Advertisement

Cognitive Processing

, Volume 20, Issue 4, pp 495–506 | Cite as

Reaching for the high note: judgments of auditory pitch are affected by kinesthetic position

  • Autumn B. HostetterEmail author
  • Christina M. Dandar
  • Gabrielle Shimko
  • Colin Grogan
Research Article
  • 22 Downloads

Abstract

Auditory pitch is represented on a vertical continuum (e.g., high vs. low). In three experiments, we examined whether the kinesthetic experience of moving in a particular direction (e.g., walking up vs. down stairs; reaching up vs. down) would affect judgments of auditory pitch. Participants listened to three tones twice each, once while moving upward and once while moving downward, and estimated the pitch of each tone. In all experiments, participants’ judgments of the tones’ pitch were biased in the direction of their movement. Moreover, this effect is not due to visibility of the movement or to using a numerical response method. Our results suggest that kinesthetic information from one’s own bodily movements biases pitch estimation, and several possible mechanisms for the effect are discussed.

Keywords

Auditory pitch Kinesthetic information Cross-modal priming 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Ethel Mogilevsky for her assistance with data collection and Chelsea Miller for her assistance with data coding. We also thank Siu-Lan Tan for her advice regarding the design of Experiment 3.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the results of these studies.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in the studies described were in accordance with ethical standards of the Institutional Review Board at Kalamazoo College and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individuals who participated in the study, and there is no identifying information included about any individual participant.

References

  1. Apple Inc (2013) Logic Pro X (Computer software). Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/logic-pro/
  2. Bach JS (1720) Unaccompanied cello suite no. 1 in G Major, BWV 1007: Prélude [Recorded by Yo-Yo Ma]. On The Six Unaccompanied Cello Suites [MP3 file]. Sony Classical (1983)Google Scholar
  3. Bonetti L, Costa M (2017) Pitch-verticality and pitch-size cross-modal interactions. Psychol Music 46:340–356.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617710734 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunetti R, Indraccolo A, del Gatto C, Spence C, Santangelo V (2018) Are crossmodal correspondences relative or absolute? Sequential effects on speeded classification. Atten Percept Psychophys 80:527–534.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-017-1445-z CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Casasanto D, Dijkstra K (2010) Motor action and emotional memory. Cognition 115:179–185.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.11.002 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Chandler JJ, Reinhard D, Schwarz N (2012) To judge a book by its weight you need to know its content: knowledge moderates the use of embodied cues. J Exp Soc Psychol 48:948–952.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Connell L, Cai ZG, Holler J (2013) Do you see what I’m singing? Visuospatial movement biases pitch perception. Brain Cognit 81:124–130.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2012.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dolscheid S, Casasanto D (2015) Spatial congruity effects reveal metaphorical thinking, not polarity correspondence. Front Psychol 6:1–11.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01836 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolscheid S, Shayan S, Majid A, Casasanto D (2013) The thickness of musical pitch: psychophysical evidence for linguistic relativity. Psychol Sci 24:613–621.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457374 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Eitan Z, Granot RY (2006) How music moves: musical parameters and listeners’ images of motion. Music Percept Interdiscip J 23:221–247.  https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2006.23.3.221 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evans KK, Treisman A (2010) Natural cross-modal mappings between visual and auditory features. J Vis 10:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1167/10.1.6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Fernández-Prieto I, Spence C, Pons F, Navarra J (2017) Does language influence the vertical representation of auditory pitch and loudness? i-Perception.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2041669517716183 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Glenberg AM, Witt JK, Metcalfe J (2013) From the revolution to embodiment: 25 years of cognitive psychology. Perspect Psychol Sci 8:573–585.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613498098 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Huron D, Shanahan D (2013) Eyebrow movements and vocal pitch height: evidence consistent with an ethological signal. Acoust Soc Am 133:2947–2952.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4798801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huron D, Dahl S, Johnson R (2009) Facial expression and vocal pitch height: evidence of an intermodal association. Empir Musicol Rev 4:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Imbo I, Vandierendonck A (2007) The role of working memory in simple-arithmetic strategies. Eur J Cognit Psycholgy 19:910–933.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0954144601051571 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ito Y, Hatta T (2004) Spatial structure of quantitative representation of numbers: evidence from the SNARC effect. Mem Cognit 32:662–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jaquet L, Danuser B, Gomez P (2012) Music and felt emotions: how systematic pitch level variations affect the experience of pleasantness and arousal. Psychol Music 42:51–70.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735612456583 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Körner A, Topolinski S, Strack F (2015) Routes to embodiment. Front Psychol 6:940.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00940 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) The metaphorical structure of the human conceptual system. Cognit Sci 4:195–208.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0402_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lemaitre G, Scurto H, Franҫoise J, Bevilacqua F, Houix O, Susini P (2017) Rising tones and rustling noises: metaphors in gestural depictions of sounds. PLoS ONE 12:1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181786 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Maeda F, Kanai R, Shimojo S (2004) Changing pitch induced visual motion illusion. Curr Biol 14:R990–R991.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.11.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Mossbridge JA, Grabowecky M, Suzuki S (2011) Changes in auditory frequency guide visual-spatial attention. Cognition 121:133–139.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.06.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Occelli V, Spence C, Zampini M (2009) Compatibility effects between sound frequency and tactile elevation. NeuroReport 20:793–797.  https://doi.org/10.1097/WNR.0b013e32832b8069 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Pratt CC (1930) The spatial character of high and low tones. J Exp Psychol 13:278–285.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0072651 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roffler SK, Butler RA (1968) Localization of tonal stimuli in the vertical plane. J Acoust Soc Am 43:1260–1266.  https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1910977 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Rusconi E, Kwan B, Giordano BL, Umiltà C, Butterworth B (2006) Spatial representation of pitch height: the SMARC effect. Cognition 99:113–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.01.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Sadaghiani S, Maier JX, Noppeney U (2009) Natural, metaphoric, and linguistic auditory direction signals have distinct influences on visual motion processing. J Neurosci 29:6490–6499.  https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5437-08.2009 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Salgado-Montejo A, Marmolejo-Ramos F, Alvarado JA, Arboleda JC, Suarez DR, Spence C (2016) Drawing sounds: representing tones and chords spatially. Exp Brain Res 234:3509–3522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Spence C (2011) Crossmodal correspondences: a tutorial review. Atten Percept Psychophys 73:971–995.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-010-0073-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Wagner S, Winner E, Cicchetti D, Gardner H (1981) “Metaphorical” mapping in human infants. Child Dev 52:728–731.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1981.tb03106.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wilson M (2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon Bull Rev 9:625–636.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Marta Olivetti Belardinelli and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyKalamazoo CollegeKalamazooUSA

Personalised recommendations