Institut des Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique (ISIR), Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.
Multisens Res. 2020 Jul 1;34(3):297-322. doi: 10.1163/22134808-bja10010.
Sensory Substitution Devices (SSDs) are typically used to restore functionality of a sensory modality that has been lost, like vision for the blind, by recruiting another sensory modality such as touch or audition. Sensory substitution has given rise to many debates in psychology, neuroscience and philosophy regarding the nature of experience when using SSDs. Questions first arose as to whether the experience of sensory substitution is represented by the substituted information, the substituting information, or a multisensory combination of the two. More recently, parallels have been drawn between sensory substitution and synaesthesia, a rare condition in which individuals involuntarily experience a percept in one sensory or cognitive pathway when another one is stimulated. Here, we explore the efficacy of understanding sensory substitution as a form of 'artificial synaesthesia'. We identify several problems with previous suggestions for a link between these two phenomena. Furthermore, we find that sensory substitution does not fulfil the essential criteria that characterise synaesthesia. We conclude that sensory substitution and synaesthesia are independent of each other and thus, the 'artificial synaesthesia' view of sensory substitution should be rejected.
感觉替代设备（SSD）通常用于通过招募另一种感觉方式（如触觉或听觉）来恢复已经丧失的感觉方式的功能，例如为盲人恢复视力。感觉替代在心理学、神经科学和哲学中引发了许多关于使用 SSD 时体验本质的争论。首先出现的问题是，感觉替代的体验是由替代信息、替代信息还是两者的多感觉组合来表示。最近，人们已经将感觉替代与联觉进行了类比，联觉是一种罕见的情况，个体在受到另一种刺激时，会不由自主地在一种感觉或认知途径中体验到一种知觉。在这里，我们探讨将感觉替代理解为一种“人工联觉”的有效性。我们发现先前提出的这两种现象之间联系的建议存在几个问题。此外，我们发现感觉替代并不满足表征联觉的基本标准。我们的结论是，感觉替代和联觉是相互独立的，因此，应该拒绝感觉替代的“人工联觉”观点。
