Making Sense of Multiple Senses

  • Kevin ConnollyEmail author
Part of the Studies in Brain and Mind book series (SIBM, volume 6)


In the case of ventriloquism, seeing the movement of the ventriloquist dummy’s mouth changes your experience of the auditory location of the vocals. Some have argued that cases like ventriloquism provide evidence for the view that at least some of the content of perception is fundamentally multimodal. In the ventriloquism case, this would mean your experience has constitutively audio-visual content (not just a conjunction of an audio content and visual content). In this paper, I argue that cases like ventriloquism do not in fact warrant that conclusion. I then try to make sense of crossmodal cases without appealing to fundamentally multimodal content.


Visual Content Perceptual Content Auditory Location Movie Theater McGurk Effect 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bailey, T.M., and U. Hahn. 2005. Phoneme similarity and confusability. Journal of Memory and Language 52(3): 339–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bayne, Tim. 2009. Perception and the reach of phenomenal content. The Philosophical Quarterly 59(236): 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayne, Tim. Forthcoming. Building block or unified fields: How should we model the unity of consciousness? In Sensory integration and the unity of consciousness, eds. D. Bennett and C. Hill. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Hahn, U., and T.M. Bailey. 2005. What makes words sound similar? Cognition 97(3): 227–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Macpherson, Fiona. 2011. Cross-modal experiences. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 111(3): 429–468.Google Scholar
  6. Matthen, Mohan. 2005. Seeing, doing, knowing: A philosophical theory of sense perception. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Matthen, Mohan, Alex Byrne, Fiona Macpherson, Susanna Siegel, and Barry Smith. (2011). Description of activities for a partnership development grant from the social sciences and humanities research council of Canada. Unpublished Grant Proposal.Google Scholar
  8. McGurk, H., and J. MacDonald. 1976. Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature 264: 746–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nudds, Matthew. 2001. Experiencing the production of sounds. European Journal of Philosophy 9(2): 210–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. O’Callaghan, C. 2008. Seeing what you hear: Crossmodal illusions and perception. Philosophical Issues 18: 316–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. O’Callaghan, C. (forthcoming). Perception and multimodality. In Oxford handbook to philosophy and cognitive science, eds. Eric Margolis, Richard Samuels, and Stephen Stich. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Sekuler, R., A.B. Sekuler, and R. Lau. 1997. Sound alters visual motion perception. Nature 385: 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Smith, Barry C. 2013. Taste, philosophical perspectives. In Encyclopedia of the mind, ed. Harold E. Pashler. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  14. Stein, Barry E., Paul J. Laurienti, Mark T. Wallace, and Terrence R. Stanford. 2002. Multisensory integration. In Encyclopedia of the human brain, ed. V. S. Ramachandran, 227–241. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Tye, Michael. 1995. Ten problems of consciousness. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Zampini, M., and C. Spence. 2004. The role of auditory cues in modulating the perceived crispness and staleness of potato chips. Journal of Sensory Studies 19: 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations