Synesthesia does not help to recover perceptual dominance following flash suppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Grapheme-colour synesthesia occurs when letters or numbers elicit an abnormal colour sensation (e.g., printed black letters are perceived as coloured). This phenomenon is typically reported following explicit presentation of graphemes. Very few studies have investigated colour sensations in synesthesia in the absence of visual awareness. We took advantage of the dichoptic flash suppression paradigm to temporarily render a stimulus presented to one eye invisible. Synesthetic alphanumeric and non-synesthetic stimuli were presented to 21 participants (11 synesthetes) in achromatic and chromatic experimental conditions. The test stimulus was first displayed to one eye and then masked by a sudden presentation of visual noise in the other eye (flash suppression). The time for an image to be re-perceived following the onset of the suppressive noise was calculated. Trials where there was no flash suppression performed but instead mimicked the perceptual suppression of the flash were also tested. Results showed that target detection by synesthetes was significantly better than by controls in the absence of flash suppression. No difference was found between the groups in the flash suppression condition. Our findings suggest that synesthesia is associated with enhanced perception for overt recognition, but does not provide an advantage in recovering from a perceptual suppression. Further studies are needed to investigate synesthesia in relation to visual awareness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".