Olor and temporal sequencecolor had been extremely correlated, in agreement with our biggest observed effect

Olor and temporal sequencecolor had been extremely correlated, in agreement with our biggest observed effect size.In contrast to what was found within the current study, however, they identified graphemecolor and temporal sequencecolor to become absolutely independent from personcolor and auditioncolor, with zero situations of cooccurrence.Sagiv et al. examined the occurrence of quantity types in each graphemecolor synesthetes and nonsynesthetes (that is definitely, not such as quantity forms inside the definition of synesthesia).They located a larger proportion of quantity form circumstances in graphemecolor synesthetes.The greater rate of cooccurrence identified in their study when compared with our study could be resulting from their unique recruitment procedures for graphemecolor synesthetes (no systematic recruitment) and nongraphemecolor synesthetes (systematic recruitment).Seron et al. reported the number of graphemecolor synesthetes among folks with sequencespace.This time the amount of cooccurrences was reduced than observed in our study but here at the same time, recruitment was not homogeneous.Simner and Holenstein measured both graphemecolor and OLP, but their strict criterion for inclusion restricted their sample to only three people today with OLP (see Table , footnote), precluding meaningful statistical comparisons.Novich et al. performed the biggest study to date on cooccurrences PF-06747711 Description amongst subtypes of synesthesia, around the basis of about , selfreferred reports.Nevertheless, like in our study, most subtypes couldn’t be verified.Prevalence estimates have been not doable since only potential synesthetes filled out their on the web questionnaire.Relative prevalence prices in the various subtypes were also not achievable to calculate, due to the fact graphemecolor synesthetes were apparently a lot more motivated to go to the “synaesthesia battery” site (likely resulting from study interests and media coverage).This bias is expressed in their high proportion of graphemecolor PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21542856 synesthetes (about ) when compared with sequencespace synesthetes , although systematic recruitment studies have identified a significantly higher prevalence of sequencespace than graphemecolor, comparing both within (Seron et al) and across populations (i.e Sagiv et al vs.Simner et al).This strong bias indicates that their observed prices of cooccurrences couldn’t be extrapolated for the common population, as demonstrated by the following believed experiment if only graphemecolor synesthetes visited the synaesthesia battery web page, then all sequencespace synesthetes would also report graphemecolorFrontiers in Psychology Cognitive ScienceNovember Volume Article Chun and HupMirrortouch, ticker tape, and synesthesiaTable Cooccurrence comparisons.Subtype Study Population Recruitment Verification of associations GC among MT GC among MT OLP among MT OLP amongst MT TSC amongst GC TSC amongst GC SS among GC SS among GC GC among SS GC amongst SS Chun and Hup Banissy et al Chun and Hup Banissy et al Chun and Hup Simner et al Chun and Hup Sagiv et al Chun and Hup Seron et al French British French British French Scottish French Scottish French Belgian Systematic systematic and selfreferral Systematic systematic and selfreferral Systematic Systematic Systematic systematic and selfreferral Systematic systematic and selfreferralc Mixed b Mixed a Mixed a MixednCooccurrenceNo Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No No GC in MT vs.GC in nonMT GC in MT OLP in MT vs.OLP in nonMT OLP in MT TSC in GC vs.TSC in nonGC TSC in GC SS in GC vs.SS in nonGC SS in GC vs.SS in nonGC GC in SS vs.GC in nonSS GC i.