Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

How uncommon is tickertaping? Prevalence and characteristics of seeing the words you hear

How uncommon is tickertaping? Prevalence and characteristics of seeing the words you hear COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, 2015 Vol. 6, Nos. 2–3, 89–99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1048209 How uncommon is tickertaping? Prevalence and characteristics of seeing the words you hear Silje Holm, Thomas Eilertsen, and Mark C. Price Psychology Faculty, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Tickertape experience is the subjective phenomenon of routinely visualizing the orthographic appearance of words that one hears, speaks, or thinks, like mental subtitles in the mind’s eye. It has been observed in grapheme-color synesthetes, whose letter visualizations are colored, but has been very little studied. We report a survey, among 425 Norwegian adults from varied sub-samples, of the prevalence, character, and associated skills of tickertaping. Our questionnaire was designed to reflect different degrees of automaticity of the experience. While strongly automatic tickertaping appeared rare (n =6; CI = 0.6% to 3.2% of sample), lesser degrees of text visualization were reported by more than half of respondents, indicating a continuity between extreme tickertaping and normal cognition. Tickertaping was not strongly associated with greater awareness of an inner voice while reading silently. We also found no strong evidence that tickertapers are unusually likely to self-report skill in rapidly enumerating heard words, or in backward spelling and backward speaking, despite the fact that these skills have been observed in single-case studies of tickertapers. The qualitative character of tickertaping varied among respondents, and included negative experiences. However visualization of letters was predominantly uncolored, indicating that tickertaping is a phenomenon in its own right and not just a subset of grapheme-color synesthesia. We suggest tickertaping is an explicit expression of the close interconnection between phonemic and graphemic representations of words which, for reasons we do not yet understand, manifests as visual imagery with a varying degree of automaticity. Keywords: Tickertape; Synesthesia; Tickertape synesthesia; Visual imagery; Language; Prevalence. Some people report routinely visualizing the synesthesia (Cytowic & Eagleman, 2009; Simner, orthographic appearance of words that they hear, so Mayo, & Spiller, 2009) because an extra visual that listening to speech induces a band of visualized dimension to sensory experience is cross-modally text in their mind’s eye. The analogy of mental induced by auditory input in an involuntary manner. subtitles is often used, and the phenomenon is now Within this literature, tickertaping is usually described usually referred to as tickertape experience (e.g., Chun among grapheme-color synesthetes who sometimes &Hupé, 2013). Qualitative descriptions date at least as visualize heard words in the same letter-colors that far back as Galton (1883). More recently there have they routinely experience for read words (e.g., Simner, been passing references to tickertaping in the 2007). However, uncolored tickertaping can occur in the synesthesia literature and online forums, where the absence of grapheme-color synesthesia (Chun & Hupé, phenomenon has been referred to as tickertape 2013). Correspondence should be addressed to: Mark C. Price, Institutt for Samfunnspsykologi, University of Bergen, Christiesgt 12, 5015, Bergen, Norway. E-mail: mark.price@psysp.uib.no We thank all public institutions who allowed us to collect data, and the following students who helped with data collection: Rannveig Eikanger, Atla Kvalem, Simen Nyland, Øyvind Halsøy, Eirik Sletten. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. SH and TE were supported by a Norwegian Research Council (NFR) student stipend, and MP by a Meltzer foundation grant. © 2015 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. 90 HOLM ET AL. Few empirical studies of tickertaping have been population. However, this estimate might be inflated conducted. Unpublished work by Linn, Hancock, for the following reasons. Simner, and Akeroyd (2008) claimed above-average First, our personal experience of strong tickertapers, spelling, digit span, and detection of degraded speech in such as AM from Price and Mykland (2013), suggests a group of 12 tickertapers. Price and Mykland (2013) that word visualization is usually induced by heard outlined an unpublished single-case study of AM, a words, and by their own speech, and by verbal female tickertaper in her early twenties who vividly thinking. Chun and Hupé classified respondents as experiences non-colored visualized text when she hears tickertapers on the basis of a yes rather than no response words, speaks, or thinks verbally. For longer words, or to one of two questions. One question tapped automatic sentences, her subtitles move right to left in imaginal visualization induced by hearing, and the other tapped space. Her tickertaping is associated with accurate and visualization induced by speaking or thinking. (The effortless enumeration of letters in long words, and of wording was: “When you listen to someone speaking, wordsinsentences,thatwas formally showntobe do you automatically visualize the words that she/he’s exceptionally fast in laboratory studies (mean RTs of saying (like a ‘teleprompter’ in a way, that scrolls in your z = −3.1 and −3.2 respectively, compared to 22 control head)?”; “When you speak (or think verbally), do you participants). Coltheart and Glick (1974) described automatically visualize the words you are saying?”)If another case study of O, a young female with vivid tickertapers had been classified on the basis of a yes to non-colored word visualization who was proficient at both questions, prevalence would have been only 3.3% speaking backward and showed good ability to spell (our re-calculation based on Chun and Hupé). whole sentences backward. Note that O was presented Second, false positives to the binary yes/no as an example of unusual visual imagery, rather than questions could have been enhanced by potential synesthesia. Interestingly, at least some of the proficient ambiguity in the wording of questions. For example, backward speakers whose skills are reported in popular word visualization could have been misinterpreted as media (e.g., YouTube) also report that this is related to referring to visual imagery of word semantics, rather effortless word visualization. than the orthographic appearance of words, especially Recently, Bastiampillai, Dhillon, and Chui (2014) in the context of other questions about visual imagery. reported tickertaping — experienced since childhood Additionally, the rather technical concept of — in an adult psychiatric patient, and speculated automaticity may not always have been understood whether this may have been causally associated with in the intended manner. a temporal lobe cyst diagnosed in late adolescence. Further aims of our study were to explore whether Here we present a survey of the prevalence and tickertapers typically report (1) augmented auditory associated characteristics of tickertaping in a Norwegian imagery of the spoken sound of words that one silently sample of normal adults. In particular, we wished to reads, which could occur if tickertaping is mediated by survey tickertaping in a way that was sensitive to unusually strong, and bi-directional, phoneme- grapheme co-activation; (2) the letter enumeration various grades of automaticity of the experience. While some people may tickertape in an obligatory manner skills shown by AM in the case study of Price and whenever they hear speech, informal observation Mykland (2013); (3) skill in backward spelling or suggests others may have a less strongly automatic backward speaking, as in the case study of O visualization of words, which occurs involuntarily but (Coltheart & Glick, 1974). Finallywe wishedtochart more occasionally. Yet others are able to vividly various qualitative aspects of tickertape experience. visualize words in a manner that is under voluntary control, such as participant O of Coltheart and Glick (1974) who had practiced her skill over many years. METHOD Thus, the more extreme examples of tickertaping may lie at one end of a continuum of individual differences in Participants and procedure the automatization of explicit grapheme activation by phonemic input or internal word activation. Data were collected across five diverse convenience sub- We also aimed to complement a recent prevalence samples: Visitors to a natural history museum estimate of the most strongly automatic tickertaping (MUSEUM), visitors to a film festival (CINEMA), that was included in a wider survey of synesthesia and students at a Norwegian “folk high school” for young visual imagery that was completed online by 1017 adults (HIGH SCHOOL), members of authors’ social respondents in a French population (Chun & Hupé, networks (SOCIAL NETWORK), and psychology 2013). Chun and Hupé estimated strongly automatic students (UNDERGRADUATES). Sub-sample tickertaping to occur in at least 6.9% of their sampled characteristics are detailed in Table 1. PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TICKERTAPING 91 TABLE 1 Characteristics of the five sub-samples. From left to right: Sample (with no. people invited to take part), details of setting, response rate, sex, and age Sample Setting % response % males age range MUSEUM Visitors at the Bergen Natural History Museum, 86% 46% 20–76 years M = 39.8 n= 168 approached on a Sunday near children’s area. SD = 12.6 Mainly pensioners and families with children. (October 2013) CINEMA Visitors to Bergen International Film Festival, 77% 54% 18–68 years M = 29.0 n= 93 approached in partly seated foyer area while waiting SD = 12.3 to enter movie theater. (October 2013) HIGH SCHOOL Students, and a few staff, at folk high school near 96% 36% 18–47 years M = 20.5 n= 86 Bergen (Fana Folkehøgskole)*. Completed during a SD = 5.1 lunch break. (November 2013) SOCIAL NETWORK Members of authors’ social networks, invited to take 38% 35% 19–56 years M = 26.6 n= 80 part via Facebook and e-mail. Invitees could not be SD = 9.5 blood relatives of each other. Distributed as pdf. file, returned by e-mail. (December 2013). UNDERGRADUATE Large lecture of introductory cognitive psychology 85% 19% 19–36 years n= 200 undergraduates at University of Bergen. First given 25- M = 21.1 SD = 2.3 minute lecture on synesthesia by author M. P., which mentioned tickertaping. Filled questionnaires during lecture break 30 minutes later. (February 2014) Note: *A Norwegian Folkehøgskole is a private boarding college, for young adults, that offers a year of exam-free themed education between school and university levels. The questionnaire was introduced as being about people report.” Experiences 1–3 were descriptions individual differences in language experiences. To of tickertaping, induced respectively by hearing minimize sampling bias, neither tickertaping nor speech, speaking oneself, or thinking verbally synesthesia were mentioned, except for sub-sample (henceforth hear, speak,and think). Experience 1 UNDERGRADUATE (see Table 1). Depending on the was phrased: questionnaire version, which differed slightly across Some people, when they hear somebody talking to them, sub-samples, completion took 5–15 minutes. also have an impression in their mind of the written Overall response rate was 78.6%. This rises to 84.6% visual appearance of the words (i.e., as if printed or if we exclude the small SOCIAL NETWORK sub- handwritten), a bit like film subtitles in their head. sample in which participants were recruited via email rather than in person, and which had a lower rate than For experiences 2–3, the clause “when they hear other sub-samples. Overall, 465/492 of returned somebody talking to them” was replaced respectively questionnaires were complete (94.5%). Of those, we by the clauses “when they speak out loud” and “when discarded returns that had been filled out using an they think to themselves in words”. After each optional English version of the survey (n =11), and description, participants were asked: “Please indicate returns from participants who did not give Norwegian as whichever one of the following statements best their mother tongue (n = 39). This left 425 participants describes your own experience.” Response alternatives with 34.6% males and age range 18–76 (M =28). All (original bold text) were: analyses derive from this subset of participants. Procedure conformed to University of Bergen 1. I almost always have this experience, sponta- Psychology Faculty ethical guidelines. neously without even trying. 2. I sometimes have this experience, spontaneously without even trying. 3. I sometimes have this experience, but it is some- Instrument and scoring thing I do deliberately. 4. I never or hardly ever have this kind of The questionnaire was written in Norwegian (Bokmål experience. script) for all included participants. It first presented 5. I don’t know. descriptions of “4 types of experience that some 92 HOLM ET AL. can do this very fast, and correctly, without writing These multiple-choice response options, contrasting down the word or counting on my fingers. I just a range of experiences in non-technical language, were “know” what the correct answer is. intended to minimize false positives. Responses on the first three questions were used to generate a range of For sub-samples SOCIAL NETWORK and prevalence estimates for tickertape experience, with UNDERGRADUATE (n= 184), who filled out differing criteria regarding (1) the degree of questionnaires under lesser time pressure, we included automaticity of visualization, and (2) the number of 14 additional questions about the qualitative inducers triggering the experience. We stipulatively characteristics of tickertape experience. Participants define participants who selected response 1, for all were instructed to only answer if they experienced three inducers, as obligatory tickertapers; these visualization for at least one type of inducer. Questions participants show the strongest degree of automaticity asked about characteristics such as color, movement, and conform to our strictest criterion for tickertaping. A font, age of onset, etc., as well as advantages and lesser degree of automaticity is shown by participants nuisances associated with the experience. One item, selecting responses 1 or 2 for all inducers, who are which asked whether or not the experience of visualized labeled involuntary tickertapers. Those selecting words felt projected outside the body, was inspired by the response 3 for all inducers are labeled voluntary projector-associator distinction within synesthesia tickertapers. Participants selecting responses 1 or 2 for research and by previous observations from single-case at least one inducer are labeled involuntary × 1.Those studies that tickertapers may either report seeing the selecting responses 1, 2, or 3 for at least one inducer are letters in imaginal space (i.e., associators, such as AM labeled any × 1. Notethatcategoriesoverlap;e.g., reported by Price & Mykland, 2013) or projected into obligatory is a subset of involuntary. extrapersonal space (i.e., projectors, such as O reported Experience 4, which used the same response by Coltheart & Glick, 1974). For this item, written alternatives, described hearing the sounds of the descriptions were complemented by cartoons, following words one is reading: Skelton, Casimir, and Mohr (2009) who suggested that self-report measures of the projector-associator Some people, when they read to themselves without distinction are more reliable if based on illustrations speaking, also have an impression in their mind of rather than purely verbal statements. Age, sex, mother the sound of the words being spoken. tongue, and educational level were recorded at the end of the questionnaire. Participants next indicated whether their daily Effect sizes for any formal comparisons between experience included rapid enumeration of letters in prevalence values are expressed in terms of risk ratios heard words, or exceptional abilities for backward (RR; prevalence A/prevalence B). These are stated with spelling and backward speaking. Response alternatives 95% confidence intervals (CI ), and were computed were Disagree, Unsure,and Agree. For samples from 2 × 2 contingency tables using online software MUSEUM, CINEMA, and HIGH SCHOOL, (http://vassarstats.net). The latter site was also used to questions were: compute CI on observed proportions, using the recommended method of the Wilson score interval 1. When I hear a word being spoken, I feel that without with continuity correction applied (Newcombe, 1998). trying I almost instantly know how many letters there are in the word. 2. When I hear a word being spoken, I can impress your friends with my unusually good ability to spell RESULTS the word out loud backward. 3. When I hear a word being spoken, I can impress my friends with my unusually good ability to say the Prevalence estimates for visualized word backward. words For sub-samples SOCIAL NETWORK and Figure 1a illustrates the range of obtained estimates as UNDERGRADUATE we rephrased question 1 criteria for tickertaping are progressively relaxed. because we were suspicious of very high rates of Only 1.4% of participants (n =6;CI [0.6, 3.2]) Agree responses shown in preceding sub-samples. met our strictest criterion of obligatory word Precision of wording was improved to: visualization for all three inducers (2 male, ages 21, 21, 22, 52, 67, and 68). Most came from the largest 1. When I hear a word being spoken, then even if it is sub-samples (three from MUSEUM, two from a long word like “interesting” I instantly know exactly how many letters there are in the word. I UNDERGRADUATE, and one from HIGH PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TICKERTAPING 93 SCHOOL). The weaker criterion for involuntary In sum, compared to hear or speak inducers, the tickertaping was met by 8.7% of participants think inducer is less diagnostic of a generalized (n =37; CI [6.3, 11.9]). Voluntary tickertaping tendency to tickertape for all verbal material. was reported by 4.7% of participants (n = 20; 95% CI [3.0, 7.3]). The criterion of involuntary × 1 was met by 29.2% of participants (n = 124; CI [25.0, 33.8]). Higher Prevalence of hearing the words you frequency of participants in this category permitted read formal comparison between our five sub-samples, which did not indicate reliable differences [Pearson Auditory imagery of the sounds of silently read words (4) = 4.22, p = .38]. Our most lenient criterion of was a common experience, as expected from the any × 1 was met by 53.4% of participants (n = 227; extensive literature on subvocalization during reading CI [48.5, 58.2]), again without reliable differences (Leinenger, 2014). Using similar scoring criteria as for between sub-samples [χ (4) = 4.21, p = .38]. In other visualized words, 62.1% of participants reported words, over half the overall sample report some auditory imagery to be obligatory, 17.6% reported it degree of word visualization. as involuntary, and 10.8% as voluntary (90.6% in total). Only 8.2% claimed no experience at all. This Finally, the proportion of participants who is strikingly opposite to the response pattern for chose response option, “I never or hardly ever visualized words, where 1.4% of participants claimed have this kind of experience,” for all inducers, obligatory visualization and 43.3% claimed no word was 43.3%, (n = 184; CI [38.6, 48.2]). An visualization at all (see Figure 1b). almost complete lack of word visualization is We next examine whether auditory imagery for read therefore less common than at least some degree words was greater for people who tend to visualize of word visualization. heard words. Among participants who claimed No support was found for a relationship obligatory word visualization for all three inducer between prevalence of word visualization and types, all six claimed to experience the sound of read either age, sex, or educational level (secondary words to some extent (four obligatory, one involuntary, school vs. tertiary education) (data not shown). A one voluntary). Despite this, obligatory auditory null effect of sex was also reported by Chun and imagery was not actually more common among these Hupé (2013). six participants (66.7%, 4/6) than among remaining participants (62.1%; 260/419) [tickertapers/others RR =1.07, CI [0.61, 1.90], Fisher exact p(2- Comparison between different inducers tailed) = 1.00]. Similarly, participants who claimed some degree of word visualization (whether Pooling over the obligatory, involuntary and involuntary or voluntary) for at least one inducer voluntary response categories, relative prevalence of were no more likely to claim some degree of auditory reported visualization for the hear versus speak imagery experience for read words (90.3%, 205/227) versus think inducers was 1.0/1.0/1.4. The think than were other participants (90.9%; 180/198) inducer (CI [0.40, 0.50]) was reliably more [RR =.99, CI [0.93, 1.06], χ (1) = 0.04, p =.84]. 95 95 common than for hear (CI [0.29, 0.38]) or speak If we focus specifically on participants who (CI [0.28, 0.37]). A similar trend was apparent for reported obligatory visualization for heard words — obligatory visualization on its own (1.0/.6/1.8), which could be considered the opposite of auditory though not reliable given the small n. imagery for read words — a weak trend for an Visualization for think was also more likely to association is found. Of these participants, 85.7% (12/ occur in isolation, without visualization for other 14) heard the words they read in an obligatory manner, inducers: The conditional probability of reporting compared with 61.3% (252/411) of remaining visualization for only think showed a CI [0.23, participants [visualizer/non-visualizer RR =1.40, CI 95 95 0.36] that does not overlap the CI for hear [0.07, [1.11, 1.75], χ (1) = 3.43, p(2-tailed) = .06]. However, 0.19] or speak [0.01, 0.09]. In addition, visualization of participants who claimed any degree of visualization for think was less likely to predict visualization for all for heard words, 94.3% (133/141) reported some three inducers: The conditional probability that think degree of sound experience for read words, compared visualizers will visualize for all inducers shows a CI to 88.7% (252/284) of other participants; this [0.41, 0.55] that does not quite overlap the equivalent comparison has a negligible effect size [RR =1.06, CI for hear [0.56, 0.72] or speak [0.58, 0.74]. CI [1.00, 1.13], χ (1) = 3.46, p(2-tailed) = .06]. 95 94 HOLM ET AL. experiencing this skill were reported by 75% of obligatory tickertapers (3/4) compared to 17% of remaining participants (40/239) [Fisher exact, p(2- tailed) = .02]. However, the substantial prevalence among non-tickertapers suggested the question had been ambiguously phrased. This is supported by the fact that 26% of participants (n= 63) responded that they were unsure. For the rewritten question, received by 182 participants, only 4% responded unsure (n= 8, including one involuntary tickertaper),andtheonlypersontorespond agree was not among the 2 obligatory,12 involuntary,or 9 voluntary tickertapers. Agree responses to backspelling and backspeaking Figure 1a. Proportion of sample reporting (a) obligatory word skills were respectively reported by 5% (n= 20) and visualization for all three inducers (Oblig); (b) voluntary 4% (n= 18) of the total sample (of whom 13 reported visualization for all three inducers (Vol); (c) involuntary both skills). Table 2 (part a) compares reported visualization for all three inducers (Invol); (d) involuntary prevalences of a variety of tickertape categories against visualization for at least one inducer (Invol × 1); (e) obligatory, participants who report neither obligatory, involuntary, involuntary or voluntary visualization for at least one inducer (Any × 1); (f) no visualization at all (None). Errors bars are CI . nor voluntary tickertaping (henceforth non-tickertapers). None of our 6 obligatory tickertapers, or 20 voluntary tickertapers gave agree responses. For involuntary word visualization, prevalence of backspelling among these participants rises to 11%, and backspeaking to 8%. Although these prevalences give risk ratios of over 2.0 when compared to non-tickertapers, they are not reliably higher (i.e., ratios of 1.0 lie within the CI ,and p-values for 2 × 2 tables are non-significant; Fisher exact, both ≥ .10). Comparisons were repeated after combining agree responses with unsure responses, which were given by 10% and 9% of participants for backspelling and backspeaking respectively (see Table 2,partb). Some trends are now apparent for higher prevalence among tickertapers, although it is only for backspelling that risk ratios are reliably above 1.0, and then only prior to correction for multiple testing. In summary, the majority of obligatory, involuntary and voluntary tickertapers clearly do not describe themselves as skilled in any of the three tasks. When strict criteria are applied, we also find no evidence that prevalence of self-reported skill is higher than usual among tickertapers. With looser criteria we nevertheless observe a tentative trend for higher Figure 1b. Proportion of sample reporting (a) obligatory auditory prevalence of backspelling, and to lesser extent imagerywhensilent reading(Oblig); (b) voluntary auditory imagery backspeaking (though not for voluntary tickertapers). when silent reading (Vol); (c) involuntary auditory imagery when At observed prevalence levels, larger sample size silent reading (Invol); (d) no auditory imagery when silent reading would be needed to confirm these trends with (None). Errors bars are CI . statistical reliability. Letter counting, backspelling, and backspeaking Further characteristics For the first version of the letter counting question, Sub-samples SOCIAL NETWORK and received by 243 participants, agree responses for UNDERGRADUATE received additional questions PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TICKERTAPING 95 TABLE 2 Prevalence of self-reported backspelling and backspeaking skill, compared between non-tickertapers (Non TT) and three categories of tickertapers (TT; Oblig = obligatory, Invol = involuntary, Vol = voluntary). Prevalences are presented separately for (a) agree responses and (b) combined agree and unsure responses Prevalence TT vs. Non TT prevalence % n p RR (CI ) (a) Agree Backspelling 4.7% (20/425) Oblig 0% (0/6) −− Invol 10.8% (4/37) .10 2.49 (0.88, 7.05) Vol 0% (0/20) −− Non TT 4.3% (16/368) Backspeaking 4.2% (18/425) Oblig 0% (0/6) −− Invol 8.1% (3/37) .39 2.06 (0.60, 6.56) Vol 0% (0/20) −− Non TT 4.1% (15/368) (b) Agree/unsure Backspelling 15% (64/425) Oblig 50% (3/6) .04 3.68 (1.59, 8.53) Invol 29.7% (11/37) .01 2.19 (1.25, 3.82) Vol 15.0% (3/20) 1.0 1.10 (0.38, 3.23) Non TT 13.6% (50/368) Backspeaking 13.6% (58/425) Oblig 33.3% (2/6) .18 2.61 (0.82, 8.35) Invol 21.6% (8/37) .20 1.70 (0.87, 3.31) Vol 15% (3/20) 1.0 1.17 (0.40, 3.45) Non TT 12.8% (47/368) Note: RR is risk ratio where TT is divided by non-TT; p values (Fisher Exact) are 2-tailed. about qualitative aspects of their word visualization. Table 3 summarizes responses among Of 94 qualifying participants — i.e., those with some obligatory, involuntary,or voluntary tickertapers, degree of visualization for at least one inducer — for all of whom the following patterns are 69% complied with the invitation to answer the apparent. questions (n= 65). This included all 12 participants reporting obligatory or involuntary tickertaping, 8/9 1. Several aspects of the experience differed voluntary tickertapers, and 30/34 other participants between people, and sometimes within a person. who visualized involuntarily for at least one inducer. This applies to whether visualized words are High compliance to fill out the extra questions experienced to move, whether the words are suggests these groups had salient experiences of visualized in print or as hand written, whether word visualization which they considered natural to the person experiences motor imagery of writing report in more detail. By contrast, the questions were the words, and to perceived detail of the imaged answered by only 38% (15/39) of the remainder of letters. qualifying participants; i.e., many participants who 2. Visualized words were predominantly unco- claimed to visualize voluntarily for one or two lored, indicating that the tickertape experience inducers did not see fit to describe their experience is not primarily a subdivision of colored-word in more detail. This is unlikely due to unclear synesthesias. instructions, given high compliance by other 3. Although most people reported the words as categories of participant, and the fact that only one “in their head,” a minority claimed projected non-complying participant filled out the extra imagery, or imagery that is sometimes pro- questions. It could suggest that this least jected. The rarity of unsure responses for this conservative category included many false positives, controversial projector-associator distinction or at least that experiences were not very vivid. It also suggests the use of diagrams was successful supports the value of identifying strong tickertapers in conveying the question (Skelton et al., on the basis of tickertaping for more than one inducer. 2009). 96 HOLM ET AL. TABLE 3 Summary of qualitative character of word visualization for obligatory (Oblig), involuntary (Invol), and voluntary (Vol) tickertapers. Note that results for involuntary tickertapers do not include participants already listed under obligatory tickertapers. All questions prompted participants to choose between two opposing descriptions of their experience (e.g., “colored” vs. “uncolored”), along with an alternative option to indicate they were unsure or, where appropriate, that the experience varied. An example question is: “When you have a mental experience of the written form of a word that you hear, and/or speak, and/or think, do you experience the written word as colored or uncolored (e.g., black and white)?” Question Yes No Varies Unsure Color? Oblig 0 2 0 0 Vol 0 6 2 0 Invol 0 9 0 1 Moving letters? Oblig 0 2 0 0 Vol 1 2 2 3 Invol 2 3 2 3 Motor imagery of hand writing? Oblig 0 1 0 1 Vol 2 3 1 2 Invol 0 5 4 1 Visualization is useful? Oblig 1 0 − 1 Vol 8 0 − 0 Invol 8 0 − 2 Annoying/disadvantageous? Oblig 0 2 − 0 Vol 0 6 − 2 Invol 4 6 − 0 Multiple conversations confusing? Oblig 0 1 − 1 Vol 1 6 − 1 Invol 3 5 − 2 Occurs for other languages? Oblig 2 0 − 0 Vol 5 0 − 3 Invol 10 0 − 0 Recall onset of experience? Oblig 0 2 −− Vol 0 8 −− Invol 1 9 −− Experienced since early childhood? Oblig 0 0 − 2 Vol 3 1 − 4 Invol 2 3 − 5 Engage in mental word play? Oblig 0 2 − 0 Vol 3 5 − 0 Invol 2 7 − 1 Gives visual interference? Oblig 0 2 − 0 Vol 1 5 − 2 Invol 1 7 − 2 Written style? Hand Print Varies Unsure Oblig 0 1 1 0 Vol 2 2 1 3 Invol 3 5 1 1 Projection? “In head” Projected Varies Unsure Oblig 1 0 1 0 Vol 6 1 0 1 Invol 7 2 1 0 Level of visualized detail? General Detailed Varies Unsure Oblig 0 1 1 0 Vol 3 3 1 1 Invol 6 2 2 0 PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TICKERTAPING 97 4. Nearly all reported the experience occurs for estimate (CI [0.6%, 3.2%]), and (2) our data when other languages than their native tongue, with rescored as the same conjunction of obligatory the remainder unsure. visualization for both the hear inducer and the 5. Most could not recall when the experience combined speak/think inducer (n = 7/425; CI started. Unsurprisingly, therefore, only a minor- [0.7%, 3.5%]). This overlap is nevertheless ity could confirm an onset in childhood. One academic because estimates differed in a second obligatory tickertaper reported starting to visua- respect. Whereas our prevalence rate is expressed as lize subtitles during verbal thought after seeing a a percentage of completed questionnaires, in a study film with subtitles in junior school. One invo- with high response rate, the French prevalence rate luntary tickertaper recalled mentally writing was expressed as a percentage of distributed words before physically writing them during questionnaires (n= 3743) rather than of actual tests in junior school. respondents (n= 1017). Chun and Hupé were 6. Mental word-play was only reported by a min- attempting to provide a conservative lower estimate ority, and is therefore unlikely to be a develop- and so assumed any synesthetes would be likely to mental precursor of word visualization for the complete the questionnaire. However, given their majority of tickertapers. response rate of only 27%, their prevalence estimate 7. Almost all rated the imagery as useful. However would be considerably underestimated if this a minority also claimed it could be annoying or assumption is even partly wrong. In sum, we cannot disadvantageous. Four participants indicated that tell whether estimate differences (or similarities) arise word visualization during multiple conversa- from differences in questions, scoring, assumptions tions can become confusing, and two even about compliance rate for synesthetes, or language claimed that their word imagery interferes with groups. visual perception. It is also difficult to know whether the French estimate includes people with tickertaping that is less obligatory. By contrast, the format of response GENERAL DISCUSSION alternatives in our own study allowed us to distinguish shades of automaticity. We separately In our sample of Norwegian adults, the proportion estimated a higher 8.7% prevalence when including who report involuntarily visualizing the orthographic people who tickertape for all three inducers, in a appearance of words whenever they are heard, spoken manner that is still felt to be involuntary, but can be by oneself, and activated during silent verbal thought, more occasional and is perhaps context-specific. We lies within a CI of 0.6% to 3.2% (point estimate additionally identified a group of 4.7% of participants 1.4%). These obligatory visualizers can be considered who report tickertaping voluntarily for all inducers, as as the most strongly automatic variety of tickertaper. for participant O studied by Coltheart and Glick The estimate is based on a diverse sample with wide (1974). However, despite differences in automaticity, age range and high response rate. variation in the other qualitative characteristics of the Our estimate is less than the 6.9% minimum visualizations reported by obligatory, involuntary and prevalence (CI [6.2%, 7.7%]) suggested by Chun voluntary tickertapers showed similar ranges and Hupé (2013) for automatic tickertapers in a (Table 3). This suggests that as the experience French sample. However, differences in the manner becomes progressively more automatic, underlying that prevalences were estimated make direct processes of word visualization remain continuous comparison problematic. First, our estimate is based with those of voluntary imagery. on reported visualization for a conjunction of hear, As criteria for tickertaping are relaxed yet further, speak and think inducers, which reduces the risk of to encompass people with at least occasional spurious false positives and corresponds to the visualization to at least one inducer, the proportion experience of previous tickertapers we have of visualizers grows to exceed the proportion of interviewed (Price & Mykland, 2013). By contrast, people claiming visualization to be very rare or non- the French study used the criterion of visualization for existent. Obviously the potential for false positives the hear inducer (based on one question) and/or a will increase as criteria are relaxed. This is combination of either speak or think inducers (based supported by the fact that people reporting voluntary on a second question). Rescoring the French data to visualization for only 1–2 inducers often chose not to estimate the conjunction of hear and speak/think fill out the additional questions about their inducers gives an estimate of 3.3% (CI [2.7%, experience. Nevertheless, weaker tickertapers form 3.9%]) which overlaps both (1) our own original part of a graded continuity of experience. This 98 HOLM ET AL. extends from obligatory tickertaping and subjective “inner voice” of sub-vocalization during exceptionally vivid voluntary tickertaping, through reading (Leinenger, 2014). Consistent with this, diffuse varieties of weak tickertaping, to the kind of around 90% of our respondents claimed auditory vague visualization of short single words that imagery of the sound of silently read words. probably most of us can conjure in our mind with Development of this grapheme-phoneme mapping some effort. Note that claimed visualization was most during reading acquisition may rely on enhanced frequent for the think inducer, which was also least connectivity between cortical areas involved in predictive of tickertaping to other inducers. It is phonological processing and areas involved in visual therefore suboptimal to confound responses to think and orthographic processing, such as the proposed versus other inducers, for example as in the survey of visual word form area (VWFA) in the left lateral Chun and Hupé (2013). occipitotemporal sulcus (Perrone-Bertolotti et al., One concern is that demand characteristics could 2014). There is also some evidence that phoneme-to- have inflated prevalence estimates for all our grapheme activation is important. At the behavioral categories of self-reported tickertape experience. level, word spelling has an influence on auditory For this reason, convergent behavioral tests have perception (Ziegler and Ferrand, 1998). At the been important for establishing prevalence neural level, literates show top-down activation of estimates in, for example, research on grapheme- the VWFA during auditory speech processing color synesthesia (Simner et al., 2006). (Dehaene et al., 2010). Exaggeration of such Unfortunately, a behavioral marker for tickertaping activation could potentially mediate the orthographic has not yet been developed. We think it however visualization of words that are heard, vocalized, or unlikely that a generalized demand characteristic sub-vocalized, and exemplify how visual imagery significantly contaminated our current data. generally involves activation of visual Tickertapers did not show elevated self-report of representations in occipitotemporal areas (Cichy, auditory imagery to read words, or letter Heinzle, & Haynes, 2012; McNorgan, 2012). enumeration, or backward spelling and speaking. Although our data provided no strong support that They also complied with instructions to report their routine sub-vocalization was more explicit among experiences in more detail and described experiences tickertapers, a trend was detected specifically for an that are consistent with previous case studies. association between obligatory tickertaping to heard As tickertaping was reported to be largely uncolored, words and obligatory auditory imagery. The question it is not primarily a subset of grapheme-color of whether exaggerated phoneme-grapheme activation synesthesia. It appears to be a phenomenon in its own in tickertapers is bi-directional therefore remains open. right, although when co-occurring with grapheme-color It also remains unanswered why phoneme-to-grapheme synesthesia it will nevertheless influence the manner in activation would become exaggerated and more explicit which synesthetic color associations are experienced. among some people. At present, we do not know Perhaps, as already suggested by Chun and Hupé whether the crucial individual differences lie within (2013), tickertaping should not then be regarded as a language processing, visual imagery, or some variety of synesthesia at all. First, highly automatized interaction between the two. Speculatively, and vivid tickertaping is part of a graded spectrum of tickertaping may arise from an interaction between word visualization that shows strong continuity with high phonological awareness and disposition for vivid normal cognition. Second, the additional concurrent visual imagery. experience (visualization) is not an idiosyncratic Our study provisionally suggests that the unusual pairing but derives from knowledge of letter form that skills documented in some case studies of word is shared by all literates. Using similar grounds, Rothen visualizers are atypical of tickertapers generally. and Meier (2013) recently rejected so-called mirror- Self-reports of the letter enumeration skill shown for touch phenomena as an exemplar of a true synesthesia. AM (Price & Mykland, 2013) were vanishingly rare, It is parsimonious to suggest that the gradation in even among the strongest tickertapers, once the automaticity and/or vividness of tickertaping questionnaire wording was improved. Backward involves some exaggeration of the normal and tight spelling and speaking skills, as illustrated by O interconnection between phonological and graphemic (Coltheart & Glick, 1974) and demonstrated in representation of words in our mental lexicon. It is social media, were also not convincingly more well established that grapheme-to-phoneme activation reported among tickertapers. Caution is warranted (grapho-phonological conversion) is crucial to here as our data are based on self-report. Although reading (Rayner, Pollatsek, Ashby, & Clifton, 2011), both AM and O were aware of their unusual abilities and this manifests as the commonly experienced prior to formal testing, and self-awareness of PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TICKERTAPING 99 synaesthesia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of backward spelling/speaking is demonstrated on social Psychiatry, 48(2), 199–200. doi:10.1177/000486741 media, behavioral testing could reveal that many tickertapers have these skills but are unaware of Chun, C. A., & Hupe, J. M. (2013). Mirror-touch and ticker them. More likely, tickertapers have an advantage in tape experiences in synesthesia. Frontiers in Psycholgy, acquiring such skills, but these skills nevertheless 4, 776. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00776 Cichy, R. M., Heinzle, J., & Haynes, J.-D. (2012). Imagery require considerable practice. and perception share cortical representations of content Convergent with Chun and Hupé (2013), many and location. Cerebral Cortex, 22(2), 372–380. qualitative aspects of tickertapers’ experience showed doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr106 considerable variability, for example in whether Coltheart, M., & Glick, M. J. (1974). Visual imagery: A handwritten or printed font was experienced, or whether case study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 438–453. doi:10.1080/1464074 the visualized words were felt to move. Notably, some experiences varied within individuals, suggesting similar Cytowic, R. E., & Eagleman, D. M. (2009). Wednesday is flexibility of visual expression as found during more indigo blue: Discovering the brain of synesthesia. normal visual imagery. The reported sensation of one’s Cambridge, MA: MIT. hand writing the visualized text indicates that motor as Dehaene, S., Pegado, F., Braga, L. W., Ventura, P., Filho, G. well as visual imagery is involved for some tickertapers; N., Jobert, A. . . . Cohen, L. (2010). How learning to read changes the cortical networks for vision and this experience, which we have encountered previously language. Science, 330(6009), 1359–1364. doi:10.1126/ during interviews with tickertapers, has not to our science.1194140 knowledge been reported before. Characteristics Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its expressedbythe majority of tickertapers included development. London: MacMillan. Leinenger, M. (2014). Phonological coding during reading. visualizing words in other languages (although Chun Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1534–1555. doi:10.1037/ and Hupé reported some tickertapers who did not do a0037830 this), not recalling the onset of the experience, and Linn, S., Hancock, P., Simner, J., & Akeroyd, M. (2008, experiencing text in imaginal rather than projected March). Cognitive advantages in tickertape synaesthesia. space (although a minority reported projection like Poster presented at the 4th Annual Meeting of the UK Synaesthesia Association, Edinburgh. Coltheart and Glick’ssingle-case, 1974). McNorgan, C. (2012). A meta-analytic review of While most reported the visualization as multisensory imagery identifies the neural correlates of advantageous, some claimed confusing parallel modality-specific and modality-general imagery. visualization during parallel streams of speech. This Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 285. doi:10.3389/ has been reported by the psychiatric tickertaper of fnhum.2012.00285 Newcombe, R. G. (1998). Two-sided confidence intervals Bastiampillai et al. (2014), and also by AM (personal for the single proportion: Comparison of seven methods. observation). Reports of interference between word Statistics in Medicine, 17, 857–872. imagery and visual perception are consistent with Perrone-Bertolotti, M., et al. (2014). Turning visual shapes into previous reports by O. These negative aspects of sounds: Early stages of reading acquisition revealed in the tickertaping clearly require further investigation. ventral occipitotemporal cortex. NeuroImage, 90,298–307. In conclusion, we suggest tickertaping should not be Price, M. C., & Mykland, A. (2013, August). How strange is tickertape synaesthesia?: A case study. Paper regarded as a curious abnormality, but as an explicit presented at the 18th conference of the European expression of phoneme-grapheme activation that Society for Cognitive Psychology, Budapest. manifests as visual imagery with a varying degree of Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J., & Clifton, C. (2011). automaticity. Future work should establish the Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). London: Psychology Press. Rothen, N., & Meier, B. (2013). Why vicarious experience behavioral and neural correlates of tickertaping, and its is not an instance of synesthesia. Frontiers in Human potential contribution to understanding normal Neuroscience, 7, 128. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00128 processes of imagery and language processing. Simner, J. (2007). Beyond perception: Synaesthesia as a psycholinguistic phenomenon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 23–29. Original manuscript received 6 January 2015 Simner, J., Mayo, N., & Spiller, M.-J. (2009). A foundation Revised manuscript received 27 April 2015 for savantism? Visuo-spatial synaesthetes present with cognitive benefits. Cortex, 45(10), 1246–1260. First published online 3 June 2015 Simner, J., Mulvenna, C., Sagiv, N., Tsakanikos, E., Witherby, S. A., Fraser, C., & Ward, J. (2006). Synaesthesia: The prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences. REFERENCES Perception, 35, 1024–1033. doi:10.1068/p5469 Skelton, R., Casimir, L., & Mohr, C. (2009). A novel, Bastiampillai, T., Dhillon, R., & Chui, C. W. (2014). ‘Isaw the illustrated questionnaire to distinguish projector and words right from your mouth’: An unusual case of associator synaesthetes. Cortex, 45(6), 721–729. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Cognitive Neuroscience Taylor & Francis

How uncommon is tickertaping? Prevalence and characteristics of seeing the words you hear

Holm, Silje; Eilertsen, Thomas; Price, Mark C.
Cognitive Neuroscience , Volume 6 (2-3): 11 – Jul 3, 2015
Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/how-uncommon-is-tickertaping-prevalence-and-characteristics-of-seeing-JrHnay8iy4

References (22)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2015 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis.
ISSN
1758-8936
eISSN
1758-8928
DOI
10.1080/17588928.2015.1048209
pmid
25951376
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

COGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCE, 2015 Vol. 6, Nos. 2–3, 89–99, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17588928.2015.1048209 How uncommon is tickertaping? Prevalence and characteristics of seeing the words you hear Silje Holm, Thomas Eilertsen, and Mark C. Price Psychology Faculty, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway Tickertape experience is the subjective phenomenon of routinely visualizing the orthographic appearance of words that one hears, speaks, or thinks, like mental subtitles in the mind’s eye. It has been observed in grapheme-color synesthetes, whose letter visualizations are colored, but has been very little studied. We report a survey, among 425 Norwegian adults from varied sub-samples, of the prevalence, character, and associated skills of tickertaping. Our questionnaire was designed to reflect different degrees of automaticity of the experience. While strongly automatic tickertaping appeared rare (n =6; CI = 0.6% to 3.2% of sample), lesser degrees of text visualization were reported by more than half of respondents, indicating a continuity between extreme tickertaping and normal cognition. Tickertaping was not strongly associated with greater awareness of an inner voice while reading silently. We also found no strong evidence that tickertapers are unusually likely to self-report skill in rapidly enumerating heard words, or in backward spelling and backward speaking, despite the fact that these skills have been observed in single-case studies of tickertapers. The qualitative character of tickertaping varied among respondents, and included negative experiences. However visualization of letters was predominantly uncolored, indicating that tickertaping is a phenomenon in its own right and not just a subset of grapheme-color synesthesia. We suggest tickertaping is an explicit expression of the close interconnection between phonemic and graphemic representations of words which, for reasons we do not yet understand, manifests as visual imagery with a varying degree of automaticity. Keywords: Tickertape; Synesthesia; Tickertape synesthesia; Visual imagery; Language; Prevalence. Some people report routinely visualizing the synesthesia (Cytowic & Eagleman, 2009; Simner, orthographic appearance of words that they hear, so Mayo, & Spiller, 2009) because an extra visual that listening to speech induces a band of visualized dimension to sensory experience is cross-modally text in their mind’s eye. The analogy of mental induced by auditory input in an involuntary manner. subtitles is often used, and the phenomenon is now Within this literature, tickertaping is usually described usually referred to as tickertape experience (e.g., Chun among grapheme-color synesthetes who sometimes &Hupé, 2013). Qualitative descriptions date at least as visualize heard words in the same letter-colors that far back as Galton (1883). More recently there have they routinely experience for read words (e.g., Simner, been passing references to tickertaping in the 2007). However, uncolored tickertaping can occur in the synesthesia literature and online forums, where the absence of grapheme-color synesthesia (Chun & Hupé, phenomenon has been referred to as tickertape 2013). Correspondence should be addressed to: Mark C. Price, Institutt for Samfunnspsykologi, University of Bergen, Christiesgt 12, 5015, Bergen, Norway. E-mail: mark.price@psysp.uib.no We thank all public institutions who allowed us to collect data, and the following students who helped with data collection: Rannveig Eikanger, Atla Kvalem, Simen Nyland, Øyvind Halsøy, Eirik Sletten. No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors. SH and TE were supported by a Norwegian Research Council (NFR) student stipend, and MP by a Meltzer foundation grant. © 2015 The Author(s). Published by Taylor & Francis. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. 90 HOLM ET AL. Few empirical studies of tickertaping have been population. However, this estimate might be inflated conducted. Unpublished work by Linn, Hancock, for the following reasons. Simner, and Akeroyd (2008) claimed above-average First, our personal experience of strong tickertapers, spelling, digit span, and detection of degraded speech in such as AM from Price and Mykland (2013), suggests a group of 12 tickertapers. Price and Mykland (2013) that word visualization is usually induced by heard outlined an unpublished single-case study of AM, a words, and by their own speech, and by verbal female tickertaper in her early twenties who vividly thinking. Chun and Hupé classified respondents as experiences non-colored visualized text when she hears tickertapers on the basis of a yes rather than no response words, speaks, or thinks verbally. For longer words, or to one of two questions. One question tapped automatic sentences, her subtitles move right to left in imaginal visualization induced by hearing, and the other tapped space. Her tickertaping is associated with accurate and visualization induced by speaking or thinking. (The effortless enumeration of letters in long words, and of wording was: “When you listen to someone speaking, wordsinsentences,thatwas formally showntobe do you automatically visualize the words that she/he’s exceptionally fast in laboratory studies (mean RTs of saying (like a ‘teleprompter’ in a way, that scrolls in your z = −3.1 and −3.2 respectively, compared to 22 control head)?”; “When you speak (or think verbally), do you participants). Coltheart and Glick (1974) described automatically visualize the words you are saying?”)If another case study of O, a young female with vivid tickertapers had been classified on the basis of a yes to non-colored word visualization who was proficient at both questions, prevalence would have been only 3.3% speaking backward and showed good ability to spell (our re-calculation based on Chun and Hupé). whole sentences backward. Note that O was presented Second, false positives to the binary yes/no as an example of unusual visual imagery, rather than questions could have been enhanced by potential synesthesia. Interestingly, at least some of the proficient ambiguity in the wording of questions. For example, backward speakers whose skills are reported in popular word visualization could have been misinterpreted as media (e.g., YouTube) also report that this is related to referring to visual imagery of word semantics, rather effortless word visualization. than the orthographic appearance of words, especially Recently, Bastiampillai, Dhillon, and Chui (2014) in the context of other questions about visual imagery. reported tickertaping — experienced since childhood Additionally, the rather technical concept of — in an adult psychiatric patient, and speculated automaticity may not always have been understood whether this may have been causally associated with in the intended manner. a temporal lobe cyst diagnosed in late adolescence. Further aims of our study were to explore whether Here we present a survey of the prevalence and tickertapers typically report (1) augmented auditory associated characteristics of tickertaping in a Norwegian imagery of the spoken sound of words that one silently sample of normal adults. In particular, we wished to reads, which could occur if tickertaping is mediated by survey tickertaping in a way that was sensitive to unusually strong, and bi-directional, phoneme- grapheme co-activation; (2) the letter enumeration various grades of automaticity of the experience. While some people may tickertape in an obligatory manner skills shown by AM in the case study of Price and whenever they hear speech, informal observation Mykland (2013); (3) skill in backward spelling or suggests others may have a less strongly automatic backward speaking, as in the case study of O visualization of words, which occurs involuntarily but (Coltheart & Glick, 1974). Finallywe wishedtochart more occasionally. Yet others are able to vividly various qualitative aspects of tickertape experience. visualize words in a manner that is under voluntary control, such as participant O of Coltheart and Glick (1974) who had practiced her skill over many years. METHOD Thus, the more extreme examples of tickertaping may lie at one end of a continuum of individual differences in Participants and procedure the automatization of explicit grapheme activation by phonemic input or internal word activation. Data were collected across five diverse convenience sub- We also aimed to complement a recent prevalence samples: Visitors to a natural history museum estimate of the most strongly automatic tickertaping (MUSEUM), visitors to a film festival (CINEMA), that was included in a wider survey of synesthesia and students at a Norwegian “folk high school” for young visual imagery that was completed online by 1017 adults (HIGH SCHOOL), members of authors’ social respondents in a French population (Chun & Hupé, networks (SOCIAL NETWORK), and psychology 2013). Chun and Hupé estimated strongly automatic students (UNDERGRADUATES). Sub-sample tickertaping to occur in at least 6.9% of their sampled characteristics are detailed in Table 1. PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TICKERTAPING 91 TABLE 1 Characteristics of the five sub-samples. From left to right: Sample (with no. people invited to take part), details of setting, response rate, sex, and age Sample Setting % response % males age range MUSEUM Visitors at the Bergen Natural History Museum, 86% 46% 20–76 years M = 39.8 n= 168 approached on a Sunday near children’s area. SD = 12.6 Mainly pensioners and families with children. (October 2013) CINEMA Visitors to Bergen International Film Festival, 77% 54% 18–68 years M = 29.0 n= 93 approached in partly seated foyer area while waiting SD = 12.3 to enter movie theater. (October 2013) HIGH SCHOOL Students, and a few staff, at folk high school near 96% 36% 18–47 years M = 20.5 n= 86 Bergen (Fana Folkehøgskole)*. Completed during a SD = 5.1 lunch break. (November 2013) SOCIAL NETWORK Members of authors’ social networks, invited to take 38% 35% 19–56 years M = 26.6 n= 80 part via Facebook and e-mail. Invitees could not be SD = 9.5 blood relatives of each other. Distributed as pdf. file, returned by e-mail. (December 2013). UNDERGRADUATE Large lecture of introductory cognitive psychology 85% 19% 19–36 years n= 200 undergraduates at University of Bergen. First given 25- M = 21.1 SD = 2.3 minute lecture on synesthesia by author M. P., which mentioned tickertaping. Filled questionnaires during lecture break 30 minutes later. (February 2014) Note: *A Norwegian Folkehøgskole is a private boarding college, for young adults, that offers a year of exam-free themed education between school and university levels. The questionnaire was introduced as being about people report.” Experiences 1–3 were descriptions individual differences in language experiences. To of tickertaping, induced respectively by hearing minimize sampling bias, neither tickertaping nor speech, speaking oneself, or thinking verbally synesthesia were mentioned, except for sub-sample (henceforth hear, speak,and think). Experience 1 UNDERGRADUATE (see Table 1). Depending on the was phrased: questionnaire version, which differed slightly across Some people, when they hear somebody talking to them, sub-samples, completion took 5–15 minutes. also have an impression in their mind of the written Overall response rate was 78.6%. This rises to 84.6% visual appearance of the words (i.e., as if printed or if we exclude the small SOCIAL NETWORK sub- handwritten), a bit like film subtitles in their head. sample in which participants were recruited via email rather than in person, and which had a lower rate than For experiences 2–3, the clause “when they hear other sub-samples. Overall, 465/492 of returned somebody talking to them” was replaced respectively questionnaires were complete (94.5%). Of those, we by the clauses “when they speak out loud” and “when discarded returns that had been filled out using an they think to themselves in words”. After each optional English version of the survey (n =11), and description, participants were asked: “Please indicate returns from participants who did not give Norwegian as whichever one of the following statements best their mother tongue (n = 39). This left 425 participants describes your own experience.” Response alternatives with 34.6% males and age range 18–76 (M =28). All (original bold text) were: analyses derive from this subset of participants. Procedure conformed to University of Bergen 1. I almost always have this experience, sponta- Psychology Faculty ethical guidelines. neously without even trying. 2. I sometimes have this experience, spontaneously without even trying. 3. I sometimes have this experience, but it is some- Instrument and scoring thing I do deliberately. 4. I never or hardly ever have this kind of The questionnaire was written in Norwegian (Bokmål experience. script) for all included participants. It first presented 5. I don’t know. descriptions of “4 types of experience that some 92 HOLM ET AL. can do this very fast, and correctly, without writing These multiple-choice response options, contrasting down the word or counting on my fingers. I just a range of experiences in non-technical language, were “know” what the correct answer is. intended to minimize false positives. Responses on the first three questions were used to generate a range of For sub-samples SOCIAL NETWORK and prevalence estimates for tickertape experience, with UNDERGRADUATE (n= 184), who filled out differing criteria regarding (1) the degree of questionnaires under lesser time pressure, we included automaticity of visualization, and (2) the number of 14 additional questions about the qualitative inducers triggering the experience. We stipulatively characteristics of tickertape experience. Participants define participants who selected response 1, for all were instructed to only answer if they experienced three inducers, as obligatory tickertapers; these visualization for at least one type of inducer. Questions participants show the strongest degree of automaticity asked about characteristics such as color, movement, and conform to our strictest criterion for tickertaping. A font, age of onset, etc., as well as advantages and lesser degree of automaticity is shown by participants nuisances associated with the experience. One item, selecting responses 1 or 2 for all inducers, who are which asked whether or not the experience of visualized labeled involuntary tickertapers. Those selecting words felt projected outside the body, was inspired by the response 3 for all inducers are labeled voluntary projector-associator distinction within synesthesia tickertapers. Participants selecting responses 1 or 2 for research and by previous observations from single-case at least one inducer are labeled involuntary × 1.Those studies that tickertapers may either report seeing the selecting responses 1, 2, or 3 for at least one inducer are letters in imaginal space (i.e., associators, such as AM labeled any × 1. Notethatcategoriesoverlap;e.g., reported by Price & Mykland, 2013) or projected into obligatory is a subset of involuntary. extrapersonal space (i.e., projectors, such as O reported Experience 4, which used the same response by Coltheart & Glick, 1974). For this item, written alternatives, described hearing the sounds of the descriptions were complemented by cartoons, following words one is reading: Skelton, Casimir, and Mohr (2009) who suggested that self-report measures of the projector-associator Some people, when they read to themselves without distinction are more reliable if based on illustrations speaking, also have an impression in their mind of rather than purely verbal statements. Age, sex, mother the sound of the words being spoken. tongue, and educational level were recorded at the end of the questionnaire. Participants next indicated whether their daily Effect sizes for any formal comparisons between experience included rapid enumeration of letters in prevalence values are expressed in terms of risk ratios heard words, or exceptional abilities for backward (RR; prevalence A/prevalence B). These are stated with spelling and backward speaking. Response alternatives 95% confidence intervals (CI ), and were computed were Disagree, Unsure,and Agree. For samples from 2 × 2 contingency tables using online software MUSEUM, CINEMA, and HIGH SCHOOL, (http://vassarstats.net). The latter site was also used to questions were: compute CI on observed proportions, using the recommended method of the Wilson score interval 1. When I hear a word being spoken, I feel that without with continuity correction applied (Newcombe, 1998). trying I almost instantly know how many letters there are in the word. 2. When I hear a word being spoken, I can impress your friends with my unusually good ability to spell RESULTS the word out loud backward. 3. When I hear a word being spoken, I can impress my friends with my unusually good ability to say the Prevalence estimates for visualized word backward. words For sub-samples SOCIAL NETWORK and Figure 1a illustrates the range of obtained estimates as UNDERGRADUATE we rephrased question 1 criteria for tickertaping are progressively relaxed. because we were suspicious of very high rates of Only 1.4% of participants (n =6;CI [0.6, 3.2]) Agree responses shown in preceding sub-samples. met our strictest criterion of obligatory word Precision of wording was improved to: visualization for all three inducers (2 male, ages 21, 21, 22, 52, 67, and 68). Most came from the largest 1. When I hear a word being spoken, then even if it is sub-samples (three from MUSEUM, two from a long word like “interesting” I instantly know exactly how many letters there are in the word. I UNDERGRADUATE, and one from HIGH PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TICKERTAPING 93 SCHOOL). The weaker criterion for involuntary In sum, compared to hear or speak inducers, the tickertaping was met by 8.7% of participants think inducer is less diagnostic of a generalized (n =37; CI [6.3, 11.9]). Voluntary tickertaping tendency to tickertape for all verbal material. was reported by 4.7% of participants (n = 20; 95% CI [3.0, 7.3]). The criterion of involuntary × 1 was met by 29.2% of participants (n = 124; CI [25.0, 33.8]). Higher Prevalence of hearing the words you frequency of participants in this category permitted read formal comparison between our five sub-samples, which did not indicate reliable differences [Pearson Auditory imagery of the sounds of silently read words (4) = 4.22, p = .38]. Our most lenient criterion of was a common experience, as expected from the any × 1 was met by 53.4% of participants (n = 227; extensive literature on subvocalization during reading CI [48.5, 58.2]), again without reliable differences (Leinenger, 2014). Using similar scoring criteria as for between sub-samples [χ (4) = 4.21, p = .38]. In other visualized words, 62.1% of participants reported words, over half the overall sample report some auditory imagery to be obligatory, 17.6% reported it degree of word visualization. as involuntary, and 10.8% as voluntary (90.6% in total). Only 8.2% claimed no experience at all. This Finally, the proportion of participants who is strikingly opposite to the response pattern for chose response option, “I never or hardly ever visualized words, where 1.4% of participants claimed have this kind of experience,” for all inducers, obligatory visualization and 43.3% claimed no word was 43.3%, (n = 184; CI [38.6, 48.2]). An visualization at all (see Figure 1b). almost complete lack of word visualization is We next examine whether auditory imagery for read therefore less common than at least some degree words was greater for people who tend to visualize of word visualization. heard words. Among participants who claimed No support was found for a relationship obligatory word visualization for all three inducer between prevalence of word visualization and types, all six claimed to experience the sound of read either age, sex, or educational level (secondary words to some extent (four obligatory, one involuntary, school vs. tertiary education) (data not shown). A one voluntary). Despite this, obligatory auditory null effect of sex was also reported by Chun and imagery was not actually more common among these Hupé (2013). six participants (66.7%, 4/6) than among remaining participants (62.1%; 260/419) [tickertapers/others RR =1.07, CI [0.61, 1.90], Fisher exact p(2- Comparison between different inducers tailed) = 1.00]. Similarly, participants who claimed some degree of word visualization (whether Pooling over the obligatory, involuntary and involuntary or voluntary) for at least one inducer voluntary response categories, relative prevalence of were no more likely to claim some degree of auditory reported visualization for the hear versus speak imagery experience for read words (90.3%, 205/227) versus think inducers was 1.0/1.0/1.4. The think than were other participants (90.9%; 180/198) inducer (CI [0.40, 0.50]) was reliably more [RR =.99, CI [0.93, 1.06], χ (1) = 0.04, p =.84]. 95 95 common than for hear (CI [0.29, 0.38]) or speak If we focus specifically on participants who (CI [0.28, 0.37]). A similar trend was apparent for reported obligatory visualization for heard words — obligatory visualization on its own (1.0/.6/1.8), which could be considered the opposite of auditory though not reliable given the small n. imagery for read words — a weak trend for an Visualization for think was also more likely to association is found. Of these participants, 85.7% (12/ occur in isolation, without visualization for other 14) heard the words they read in an obligatory manner, inducers: The conditional probability of reporting compared with 61.3% (252/411) of remaining visualization for only think showed a CI [0.23, participants [visualizer/non-visualizer RR =1.40, CI 95 95 0.36] that does not overlap the CI for hear [0.07, [1.11, 1.75], χ (1) = 3.43, p(2-tailed) = .06]. However, 0.19] or speak [0.01, 0.09]. In addition, visualization of participants who claimed any degree of visualization for think was less likely to predict visualization for all for heard words, 94.3% (133/141) reported some three inducers: The conditional probability that think degree of sound experience for read words, compared visualizers will visualize for all inducers shows a CI to 88.7% (252/284) of other participants; this [0.41, 0.55] that does not quite overlap the equivalent comparison has a negligible effect size [RR =1.06, CI for hear [0.56, 0.72] or speak [0.58, 0.74]. CI [1.00, 1.13], χ (1) = 3.46, p(2-tailed) = .06]. 95 94 HOLM ET AL. experiencing this skill were reported by 75% of obligatory tickertapers (3/4) compared to 17% of remaining participants (40/239) [Fisher exact, p(2- tailed) = .02]. However, the substantial prevalence among non-tickertapers suggested the question had been ambiguously phrased. This is supported by the fact that 26% of participants (n= 63) responded that they were unsure. For the rewritten question, received by 182 participants, only 4% responded unsure (n= 8, including one involuntary tickertaper),andtheonlypersontorespond agree was not among the 2 obligatory,12 involuntary,or 9 voluntary tickertapers. Agree responses to backspelling and backspeaking Figure 1a. Proportion of sample reporting (a) obligatory word skills were respectively reported by 5% (n= 20) and visualization for all three inducers (Oblig); (b) voluntary 4% (n= 18) of the total sample (of whom 13 reported visualization for all three inducers (Vol); (c) involuntary both skills). Table 2 (part a) compares reported visualization for all three inducers (Invol); (d) involuntary prevalences of a variety of tickertape categories against visualization for at least one inducer (Invol × 1); (e) obligatory, participants who report neither obligatory, involuntary, involuntary or voluntary visualization for at least one inducer (Any × 1); (f) no visualization at all (None). Errors bars are CI . nor voluntary tickertaping (henceforth non-tickertapers). None of our 6 obligatory tickertapers, or 20 voluntary tickertapers gave agree responses. For involuntary word visualization, prevalence of backspelling among these participants rises to 11%, and backspeaking to 8%. Although these prevalences give risk ratios of over 2.0 when compared to non-tickertapers, they are not reliably higher (i.e., ratios of 1.0 lie within the CI ,and p-values for 2 × 2 tables are non-significant; Fisher exact, both ≥ .10). Comparisons were repeated after combining agree responses with unsure responses, which were given by 10% and 9% of participants for backspelling and backspeaking respectively (see Table 2,partb). Some trends are now apparent for higher prevalence among tickertapers, although it is only for backspelling that risk ratios are reliably above 1.0, and then only prior to correction for multiple testing. In summary, the majority of obligatory, involuntary and voluntary tickertapers clearly do not describe themselves as skilled in any of the three tasks. When strict criteria are applied, we also find no evidence that prevalence of self-reported skill is higher than usual among tickertapers. With looser criteria we nevertheless observe a tentative trend for higher Figure 1b. Proportion of sample reporting (a) obligatory auditory prevalence of backspelling, and to lesser extent imagerywhensilent reading(Oblig); (b) voluntary auditory imagery backspeaking (though not for voluntary tickertapers). when silent reading (Vol); (c) involuntary auditory imagery when At observed prevalence levels, larger sample size silent reading (Invol); (d) no auditory imagery when silent reading would be needed to confirm these trends with (None). Errors bars are CI . statistical reliability. Letter counting, backspelling, and backspeaking Further characteristics For the first version of the letter counting question, Sub-samples SOCIAL NETWORK and received by 243 participants, agree responses for UNDERGRADUATE received additional questions PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TICKERTAPING 95 TABLE 2 Prevalence of self-reported backspelling and backspeaking skill, compared between non-tickertapers (Non TT) and three categories of tickertapers (TT; Oblig = obligatory, Invol = involuntary, Vol = voluntary). Prevalences are presented separately for (a) agree responses and (b) combined agree and unsure responses Prevalence TT vs. Non TT prevalence % n p RR (CI ) (a) Agree Backspelling 4.7% (20/425) Oblig 0% (0/6) −− Invol 10.8% (4/37) .10 2.49 (0.88, 7.05) Vol 0% (0/20) −− Non TT 4.3% (16/368) Backspeaking 4.2% (18/425) Oblig 0% (0/6) −− Invol 8.1% (3/37) .39 2.06 (0.60, 6.56) Vol 0% (0/20) −− Non TT 4.1% (15/368) (b) Agree/unsure Backspelling 15% (64/425) Oblig 50% (3/6) .04 3.68 (1.59, 8.53) Invol 29.7% (11/37) .01 2.19 (1.25, 3.82) Vol 15.0% (3/20) 1.0 1.10 (0.38, 3.23) Non TT 13.6% (50/368) Backspeaking 13.6% (58/425) Oblig 33.3% (2/6) .18 2.61 (0.82, 8.35) Invol 21.6% (8/37) .20 1.70 (0.87, 3.31) Vol 15% (3/20) 1.0 1.17 (0.40, 3.45) Non TT 12.8% (47/368) Note: RR is risk ratio where TT is divided by non-TT; p values (Fisher Exact) are 2-tailed. about qualitative aspects of their word visualization. Table 3 summarizes responses among Of 94 qualifying participants — i.e., those with some obligatory, involuntary,or voluntary tickertapers, degree of visualization for at least one inducer — for all of whom the following patterns are 69% complied with the invitation to answer the apparent. questions (n= 65). This included all 12 participants reporting obligatory or involuntary tickertaping, 8/9 1. Several aspects of the experience differed voluntary tickertapers, and 30/34 other participants between people, and sometimes within a person. who visualized involuntarily for at least one inducer. This applies to whether visualized words are High compliance to fill out the extra questions experienced to move, whether the words are suggests these groups had salient experiences of visualized in print or as hand written, whether word visualization which they considered natural to the person experiences motor imagery of writing report in more detail. By contrast, the questions were the words, and to perceived detail of the imaged answered by only 38% (15/39) of the remainder of letters. qualifying participants; i.e., many participants who 2. Visualized words were predominantly unco- claimed to visualize voluntarily for one or two lored, indicating that the tickertape experience inducers did not see fit to describe their experience is not primarily a subdivision of colored-word in more detail. This is unlikely due to unclear synesthesias. instructions, given high compliance by other 3. Although most people reported the words as categories of participant, and the fact that only one “in their head,” a minority claimed projected non-complying participant filled out the extra imagery, or imagery that is sometimes pro- questions. It could suggest that this least jected. The rarity of unsure responses for this conservative category included many false positives, controversial projector-associator distinction or at least that experiences were not very vivid. It also suggests the use of diagrams was successful supports the value of identifying strong tickertapers in conveying the question (Skelton et al., on the basis of tickertaping for more than one inducer. 2009). 96 HOLM ET AL. TABLE 3 Summary of qualitative character of word visualization for obligatory (Oblig), involuntary (Invol), and voluntary (Vol) tickertapers. Note that results for involuntary tickertapers do not include participants already listed under obligatory tickertapers. All questions prompted participants to choose between two opposing descriptions of their experience (e.g., “colored” vs. “uncolored”), along with an alternative option to indicate they were unsure or, where appropriate, that the experience varied. An example question is: “When you have a mental experience of the written form of a word that you hear, and/or speak, and/or think, do you experience the written word as colored or uncolored (e.g., black and white)?” Question Yes No Varies Unsure Color? Oblig 0 2 0 0 Vol 0 6 2 0 Invol 0 9 0 1 Moving letters? Oblig 0 2 0 0 Vol 1 2 2 3 Invol 2 3 2 3 Motor imagery of hand writing? Oblig 0 1 0 1 Vol 2 3 1 2 Invol 0 5 4 1 Visualization is useful? Oblig 1 0 − 1 Vol 8 0 − 0 Invol 8 0 − 2 Annoying/disadvantageous? Oblig 0 2 − 0 Vol 0 6 − 2 Invol 4 6 − 0 Multiple conversations confusing? Oblig 0 1 − 1 Vol 1 6 − 1 Invol 3 5 − 2 Occurs for other languages? Oblig 2 0 − 0 Vol 5 0 − 3 Invol 10 0 − 0 Recall onset of experience? Oblig 0 2 −− Vol 0 8 −− Invol 1 9 −− Experienced since early childhood? Oblig 0 0 − 2 Vol 3 1 − 4 Invol 2 3 − 5 Engage in mental word play? Oblig 0 2 − 0 Vol 3 5 − 0 Invol 2 7 − 1 Gives visual interference? Oblig 0 2 − 0 Vol 1 5 − 2 Invol 1 7 − 2 Written style? Hand Print Varies Unsure Oblig 0 1 1 0 Vol 2 2 1 3 Invol 3 5 1 1 Projection? “In head” Projected Varies Unsure Oblig 1 0 1 0 Vol 6 1 0 1 Invol 7 2 1 0 Level of visualized detail? General Detailed Varies Unsure Oblig 0 1 1 0 Vol 3 3 1 1 Invol 6 2 2 0 PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TICKERTAPING 97 4. Nearly all reported the experience occurs for estimate (CI [0.6%, 3.2%]), and (2) our data when other languages than their native tongue, with rescored as the same conjunction of obligatory the remainder unsure. visualization for both the hear inducer and the 5. Most could not recall when the experience combined speak/think inducer (n = 7/425; CI started. Unsurprisingly, therefore, only a minor- [0.7%, 3.5%]). This overlap is nevertheless ity could confirm an onset in childhood. One academic because estimates differed in a second obligatory tickertaper reported starting to visua- respect. Whereas our prevalence rate is expressed as lize subtitles during verbal thought after seeing a a percentage of completed questionnaires, in a study film with subtitles in junior school. One invo- with high response rate, the French prevalence rate luntary tickertaper recalled mentally writing was expressed as a percentage of distributed words before physically writing them during questionnaires (n= 3743) rather than of actual tests in junior school. respondents (n= 1017). Chun and Hupé were 6. Mental word-play was only reported by a min- attempting to provide a conservative lower estimate ority, and is therefore unlikely to be a develop- and so assumed any synesthetes would be likely to mental precursor of word visualization for the complete the questionnaire. However, given their majority of tickertapers. response rate of only 27%, their prevalence estimate 7. Almost all rated the imagery as useful. However would be considerably underestimated if this a minority also claimed it could be annoying or assumption is even partly wrong. In sum, we cannot disadvantageous. Four participants indicated that tell whether estimate differences (or similarities) arise word visualization during multiple conversa- from differences in questions, scoring, assumptions tions can become confusing, and two even about compliance rate for synesthetes, or language claimed that their word imagery interferes with groups. visual perception. It is also difficult to know whether the French estimate includes people with tickertaping that is less obligatory. By contrast, the format of response GENERAL DISCUSSION alternatives in our own study allowed us to distinguish shades of automaticity. We separately In our sample of Norwegian adults, the proportion estimated a higher 8.7% prevalence when including who report involuntarily visualizing the orthographic people who tickertape for all three inducers, in a appearance of words whenever they are heard, spoken manner that is still felt to be involuntary, but can be by oneself, and activated during silent verbal thought, more occasional and is perhaps context-specific. We lies within a CI of 0.6% to 3.2% (point estimate additionally identified a group of 4.7% of participants 1.4%). These obligatory visualizers can be considered who report tickertaping voluntarily for all inducers, as as the most strongly automatic variety of tickertaper. for participant O studied by Coltheart and Glick The estimate is based on a diverse sample with wide (1974). However, despite differences in automaticity, age range and high response rate. variation in the other qualitative characteristics of the Our estimate is less than the 6.9% minimum visualizations reported by obligatory, involuntary and prevalence (CI [6.2%, 7.7%]) suggested by Chun voluntary tickertapers showed similar ranges and Hupé (2013) for automatic tickertapers in a (Table 3). This suggests that as the experience French sample. However, differences in the manner becomes progressively more automatic, underlying that prevalences were estimated make direct processes of word visualization remain continuous comparison problematic. First, our estimate is based with those of voluntary imagery. on reported visualization for a conjunction of hear, As criteria for tickertaping are relaxed yet further, speak and think inducers, which reduces the risk of to encompass people with at least occasional spurious false positives and corresponds to the visualization to at least one inducer, the proportion experience of previous tickertapers we have of visualizers grows to exceed the proportion of interviewed (Price & Mykland, 2013). By contrast, people claiming visualization to be very rare or non- the French study used the criterion of visualization for existent. Obviously the potential for false positives the hear inducer (based on one question) and/or a will increase as criteria are relaxed. This is combination of either speak or think inducers (based supported by the fact that people reporting voluntary on a second question). Rescoring the French data to visualization for only 1–2 inducers often chose not to estimate the conjunction of hear and speak/think fill out the additional questions about their inducers gives an estimate of 3.3% (CI [2.7%, experience. Nevertheless, weaker tickertapers form 3.9%]) which overlaps both (1) our own original part of a graded continuity of experience. This 98 HOLM ET AL. extends from obligatory tickertaping and subjective “inner voice” of sub-vocalization during exceptionally vivid voluntary tickertaping, through reading (Leinenger, 2014). Consistent with this, diffuse varieties of weak tickertaping, to the kind of around 90% of our respondents claimed auditory vague visualization of short single words that imagery of the sound of silently read words. probably most of us can conjure in our mind with Development of this grapheme-phoneme mapping some effort. Note that claimed visualization was most during reading acquisition may rely on enhanced frequent for the think inducer, which was also least connectivity between cortical areas involved in predictive of tickertaping to other inducers. It is phonological processing and areas involved in visual therefore suboptimal to confound responses to think and orthographic processing, such as the proposed versus other inducers, for example as in the survey of visual word form area (VWFA) in the left lateral Chun and Hupé (2013). occipitotemporal sulcus (Perrone-Bertolotti et al., One concern is that demand characteristics could 2014). There is also some evidence that phoneme-to- have inflated prevalence estimates for all our grapheme activation is important. At the behavioral categories of self-reported tickertape experience. level, word spelling has an influence on auditory For this reason, convergent behavioral tests have perception (Ziegler and Ferrand, 1998). At the been important for establishing prevalence neural level, literates show top-down activation of estimates in, for example, research on grapheme- the VWFA during auditory speech processing color synesthesia (Simner et al., 2006). (Dehaene et al., 2010). Exaggeration of such Unfortunately, a behavioral marker for tickertaping activation could potentially mediate the orthographic has not yet been developed. We think it however visualization of words that are heard, vocalized, or unlikely that a generalized demand characteristic sub-vocalized, and exemplify how visual imagery significantly contaminated our current data. generally involves activation of visual Tickertapers did not show elevated self-report of representations in occipitotemporal areas (Cichy, auditory imagery to read words, or letter Heinzle, & Haynes, 2012; McNorgan, 2012). enumeration, or backward spelling and speaking. Although our data provided no strong support that They also complied with instructions to report their routine sub-vocalization was more explicit among experiences in more detail and described experiences tickertapers, a trend was detected specifically for an that are consistent with previous case studies. association between obligatory tickertaping to heard As tickertaping was reported to be largely uncolored, words and obligatory auditory imagery. The question it is not primarily a subset of grapheme-color of whether exaggerated phoneme-grapheme activation synesthesia. It appears to be a phenomenon in its own in tickertapers is bi-directional therefore remains open. right, although when co-occurring with grapheme-color It also remains unanswered why phoneme-to-grapheme synesthesia it will nevertheless influence the manner in activation would become exaggerated and more explicit which synesthetic color associations are experienced. among some people. At present, we do not know Perhaps, as already suggested by Chun and Hupé whether the crucial individual differences lie within (2013), tickertaping should not then be regarded as a language processing, visual imagery, or some variety of synesthesia at all. First, highly automatized interaction between the two. Speculatively, and vivid tickertaping is part of a graded spectrum of tickertaping may arise from an interaction between word visualization that shows strong continuity with high phonological awareness and disposition for vivid normal cognition. Second, the additional concurrent visual imagery. experience (visualization) is not an idiosyncratic Our study provisionally suggests that the unusual pairing but derives from knowledge of letter form that skills documented in some case studies of word is shared by all literates. Using similar grounds, Rothen visualizers are atypical of tickertapers generally. and Meier (2013) recently rejected so-called mirror- Self-reports of the letter enumeration skill shown for touch phenomena as an exemplar of a true synesthesia. AM (Price & Mykland, 2013) were vanishingly rare, It is parsimonious to suggest that the gradation in even among the strongest tickertapers, once the automaticity and/or vividness of tickertaping questionnaire wording was improved. Backward involves some exaggeration of the normal and tight spelling and speaking skills, as illustrated by O interconnection between phonological and graphemic (Coltheart & Glick, 1974) and demonstrated in representation of words in our mental lexicon. It is social media, were also not convincingly more well established that grapheme-to-phoneme activation reported among tickertapers. Caution is warranted (grapho-phonological conversion) is crucial to here as our data are based on self-report. Although reading (Rayner, Pollatsek, Ashby, & Clifton, 2011), both AM and O were aware of their unusual abilities and this manifests as the commonly experienced prior to formal testing, and self-awareness of PREVALENCE AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TICKERTAPING 99 synaesthesia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of backward spelling/speaking is demonstrated on social Psychiatry, 48(2), 199–200. doi:10.1177/000486741 media, behavioral testing could reveal that many tickertapers have these skills but are unaware of Chun, C. A., & Hupe, J. M. (2013). Mirror-touch and ticker them. More likely, tickertapers have an advantage in tape experiences in synesthesia. Frontiers in Psycholgy, acquiring such skills, but these skills nevertheless 4, 776. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00776 Cichy, R. M., Heinzle, J., & Haynes, J.-D. (2012). Imagery require considerable practice. and perception share cortical representations of content Convergent with Chun and Hupé (2013), many and location. Cerebral Cortex, 22(2), 372–380. qualitative aspects of tickertapers’ experience showed doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr106 considerable variability, for example in whether Coltheart, M., & Glick, M. J. (1974). Visual imagery: A handwritten or printed font was experienced, or whether case study. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 26, 438–453. doi:10.1080/1464074 the visualized words were felt to move. Notably, some experiences varied within individuals, suggesting similar Cytowic, R. E., & Eagleman, D. M. (2009). Wednesday is flexibility of visual expression as found during more indigo blue: Discovering the brain of synesthesia. normal visual imagery. The reported sensation of one’s Cambridge, MA: MIT. hand writing the visualized text indicates that motor as Dehaene, S., Pegado, F., Braga, L. W., Ventura, P., Filho, G. well as visual imagery is involved for some tickertapers; N., Jobert, A. . . . Cohen, L. (2010). How learning to read changes the cortical networks for vision and this experience, which we have encountered previously language. Science, 330(6009), 1359–1364. doi:10.1126/ during interviews with tickertapers, has not to our science.1194140 knowledge been reported before. Characteristics Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its expressedbythe majority of tickertapers included development. London: MacMillan. Leinenger, M. (2014). Phonological coding during reading. visualizing words in other languages (although Chun Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1534–1555. doi:10.1037/ and Hupé reported some tickertapers who did not do a0037830 this), not recalling the onset of the experience, and Linn, S., Hancock, P., Simner, J., & Akeroyd, M. (2008, experiencing text in imaginal rather than projected March). Cognitive advantages in tickertape synaesthesia. space (although a minority reported projection like Poster presented at the 4th Annual Meeting of the UK Synaesthesia Association, Edinburgh. Coltheart and Glick’ssingle-case, 1974). McNorgan, C. (2012). A meta-analytic review of While most reported the visualization as multisensory imagery identifies the neural correlates of advantageous, some claimed confusing parallel modality-specific and modality-general imagery. visualization during parallel streams of speech. This Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6, 285. doi:10.3389/ has been reported by the psychiatric tickertaper of fnhum.2012.00285 Newcombe, R. G. (1998). Two-sided confidence intervals Bastiampillai et al. (2014), and also by AM (personal for the single proportion: Comparison of seven methods. observation). Reports of interference between word Statistics in Medicine, 17, 857–872. imagery and visual perception are consistent with Perrone-Bertolotti, M., et al. (2014). Turning visual shapes into previous reports by O. These negative aspects of sounds: Early stages of reading acquisition revealed in the tickertaping clearly require further investigation. ventral occipitotemporal cortex. NeuroImage, 90,298–307. In conclusion, we suggest tickertaping should not be Price, M. C., & Mykland, A. (2013, August). How strange is tickertape synaesthesia?: A case study. Paper regarded as a curious abnormality, but as an explicit presented at the 18th conference of the European expression of phoneme-grapheme activation that Society for Cognitive Psychology, Budapest. manifests as visual imagery with a varying degree of Rayner, K., Pollatsek, A., Ashby, J., & Clifton, C. (2011). automaticity. Future work should establish the Psychology of reading (2nd ed.). London: Psychology Press. Rothen, N., & Meier, B. (2013). Why vicarious experience behavioral and neural correlates of tickertaping, and its is not an instance of synesthesia. Frontiers in Human potential contribution to understanding normal Neuroscience, 7, 128. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00128 processes of imagery and language processing. Simner, J. (2007). Beyond perception: Synaesthesia as a psycholinguistic phenomenon. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(1), 23–29. Original manuscript received 6 January 2015 Simner, J., Mayo, N., & Spiller, M.-J. (2009). A foundation Revised manuscript received 27 April 2015 for savantism? Visuo-spatial synaesthetes present with cognitive benefits. Cortex, 45(10), 1246–1260. First published online 3 June 2015 Simner, J., Mulvenna, C., Sagiv, N., Tsakanikos, E., Witherby, S. A., Fraser, C., & Ward, J. (2006). Synaesthesia: The prevalence of atypical cross-modal experiences. REFERENCES Perception, 35, 1024–1033. doi:10.1068/p5469 Skelton, R., Casimir, L., & Mohr, C. (2009). A novel, Bastiampillai, T., Dhillon, R., & Chui, C. W. (2014). ‘Isaw the illustrated questionnaire to distinguish projector and words right from your mouth’: An unusual case of associator synaesthetes. Cortex, 45(6), 721–729.

Journal

Cognitive Neuroscience – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jul 3, 2015

Keywords: Tickertape; Synesthesia; Tickertape synesthesia; Visual imagery; Language; Prevalence

There are no references for this article.