Table 3.

Summary of different kinds of audiovisual crossmodal mappings/translations based on different kinds of stimulus dimension

	Visual dimension
Auditory dimension	Brightness (Prothetic)	Hue (Circular & Metathetic)	Shape (No obvious organization)
Loudness (Prothetic)	Putatively amodal (e.g., Lewkowicz & Turkewitz, 1980; Walker-Andrews, 1994), and hence also structurally-based) Loudness-luminosity (Caivano, 1994); Can also be considered as prothetic correspondence (Spence et al., 2013); NB. Lightness & brightness may elicit different correspondences; (Marks et al., 1987)	Anikin & Johansson (2019) report loudness associated with saturation; Hamilton-Fletcher et al. (2017) correspondence between frequency & chroma; (NB. Colour sometimes confounded with lightness)	No evidence
Pitch (Circular & Metathetic)	See Wicker (1968); Polarity mapping/ correspondence between low vs. high pitch; white vs. black. (Ludwig et al., 2011; Marks, 1987a; Melara, 1989); (NB. in polar correspondences, it tends to be the relative, rather than absolute pitch that matters, see Spence, 2019b)	Structural alignment of circular dimensions (Caivano, 1994; Field, 1835; Galeyev & Vanechkina, 2001; Goethe, 1840; Lavignac, 1899; Newton, 1704; Pridmore, 1992; Sebba, 1991; Wells, 1980). (NB. Pitch change may introduce loudness difference)	Turned into polar mapping between low vs. high pitch, and round vs. angular shape (Marks, 1987a; Parise & Spence, 2012; Wellek, 1927)
Timbre (No obvious organizational principle)	No evidence	Anikin & Johansson (2019); Donnell-Kotrozo (1978); Menouti et al. (2015); Mudge (1920); Reuter et al. (2018a)	Adeli et al. (2014); Gurman et al. (2021); (NB. Smith & Sera, 1992, suggest that shape is a metathetic dimension)