff, McBeath, & Wanzie, 1999). Comparably, studies of music-
induced imagery (Eitan & Granot, 2006; Eitan & Tubul, in press), and of perceptual congru-
ence effects (Eitan, Schupak, & Marks, 2008), suggest that rise and fall in loudness and pitch
convey similar spatio-temporal associations (e.g., diminuendo strongly suggests spatial fall, like
fall in pitch). Together with these earlier studies, our results thus point at intriguing similari-
ties concerning the web of cross- and a-modal associations these two basic dimensions of sound
convey to listeners, similarities that may deeply affect musical experience.
Note, however, that amid these similarities stands one important contrast: increased loud-
ness is heavy while high pitch is light. Similar pitchloudness contrasts were observed for the
related dimension of size: high pitch is associated with small physical size (Marks, Hammeal,
Bornstein, & Smith, 1988; Walker & Smith, 1984), but high loudness volume is indeed
voluminous (Lipscomb & Kim, 2004; Stevens, 1934; Walker, 1987). In decoding what sound
may convey to listeners, these contrasts in potency (Osgood et al., 1957), standing amid strik-
ing similarities in other domains, should be an important consideration.
Possible sources of audio-tactile mappings
Given our rudimentary understanding of auditorytactile interaction, any explanation of the
specific sound-touch associations presented here would be speculative. Nevertheless, several
complementary accounts may be tentatively pointed out.
Tactile sensations of the ear: Do cross-modal metaphors reflect analogous sensory processing? The
senses of touch and hearing correspond in some fundamental ways (Soto-Faraco & Deco,
2009). Both are based on receptors that respond to pressure stimuli, transferring them (con-
verted into electrochemical stimuli) through the nerves to the brain for processing; and both
process vibrations, analyzing (albeit with very different subtlety) amplitude, frequency and
waveform, within perceptual ranges and just noticeable differences (JNDs) that are often
roughly compatible. For instance, the vibrotactile frequency response range is approximately
201000 Hz, and the vibrotactile intensity response ranges about 55 dB from the lower
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
460 Psychology of Music 39(4)
threshold (Gunther & OModhrain, 2003). Sometimes, as when exploring surface texture with
a probe, the very same vibrations reach both skin and ear (see Lederman, Klatzki, Morgan, &
Hamilton, 2002). Such analogies in sensory processing may give rise, at higher processing
levels, to perceptual and verbal correlations. Some audio-tactile mappings exhibited in the
present study may demonstrate such correlations, illustrated by the sound images in Figure 2.
Lightheavy; softhard. Louder sounds generate greater pressure on our hearing receptors,
just as heavier and harder objects activate greater pressure on pressure receptors in the skin.
Hence, sound waves with higher amplitudes are perceived as heavy and hard. (Compare images
9 and 10 (pp) with images 11 and 12 (ff) in Figure 2.)
Smoothrough. In vibrotactile perception, the contrast between purer and richer waveforms
is represented as smoothness vs. roughness (Rovan & Hayward, 2000). Comparably, a flutes
simpler sound wave (Figure 2, image 1) was rated as smoother than the violins (Figure 2,
image 2); louder sounds (Figure 2, images 11 and 12), possessing higher amplitudes and richer
in audible partials, were rated as rougher than quieter sounds (Figure 2, images 9 and 10).
Higher pitch, however (Figure 2, images 7 and 8) was rated as rougher than lower pitch (Figure
2, images 5 and 6), in apparent variance with the above hypothesis. Possibly, another factor, the
shorter, spikier wave lengths of higher pitch, may have created the audio-tactile analogy here.
Sharpblunt. Violin sound (Figure 2, image 2), higher pitch (Figure 2, images 7 and 8) and
louder tone (Figure 2, images 11 and 12) were rated as sharper. These correlations are con-
sistent with an accepted psycho-acoustic definition of sharpness (Bismarck, 1974), as they all
increase spectral energy in higher frequency regions. However, the relationships also apply to a
more general definition of a waves sharpness: sharpness rises as steepness rises as the ampli-
tude grows and the wave length shortens.
Obviously, such account of sensory correspondence should be qualified. To support the
hypothesis that cross-modal metaphorical mapping, performed verbally at a high cognitive
level, is associated with correlations in low-level sensory processing, the path from such basic
sensory processes, mostly subconscious, to high-level cognitive operations should be accounted
for. In particular, one should specify whether such path begins with low-level interaction, based
on neural encoding of sensory correspondence (see Foxe et al., 2000, Htting at al., 2003, for
relevant studies of early brain potentials). Alternatively, stimuli in different modalities may be
separately processed at lower levels, and then mapped, through higher-level, language-related
processes, into cross-domain concepts such as lightness or softness (see Martino & Marx 1999,
2001, for a relevant model). To examine these alternatives, converging or combined studies
using implicit perceptual measures, such as response time in cross-modal tasks, physiological
measures and brain imaging techniques (fMRI and ERP) may be conducted.
Audio-tactile mappings and experiential congruence. Regardless of low-level analogies of sensory
processing, we may learn to relate certain tactile and auditory properties because these are
often encountered together, associated with the same objects, in daily experience. Thus, for
instance, subjects associate louder impact sound with larger and heavier objects (Burro &
Grassi, 2001). Overall, higher loudness, as well as higher loudness of the spectral centroid, are
also associated with harder objects or surfaces (Freed, 1990, Giordano, 2005). Higher loudness
(Guest et al., 2002; Lederman, 1979) and higher frequency (Zampini et al., 2003) are both
associated with roughness.
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Eitan and Rothschild 461
Figure 2. Sound images of selected stimuli.
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
462 Psychology of Music 39(4)
Such repeated cross-modal associations may impart in structural invariants that are
perceived as indicators of the source objects attributes, such as softness, dryness or roughness.
Ecological psychology has suggested that an organism directly perceives complex visual
(Gibson, 1966) or auditory (Gaver, 1993a, 1993b) invariant structures that specify source
objects, their properties and actions. The relationships observed by participants in the present
study may take part in constituting auditory invariants (variants also involving other acoustic
features, such as amplitude envelope and spectral structure) that specify to the listener basic
tactile (indeed, cross-modal) features of the source object. Note that these invariants specify
objects and their features through events or actions performed upon them, rather than by pas-
sive perception alone: sound specifying soft vs. hard is the sound related to acting upon (e.g.,
hitting) a soft or hard object (Gaver, 1993a, 1993b).
Structural cross-modal invariants may induce the habitual use of verbal cross-modal map-
pings, and the metaphors resulting from such mappings may themselves become the principal
means of describing the auditory target dimension (e.g., soft, as used for reduced loudness).
Such prevalent verbal use, in turn, reinforces cross-modal association.
2
One way to examine the effect of experiential correspondences on auditorytactile map-
pings would be developmental studies, involving infants and young children, as compared to
older children and adults. Developmental investigations of other cross-modal interactions have
suggested different developmental tracks for different cross-modal mappings. For instance,
associations of pitch and loudness with brightness are traced in infancy or early childhood,
while the associations of pitch and loudness with size mature only in late childhood (age 911),
suggesting that they are largely determined by childrens exposure to cross-modal correlations
in daily experience (Lewkowicz & Turkewitz, 1980; Marks et al., 1988; Smith & Sera, 1992).
Similar studies involving auditorytactile interactions may distinguish between interactions
based upon repeated exposure to audio-tactile correlations and those whose sources lie
elsewhere.
Underlying semantic dimensions. As suggested by Osgoods findings (Osgood, 1964; Osgood et al.,
1957; see above), associations of auditory and tactile features, as well as correlations among
the tactile features themselves, may be related to abstract semantic dimensions such as activity
or potency. Thus, it might have been claimed that some of our findings may not primarily stem
from the presentation of actual auditory stimuli, but from an a-modal semantic space, relating
auditory and tactile adjectives through their shared connotations to abstract dimensions such
as high (or low) power, activity or evaluation. Specifically, as mentioned, adjectives denoting
the poles of pitch and loudness (basstreble, loudsoft), as well as five of the six antonyms used
in the present study, loaded highly into the potency factor (Osgood, 1964; Osgood et al., 1957),
such that low and loud sound, as well as the tactile features hard, rough, heavy, sharp and hot,
were all high in potency. One may then expect that these features would correlate, all being
potent or powerful.
Our results, however, indicate that abstract semantic dimensions, such as potency, explain
audio-tactile mappings only partially, if at all; nor do they account very well for correlations
among tactile features. Indeed, some correlations between tactile dimensions predicted by
Osgoods potency scores are presented in our results (Table 5): hard is positively correlated with
heavy, and rough and heavy are also marginally correlated. However, other correlations implied
by Osgoods data are reversed or absent. Warm is not correlated with hard, sharp, rough and
heavy, as would be predicted by shared high potency. Rather, it correlates with soft and blunt,
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Eitan and Rothschild 463
and shows no significant correlations with the heavylight and smoothrough dichotomies.
Likewise, sharp is correlated with cold, rather than warm, as implied by Osgoods data, and is
not associated with rough or heavy.
Rather than based upon abstract semantic dimensions, some of the correlations between
tactile features may be modality specific, related to concrete tactile experience. Chen, Shao,
Barnes, Childs and Henson (2009) asked participants to rate various surfaces on bi-polar scales
for warmcold, slipperysticky, smoothrough, hardsoft, bumpyflat, and wetdry. They
found high correlations between ratings for warmcold and softhard (.74), and between
smoothrough and wetdry (.65), correlations also found in the present study. Neither correla-
tion is predicted by Osgoods data.
Comparing audio-tactile mappings (Table 3) with those implied by Osgoods potency load-
ings indicates that high loudness indeed associates significantly with most tactile features high
in potency hard, rough, heavy and sharp though louder sound is cold rather than warm.
The tactile mappings of loudness may thus stem in part from an abstract potency (power)
dimension, underlying both loudness and its tactile correlates. Indeed, such mappings make
ecological sense, since louder sound is associated with potency (i.e., with larger, more massive
sounding bodies, capable of powerful actions or effects). In contrast, low pitch (also associated
with high potency) is rated as soft, smooth and dull, rather than as hard, rough and sharp,
attributes loaded highly into potency. Thus, while the audio-tactile mappings of loudness may
largely stem from its potency connotations, those of pitch height lie elsewhere.
Still, audio-tactile mappings may indeed relate to dimensions such as evaluation, activity or
potency, but these may derive from the participants experience of the actual auditory stimuli
presented to them, rather than from abstract, pre-conceived semantic relationships. Thus, for
instance, in their free verbal responses participants often noted that some sounds were more
pleasant than others, and related this evaluation to the tactile qualities those sounds meta-
phorically possessed. Generally, pleasant sounds were described as warm, soft, lightweight,
blunt and smooth, while unpleasant sounds were cold, hard, heavy, sharp and rough (notably,
these evaluations only partially concur with Osgoods valence loadings they do for the dimen-
sions softhard, smoothrough, and lightheavy, but not for warmcold and sharpblunt). As
noted, these terms also correlated with each other (Table 5). In addition, the terms soft and
warm were favored by most participants as metaphors for music and sounds (Table 4). These
converging results suggest that an evaluation dimension, contrasting pleasant sounds
(described as soft, smooth, warm, lightweight and blunt, with unpleasant ones hard, rough,
cold, heavy and sharp) may have underscored specific tactile metaphors for sound. Yet the
source of this dimension is not in an abstract semantic space, but actual affective experience,
involving concrete sound.
Ecological validity: Relevance to music listening and performance
This is an exploratory study. By necessity, it examined a limited set of pitch and loudness levels,
and only two instrumental timbres. Furthermore, to manage and control our auditory varia-
bles, we restricted our stimuli to single sounds. Even a short, simple melodic phrase would fea-
ture a host of additional variables pitch contour, interval size, articulation, and a variety of
tonal and rhythmic features that may affect the use of tactile metaphors and interact in com-
plex, non-additive ways with the variables of pitch register, loudness, instrumental timbre and
vibrato examined here.
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
464 Psychology of Music 39(4)
Would the audio-tactile mappings observed here, then, be featured in a musical context?
Two recent studies by our group may help examining this crucial issue. In Eitan and Timmers
(2010: Experiment 3), participants heard two segments from the variation movement of
Beethovens piano sonata, op. 111, differing in pitch register but otherwise similar, and rated
each segment on 35 bi-polar scales, including five of the six tactile antonyms used in the pres-
ent study. Four of these antonyms were rated similarly in both studies: hard, light and sharp
were all associated significantly with high pitch in both studies; cold was significantly associ-
ated with high pitch in the present study, and marginally so (p < .1) in Eitan and Timmers
(2010) experiment. The smoothrough antonym, however, was rated in opposite ways: in the
present study, high pitch is rougher, while in Eitan and Timmers, low pitch is rougher. Notably,
Eitan and Timmers used a very different instrumental timbre (piano) and a wider pitch range
than that used in our study, which might have affected roughness ratings more than other rat-
ings. This notwithstanding, the similarity of most audio-tactile mappings in ratings of single
violin and flute sounds and in those of complex piano music suggests that results of this study,
its impoverished stimuli notwithstanding, may largely apply to actual musical contexts.
Further corroboration of the present studys ecological validity comes from Eitan et al.
(2010). In that study, pitch, loudness and tempo were manipulated factorially in two phrases
from a 20th-century flute solo piece (Varese, Density 21.5). For each musical stimulus, partici-
pants (children aged 8 and 11 and adults) rated, among other adjectives, the tactile antonyms
softhard, smoothrough, and sharp-round, also examined here. As in the present study, music
higher in pitch or louder was rated as harder, sharper and rougher than music lower in pitch or
of reduced loudness. Again, then, our results correspond well with those obtained from real
music, suggesting that their ecological validity is high.
How can one further examine the musical relevance of tactile metaphors? The present
article concentrated on the listening end of the musical communication chain. Yet tactile
metaphors, as noted in the beginning of this article, seem to be as important for performers,
serving to communicate sound quality and performance expression. Further studies of the
use of touch metaphors in music should, then, address more closely aspects of musical
sound that are primarily within the realm of expressive performance, such as articulation
(e.g., staccato vs. legato), or within-instrument timbre (e.g., sul ponticello vs. sul tasto in
string instruments). Furthermore, to investigate how musicians interpret tactile metaphors
in performance, a paradigm complementary to that used here may be applied: performers
would be instructed to play sounds possessing a specified tactile quality (e.g., warm soft
or rough sound), or perform the same melodic line in several different expressions, described
by tactile metaphors. The results of these different performances would then be analyzed
acoustically, examining how qualities such as sound envelope and spectral composition are
related to the sounds tactile descriptions. A qualitative investigation of the role of tactile
metaphors in performers training and communication may importantly supplement such
quantitative approaches in enhancing our understanding of the actual musical functions of
tactile metaphors.
Coda
Differing accounts of their sources notwithstanding, our results indicate that tactile meta-
phors for musical sound are neither coincidental nor subjective, but relate systematically to
basic qualities of sound. Our findings add to the accumulated evidence suggesting that a
rich, yet consistently applied, array of cross-modal connotations underlies the perception
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Eitan and Rothschild 465
of auditory stimuli, and musical sound specifically. The consistency of such cross-modal
associations suggests that an account of music cognition in purely auditory terms may be
insufficient: aspects of the experienced meaning of sound may inhere in the web of cross-
modal connotations it imparts. To the practising musician (performer and composer), such
insights may both validate and enrich the palette of expressive nuances. To the researcher,
they call for further studies concerning the manifold ways musical and auditory attributes
touch us.
Acknowledgments
We thank Itzkhak Mizrakhi for his assistance in stimuli preparation, and Alex Gotler and Tal Galili for
assistance in statistical analysis.
Notes
1. Note that the Hebrew word used, Kham, may denote both warm and hot.
2. Since equal loudness curves in use (e.g., FletcherMunson, ISO226: 2203) were determined using
pure tones or noise, they are hardly appropriate to harmonic tones, particularly across different
musical instruments. Determining equal loudness levels individually for each participant (the optimal
option) was unfortunately not a practical alternative. Hence, loudness adjustment was based on
independent judgments of four expert musicians, including the two players, a concert pianist (the
second author), and a composer/recording engineer. Notably, after equal loudness adjustment violin
sounds were, on average, 7 dB-SPL softer than comparable ute sounds.
3. Indeed, linguistic stimuli may create cross-modal congruence effects as strongly as the actual sensory
stimuli they represent (Martino & Marks, 1999; Walker & Smith, 1984, 1986).
References
Bismarck, G. von (1974). Timbre of steady sounds: A factorial investigation of its verbal attributes.
Acustica, 30, 146159.
Burro, R., & Grassi, M. (2001). Experiments on size and height of falling objects. Phenomenology of Sounds
Events, Sounding Object Group Report, 4, 3139.
Chen, X., Shao, F., Barnes, C., Childs, T., & Henson, B. (2009). Exploring relationships between touch per-
ception and surface physical properties. International Journal of Design, 3(2), 6777.
Eitan, Z., & Granot, R. Y. (2006). How music moves: Musical parameters and images of motion. Music
Perception, 23(3), 221247.
Eitan, Z., Katz, A., & Shen, Y. (2010, August). Effects of pitch register, loudness and tempo on childrens
metaphors for music. Poster presented at the 11th International Conference on Music Perception and
Cognition (ICMPC11), Seattle, WA.
Eitan, Z., Schupak, A., & Marks, L. E. (2008). Louder is higher: Cross-modal interaction of loudness change
and vertical motion in speeded classification. In K. Miyazaki, Y. Hiraga, M. Adachi, Y. Nakajima,
& M. Tsuzaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Music Perception & Cognition
(ICMPC10) (pp. 6776). Sapporo, Japan: ICMPC10.
Eitan, Z., & Timmers, R. (2010). Beethovens last piano sonata and those who follow crocodiles: Cross-
domain mappings of auditory pitch in a musical context. Cognition, 114 (3), 405422.
Eitan, Z., & Tubul, N. (in press). Musical parameters and childrens images of motion. Musicae
Scientiae.
Foxe, J. J., Morocz, I. A., Murray, M. M., Higgins, B. A., Javitt, D. C., & Schroeder, C. E. (2000). Multisensory
auditory-somatosensory interactions in early cortical processing revealed by high-density electrical
mapping. Cognitive Brain Research, 10(1), 7783.
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
466 Psychology of Music 39(4)
Foxe, J. J., Wylie, G. R., Martinez, A., Schroeder, C. E., Javitt D. C., Guilfoyle, D., et al. (2002). Auditory-
somatosensory multisensory processing in auditory association cortex: An fMRI study. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 88(1), 540543.
Freed, D. J. (1990). Auditory correlates of perceived mallet hardness for a set of recorded percussive
events. Journal of the Acoustic Society of America, 87(1), 311322.
Gaver, W. W. (1993a). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event percep-
tion. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 129
Gaver, W. W. (1993b). How do we hear in the world? Explorations of ecological acoustics. Ecological
Psychology, 5(4), 285313
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Giordano, B. L. (2005). Sound source perception in impact sounds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Padova, Italy.
Guest, S., Catmur, C. Lloyd, D., & Spence, C. (2002). Audiotactile interactions in roughness perception.
Experimental Brain Research, 146(2), 161171.
Gunther, E., & OModhrain, S. (2003). Cutaneous grooves: Composing for the sense of touch. Journal of
New Music Research 32 (4), 369381.
Hlushchuk, Y. (2007). Tactile processing in human somatosensory and auditory cortices. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Helsinki, Finland.
Htting, K., Rsler, F., & Rder, B. (2003). Crossmodal and intermodal attention modulate event-related
brain potentials to tactile and auditory stimuli. Experimental Brain Research, 148(1), 2637.
Jousmki, V., & Hari, R. (1998). Parchment-skin illusion: Sound-biased touch. Current Biology, 8(6), 190.
Lederman, S. J. (1979). Auditory texture perception. Perception, 8(1), 93103.
Lederman, S. J., Klatzki, R. L., Morgan, T., & Hamilton, C. (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. 97104). London: IEEE Computer Societys Conference Publishing Services.
Lewkowicz, D. J. (2000). The development of intersensory temporal perception: An epigenetic systems/
limitations view. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 281308.
Lewkowicz D. J., & Turkewitz G. (1980). Cross-modal equivalence in early infancy: Auditoryvisual
intensity matching. Developmental Psychology, 16, 597607.
Lipscomb, S. D., & Kim, E. M. (2004). Perceived match between visual parameters and auditory correlates:
An experimental multimedia investigation. In S. Lipscomb, R. Ashley, R. Gjerdingen, & P. Webster
(Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC8),
Evanston, IL, 38 August, 2004 (pp. 7275). Adelaide: Causal Productions.
Marks, L. E. (2004). Cross-modal interactions in speeded classification. In G. Calvert, C. Spence, &
B. E. Stein (Eds.), Handbook of multisensory processes (pp. 85106). Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.
Marks, L. E., Hammeal, R. J., Bornstein, M. H., & Smith, L. B. (1988). Perceiving similarity and comprehend-
ing metaphor. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 52 (1, Serial No. 215).
Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (1999). Perceptual and linguistic interactions in speeded classification: Tests of
the semantic coding hypothesis. Perception, 28(7), 903923.
Martino, G., & Marks, L. E. (2001). Synesthesia: Strong and weak. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 10(2), 6165.
Mursell, J. L. (1937). The psychology of music. New York: Norton.
Nakamura, A. (1987). The communication of dynamics between musicians and listeners through musi-
cal performance. Perception and Psychophysics, 41(6), 525533.
Neuhoff, J. G., & McBeath, M. K. (1996). The Doppler illusion: The influence of dynamic intensity
change on perceived pitch. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,
22(4), 970985.
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Eitan and Rothschild 467
Neuhoff, J. G., McBeath, M. K., & Wanzie, W. C. (1999). Dynamic frequency change influences loudness
perception: A central, analytic process. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 25(4), 10501059.
Osgood, C. E. (1964). Semantic differential technique in the comparative study of cultures. American
Anthropologist, 66, 171200.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago: University
of Illinois Press.
Peeva, D., Baird, B., Izmirli, O., & Blevins, D. (2004). Haptic and sound correlations: Pitch, loud-
ness and texture. In Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Information Visualization,
(IV04) (pp. 659664). London: IEEE Computer Society.
Rovan, J., & Hayward, V. (2000). Typology of tactile sounds and their synthesis in gesture-driven com-
puter music performance. In M. Wanderley & M. Battier. (Eds.), Trends in gestural control of music (pp.
389405). Paris: IRCAM.
Schroeder, C. E., Lindsley, R. W., Specht, C., Marcovici, A., Smiley, J. F., & Javitt, D. C. (2001). Somatosensory
input to auditory association cortex in the macaque monkey. Journal of Neurophysiology, 85(3),
13221327.
Schrmann, M., Caetano, G., Hlushchuk, Y., Jousmki, V., & Hari, R. (2006). Touch activates human
auditory cortex. NeuroImage, 30(4), 13251331.
Smith, L. B., & Sera, M. D.(1992). A developmental analysis of the polar structure of dimensions. Cognitive
Psychology, 24, 99142.
Soto-Faraco, S., & Deco, G. (2009). Multisensory contributions to the perception of vibrotactile events.
Behavioral Brain Research, 196, 145154.
Stevens, S. S. (1934). The volume and intensity of tones. American Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 397408.
Walker, P., & Smith, S. (1984). Stroop interference based on the synaesthetic qualities of auditory pitch.
Perception, 13(1), 7581.
Walker, P., & Smith, S. (1986). The basis of Stroop interference involving the multimodal correlates of
auditory pitch. Perception, 15(4), 491496.
Walker, R. (1987) The effects of culture, environment, age, and musical training on choices of visual
metaphors for sound. Perception and Psychophysics, 42(5), 491502.
Zampini, M., Guest, S., & Spence, C. (2003). The role of auditory cues in modulating the perception of
electric toothbrushes. Journal of Dental Research, 82(11), 929932.
Biographies
Zohar Eitan is an associate professor at the School of Music, Tel Aviv University, Israel, where
he teaches and researches music cognition and music theory. His research topics include cross-
domain mappings in music, the perception of motivic-thematic structure, the perception of
large-scale musical form, and absolute pitch. His recent work has been published in Cognition,
Music Perception, Musicae Scientiae and Empirical Musicology Review.
Inbar Rothschild is an Israeli pianist. She has performed widely in Europe and the USA, and
recorded for Israeli, Czech and Swiss radio stations. She graduated with an M.Mus in Piano
Performance from the Buchman-Mehta School of Music, Tel Aviv University, Israel, where she
studied with the late Pnina Salzman.
at UNIV AUTONOMA DE NUEVO LEON on August 20, 2012 pom.sagepub.com Downloaded from