Olor and temporal sequencecolor have been highly correlated, in agreement with our largest observed impact size.In contrast to what was found inside the existing study, having said that, they found graphemecolor and temporal sequencecolor to become entirely independent from personcolor and auditioncolor, with zero circumstances of cooccurrence.Sagiv et al. examined the occurrence of number types in each graphemecolor synesthetes and nonsynesthetes (that may be, not like quantity types in the definition of synesthesia).They located a greater proportion of number form situations in graphemecolor synesthetes.The greater rate of cooccurrence located in their study compared to our study might be due to their different recruitment procedures for graphemecolor synesthetes (no systematic recruitment) and nongraphemecolor synesthetes (systematic recruitment).Seron et al. reported the amount of graphemecolor synesthetes among individuals with sequencespace.This time the number of cooccurrences was reduced than observed in our study but right here too, recruitment was not homogeneous.Simner and Holenstein measured each graphemecolor and OLP, but their strict criterion for inclusion restricted their sample to only 3 persons with OLP (see Table , footnote), precluding meaningful statistical comparisons.Novich et al. conducted the largest study to date on cooccurrences involving subtypes of synesthesia, around the basis of about , selfreferred reports.Nevertheless, like in our study, most subtypes could not be verified.Prevalence estimates had been not possible given that only possible synesthetes filled out their on the web questionnaire.Relative prevalence prices with the different subtypes had been also not attainable to calculate, due to the fact graphemecolor synesthetes have been apparently additional motivated to pay a visit to the “synaesthesia battery” web page (probably as a result of Diroximel Data Sheet investigation interests and media coverage).This bias is expressed in their higher proportion of graphemecolor PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21542856 synesthetes (about ) in comparison to sequencespace synesthetes , while systematic recruitment studies have discovered a a lot higher prevalence of sequencespace than graphemecolor, comparing both inside (Seron et al) and across populations (i.e Sagiv et al vs.Simner et al).This strong bias signifies that their observed prices of cooccurrences couldn’t be extrapolated to the general population, as demonstrated by the following thought experiment if only graphemecolor synesthetes visited the synaesthesia battery website, then all sequencespace synesthetes would also report graphemecolorFrontiers in Psychology Cognitive ScienceNovember Volume Report Chun and HupMirrortouch, ticker tape, and synesthesiaTable Cooccurrence comparisons.Subtype Study Population Recruitment Verification of associations GC amongst MT GC amongst MT OLP among MT OLP among MT TSC among 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.
