Humans tasked with pressing a key on a computer keyboard in response to a pitch can respond more quickly to a high-pitched sound by pressing a key higher on the keyboard and to a low-pitched sound by pressing a lower key, compared with the opposite configuration. This so-called spatial–musical association of response codes (SMARC) has been considered to reflect the spatial coding of sound pitch rather than to be an artefact of the verbal labels denoting spatial positions for localising sounds. In this study, we completely excluded the latter possibility, that is, the directional effects of automatic sound localisation on the SMARC effect. We did this by examining whether the SMARC effect occurs without sound; that is, we investigated whether the effect would be elicited by written pitch names alone. We found that when musically trained participants judged pitch height labelled by visually presented word stimuli, the SMARC effect still occurred. This also happened among musically naïve participants when the height of the pitch was explicitly comparable with that of a referential pitch. We also found that musically trained participants exhibited the SMARC effect in response to pitch names even when the indicated pitch height was irrelevant to the task they were asked to perform. These results suggest that the SMARC effect can occur at the semantic level in the absence of sound, clearly excluding the directional effects of automatic sound localisation.
BauerD. W.MillerJ. (1982). Stimulus–response compatibility and the motor system. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, A, 34, 367–380.
2.
BrainardD. H. (1997). The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436.
3.
BrebnerJ. (1973). S-R compatibility and changes in RT with practice. Acta Psychologica, 37, 93–106.
4.
ChoY. S.BaeG. Y.ProctorR. W. (2012). Referential coding contributes to the horizontal SMARC effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 726–734.
5.
ChoY. S.ProctorR. W. (2003). Stimulus and response representations underlying orthogonal stimulus response compatibility effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 45–73.
6.
CohenJ. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
7.
CummingG. (2013). Understanding the new statistics: Effect sizes, confidence intervals and meta-analysis. New York, NY: Routledge.
8.
EitanZ.TimmersR. (2010). Beethoven’s last piano sonata and those who follow crocodiles: Cross-domain mapping of auditory pitch in a musical context. Cognition, 114, 405–422.
9.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
10.
FengW.StörmerV. S.MartinezA.McDonaldJ. J.HillyardS. A. (2014). Sounds activate visual cortex and improve visual discrimination. The Journal of Neuroscience, 34, 9817–9824.
11.
FittsP. M.SeegerC. M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.
12.
HaryuE.KajikawaS. (2012). Are higher-frequency sounds brighter in color and smaller in size? Auditory–visual correspondences in 10-month-old infants. Infant Behavior and Development, 35, 727–732.
13.
HommelB. (1993). The role of attention for the Simon effect. Psychological Research, 55, 208–222.
14.
HommelB. (2004). Event files: Feature binding in and across perception and action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 494–500.
15.
HommelB. (2015). The theory of event coding (TEC) as embodied-cognition framework. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, Article 1318.
16.
HommelB.LippaY. (1995). S-R compatibility effects due to context-dependent spatial stimulus coding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 370–374.
17.
HommelB.MüsselerJ.AscherslebenG.PrinzW. (2001). The theory of event coding (TEC): A framework for perception and action planning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 849–937.
18.
HommelB.PrinzW. (1997). Theoretical issues in stimulus response compatibility. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
19.
JeffreysH. (1961). Theory of probability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
KornblumS.HasbroucqT.OsmanA. (1990). Dimensional overlap: Cognitive basis for stimulus-response compatibility: A model and taxonomy. Psychological Review, 97, 253–270.
21.
KornblumS.LeeJ. W. (1995). Stimulus-response compatibility with relevant and irrelevant stimulus dimensions that do and do not overlap with the response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 855–875.
22.
KouraI.YamauchiM.ToshimaT. (1968). Development of the vertical localization of high and low tones. The Japanese Journal of Psychology, 40, 95–98.
23.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863.
24.
LewkowiczD. J.MinarN. J. (2014). Infants are not sensitive to synesthetic cross-modality correspondences: A comment to Walker et al. (2010). Psychological Science, 25, 832–834.
25.
LidjiP.KolinskyR.LochyA.MoraisJ. (2007). Spatial associations for musical stimuli: A piano in the head?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 1189–1207.
26.
MarksL. E. (1987). On cross-modal similarity: Auditory-visual inter- actions in speeded discrimination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 384–394.
27.
McDonaldJ. J.StörmerV. S.MartinezA.FengW.HillyardS. A. (2013). Salient sounds activate visual cortex automatically. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33, 9194–9201.
28.
MelaraR. D.MarksL. E. (1990). Processes underlying dimensional interactions: Correspondences between linguistic and nonlinguistic dimensions. Memory & Cognition, 18, 477–495.
29.
MordkoffJ. T.HazeltineE. (2011). Parallel patterns of spatial compatibility and spatial congruence… as long as you don’t look too closely. Acta Psychologica, 136, 253–358.
30.
MuddS. A. (1963). Spatial stereotypes of four dimensions of pure tone. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 66, 347–352.
31.
NavaE.GrassiM.TuratiC. (2016). Audio-visual, visuo-tactile, and audio-tactile correspondences in preschoolers. Multisensory Research, 29, 93–111.
32.
NicolettiR.AnzolaG. P.LuppinoG.RizzolattiG.UmiltàC. (1982). Spatial compatibility effects on the same side of the body midline. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 664–673.
33.
NishimuraA.YokosawaK. (2009). Effects of laterality and pitch height of an auditory accessory stimulus on horizontal response selection: The Simon effect and the SMARC effect. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 666–670.
PelliD. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442.
36.
PitteriM.MarchettiM.PriftisK.GrassiM. (2017). Naturally together: Pitch-height and brightness as coupled factors for eliciting the SMARC effect in non-musicians. Psychological Research, 81, 243–254.
37.
PrattC. C. (1930). The spatial character of high and low tones. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 13, 278–285.
38.
ProctorR. W.ReeveT. G. (Eds.). (1990). Advances in psychology, Vol. 65. Stimulus-response compatibility: An integrated perspective. Oxford, UK: North-Holland.
39.
ProctorR. W.VuK. P. L. (2006). Stimulus-response compatibility principles: Data, theory, and application. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
40.
ProctorR. W.WangH. (1997). Differentiating types of set-level compatibility. Advances in Psychology, 118, 11–37.
41.
RofflerS. K.ButlerR. A. (1968). Localization of tonal stimuli in the vertical plane. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 43, 1260–1266.
42.
RouderJ. N.MoreyR. D. (2012). Default Bayes factors for model selection in regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 877–903.
43.
RusconiE.KwanB.GiordanoB. L.UmiltàC.ButterworthB. (2006). Spatial representation of pitch height: The SMARC effect. Cognition, 99, 113–129.
44.
SchönD.MagneC.BessonM. (2004). The music of speech: Music training facilitates pitch processing in both music and language. Psychophysiology, 41, 341–349.
45.
ShafferL. H. (1965). Choice reaction with variable S-R mapping. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70, 284–288.
StumpfC. (1883). Tonpsychologie. Leipzig, Germany: Verlag von S. Hirzel.
48.
TeichnerW. H.KrebsM. J. (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review, 81, 75–98.
49.
TrimbleO. C. (1934). Localization of sound in the anterior posterior and vertical dimensions of auditory space. British Journal of Psychology, 24, 320–334.
50.
WagenmakersE. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.
51.
WalkerP.BremnerJ. G.MasonU.SpringJ.MattockK.SlaterA.JohnsonS. P. (2010). Preverbal infants’ sensitivity to synaesthetic cross-modality correspondences. Psychological Science, 21, 21–25.
52.
WardJ.HuckstepB.TsakanikosE. (2006). Sound-colour synaesthesia: To what extent does it use cross-modal mechanisms common to us all?Cortex, 42, 264–280.
53.
WeeksD. J.ProctorR. W. (1990). Salient-features coding in the translation between orthogonal stimulus and response dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119, 355–366.
54.
WeisT.EstnerB.LachmannT. (2016). When speech enhances spatial musical association of response codes: Joint spatial associations of pitch and timbre in nonmusicians. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1687–1700.
55.
WeisT.EstnerB.van LeeuwenC.LachmannT. (2016). SNARC meets SPARC: Automaticity and interdependency in compatibility effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69, 1366–1383.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
