Exploring Synesthesia Research and Digital Distractions with Richard E. Cytowic | Glasp Talk #11

This is the eleventh session of Glasp Talk!

Glasp Talk delves deep into intimate interviews with luminaries from various fields, unraveling their genuine emotions, experiences, and the stories behind them.

Today's guest is Dr. Richard E. Cytowic, a distinguished professor of Neurology at George Washington University. Dr. Cytowic is renowned for his groundbreaking work on synesthesia, a condition he brought back into the scientific mainstream against significant skepticism. He is the author of the award-winning book "Wednesday Is Indigo Blue" and a nominee for the prestigious Pulitzer Prize.

In this interview, Dr. Cytowic discusses his journey from being labeled "philosophically minded" in the early days of his career to becoming a leading expert in higher cortical functions. He shares his experiences in studying synesthesia, the challenges he faced, and how his research has influenced our understanding of the brain's organization. Dr. Cytowic also delves into the implications of digital distractions on the Stone Age brain and offers insights into the future of neurology and cognitive research. Join us as we explore the intriguing world of neurology, synesthesia, and digital age challenges with Dr. Richard E. Cytowic.

Transcript

Glasp: Welcome back to Glasp Talk. Today, we have an amazing speaker, Dr. Richard E. Cytowic, a distinguished professor of Neurology at George Washington University. He's famous for having discovered synesthesia 40 years ago and brought it back into the scientific mainstream in the face of dogmatic skepticism. He won the Montaigne Medal for his book "Wednesday is Indigo Blue" and was also nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in the past. Today, we'd like to ask him about what synesthesia is, what's happening in the research, and also about digital distraction and his new upcoming book "Stone Age Brain." So, Dr. Richard, thank you for joining us today.

Richard E. Cytowic: My pleasure. Thank you for asking me.

Glasp: So, first of all, I briefly introduced you, but could you introduce yourself a little bit to people who don't know you yet?

Richard E. Cytowic: Well, I am a clinical professor of Neurology at George Washington University. My interests have always been not basic things like seizures and multiple sclerosis and peripheral neuropathy but what are called higher cortical functions, that is, the things that make us think and remember and feel. I remember I wrote a paper when I was a medical student about aphasia in Maurice Ravel. Aphasia is a loss of language, and when I first learned about that, I thought, "Oh my God, how diabolical. Somebody can make noises and move their tongue, but they can't speak; they can't understand. How awful is that?" And so, that paper won a prize. But at the time, this was in the early '70s, the professors and my colleagues labeled me as "philosophically minded" because at that point, language and memory and Alzheimer's disease had nothing to do with Neurology. Nobody was interested in them, and I thought, "Well, my God, you're studying the brain. How could you not be interested in what the brain is doing to make us human beings?" So, I was always an outlier in that respect, and I continued to pursue higher cognitive functions. That included later on becoming interested in closed head trauma, that is, people who got hit in the head in auto accidents or fell down the steps or had boxes hit on them in the head or had sports injuries. People would get a neck x-ray or a head x-ray or a CAT scan even back then, and everything was normal. So, it was like, "Well, there's nothing wrong with you." And yet these people complained of all sorts of physical and cognitive problems. I thought, "Well, you can't say there's nothing wrong with you because the doctor can't see anything wrong. Our methods of looking at people are inadequate." I had trained in ophthalmology before I started in neurology, and so people were complaining about seeing all sorts of things and flashing lights and narrowed vision. When we actually looked at them with appropriate methods, we found that they indeed had things like tears in their retina that could be repaired by laser surgery. So, that was another interesting episode in my life, showing that yes indeed, there is something wrong with you if only the doctors would learn how to look where they needed to look. Let me fast forward to what I do today, which is mentor medical students at George Washington University. George Washington is one of my alma maters, and we teach what's called patient-centered medicine. So, we never talk about a case of anything. There's never a patient who's a case of something. They are always an individual who has a particular problem that you, the student, needs to solve. It's very patient-centered. I guess I would say that that's my modus operandi really, to forget what the establishment says, what orthodoxy says. This is the nature of orthodoxy. Whenever I first started with synesthesia, the establishment was quick to say, "Oh no, this can't possibly be real. This cannot possibly be a real brain phenomenon. These people are just making it up. They just want attention. They're having residual hallucinations from their marijuana and LSD usage." When all those excuses failed, they finally said, "Well, they're just being artistic." In America, everybody knows that artists are just slightly crazy, so that's why they're claiming to see all these things. But it didn't take much; it didn't take million-dollar machines to show that synesthetic experiences were real. You could show that they were real with paper and pencil tests and with tests that had been around to study optical illusions and perception for a long, long time. But always the skeptics said that they wanted proof. They wanted a third-person proof of a first-person experience, which meant technical pictures of the brain or scans. Finally, when they got the scans, they had to shut up because the scans showed that in fact, these synesthetes did experience color and other aspects when they looked at letters and numbers or heard words, etc. That's really sad in a way. Michael Watson, my index patient, the man who tasted shapes, had a degree in botany, so he understood the scientific method. At one point, he became quite frightened that what I was doing was going to show that his experiences were bogus, fake. I thought, "Oh my God, Michael, you're willing to give up your first-person individual experience for what the establishment is saying is fake." That was the argument. The skeptics wanted a third-person technological verification of a first-person experience. Of course, I'm very happy to say that the whole attitude has changed over the past decades, and synesthesia is now a very, very popular topic. Young people all around the world are writing about it, doing research about it, and I couldn't be happier. Particularly, I couldn't be happier for the individuals who are synesthetes. Early on, I can't tell you how often I had people writing and calling and emailing saying, "Oh my God, you're the first person who's ever believed me. No one has ever believed me in my entire life. You gave me my freedom." I've had grown men crying, saying, "I can't believe this is real. Nobody ever accepted it." For a researcher, for a scientist, to have somebody say, "You changed my life," it can't get any better than that. So, I'm quite happy with my legacy in that regard.

Glasp: Yes, that's really impressive. When facing dogmatic skepticism, many people might give up, but you kept moving forward. What motivated you to do the research?

Richard E. Cytowic: I couldn't do otherwise. The phenomenon of colored hearing and synesthesia—people see colors when they hear music, people see colors when they read words or letters or numbers—how could you not be fascinated by that claim? Rather than saying, "Oh my God, this is ridiculous, this can't possibly be true," I thought, "What's the harm in looking and seeing what's behind this?" When I mentioned my index case, Michael Watson, the man who tasted shapes, and said, "When he tastes something, he feels it on his face and in his hand," they asked, "What does his CAT scan show?" I said, "No, no, you don't understand. He doesn't have a hole in his head; he doesn't have a lesion. He has something extra." They looked at me like I was insane and said, "Oh man, you'd better stay away from this. This is too weird, too new age. It's going to ruin your career." I don't know what happened to them, but my career has been just fine. The lesson there is that you just have to keep barking up the right tree and look where the evidence follows, rather than saying, "Oh, this evidence is no good. We have to discount it." Over the years, I have caused a paradigm shift in how we think the brain is organized. It used to be that we thought there were these five tubes that went from peripheral organs to the central brain and that there was no mingling in between them. That was the orthodox theory of modularity that reigned in the '70s and '80s. Of course, we now know that's completely wrong. It's nice to have been a force that caused our change in perspective. People ask me, "Why you? Why did you believe these people when everybody else said they were crazy, making it up, etc.?" At first, I thought it was because my father, who was a physician, a bon vivant, a raconteur, a magician, and an archer—he was a larger-than-life personality—instilled in me a taste for the offbeat and the unusual. But then it took me quite a long time to realize the actual reason was the fact that I'm gay. As a 10-year-old in New Jersey, my father's medical profession said I was sick, the state of New Jersey said I was a criminal, and the church said I was doomed to hell. I hadn't done anything. I was 10 years old. I thought, "What do these people know? They don't know me; they don't know anything about me. Who are they to make these kinds of judgments?" So, when I told people about Michael Watson, the man who tasted shapes, and they said, "No, no, no, it can't be real," I thought, "Oh man, I've heard this before." It just gave me the fortitude to keep pushing forward.

Glasp: I see. Thank you. I'm also interested in the research development in synesthesia recently. I read a book that says synesthesia often happens in childhood. How much do we know about the mechanisms of synesthesia and how it emerges?

Richard E. Cytowic: We know a lot compared to when I first started out. First of all, it's inherited very strongly and passed down from one generation to another. The genes that cause synesthesia are extremely common; one in 23 people carry the genes for synesthesia, but because they are not expressed with 100% accuracy, a smaller percentage, about one in 90, has some kind of overt synesthesia. The most common kinds are perceiving the days of the week as colored and colored graphemes, where the written elements of language—letters, numerals, punctuation signs, etc.—are colored. From there on, the less frequent kinds of synesthesia exist. It's actually quite common in the population. The big question is why. When you ask synesthetes what good it is, they say, "It helps you remember." When you test them, they have extraordinary memories. Synesthesia is a pretty thing to have, but what good does it do, and why is it maintained so high in the genetic database? I and a number of other people think that it's a gene for metaphor. Metaphor is seeing the similar in the dissimilar. If somebody says, "I know it's two because it's white," there's something about the taste and whiteness that's equivalent, and the synesthete experiences this. If you have these genes being expressed in sensory areas of the brain, then you will get overt synesthesia—colored hearing, color music, number forms, etc. But what happens if these genes are expressed in nonsensory areas of the brain, such as the frontal lobes or executive areas or areas involved with memory? Do you get a madman, or do you get a genius? This is one of the outstanding questions. A number of groups around the world have been searching for genetic markers for synesthesia, and they have found a number of them. Eventually, the hope is that once we get enough genetic markers to pinpoint the fact that a person who has this array of genetic markers is going to be a synesthete, that will allow us to predict who is going to be a synesthete and what they are like. If they are not overtly synesthetic, we can test for what they are like in terms of personality, memory, and other traits. That's a very exciting prospect for younger researchers to come up with.

Glasp: Yes, it's really fascinating. Maybe this is a stupid question, but does synesthesia happen to other animals, or is it specific to humans?

Richard E. Cytowic: Well, of course, there's no way to answer that. The initial question is whether this is an atavistic kind of trait. We know from studies with newborn mammals—guinea pigs, rats, cats, etc.—that there are connections among different sensory areas. This is in keeping with research by Daphne Maurer at McMaster University in Ontario. She showed that newborns between zero and three months are inherently synesthetic and lose this ability after three months. I think it's entirely reasonable to say that young mammals may have this capacity. Whether they keep it, we don't know what their conscious experiences are, so we can't say. But it is a fascinating question, and it would make sense because we're all related, we're all mammals. The Stone Age brain hasn't changed in its architecture in millennia, and every mammal that shares the blueprint for our brain has the same blueprint. It is shaped by the creature's experience in the world. So, to answer your question, yes, it's entirely plausible, but we have no way of knowing.

Glasp: Thank you for answering the question. I'm also interested in the relationship between synesthesia and memory. In your book, you said some people with synesthesia have a good memory in some situations. How much do we know about the relationship between synesthesia and memory?

Richard E. Cytowic: All synesthetes have excellent memories. When you ask them what good this beautiful but seemingly useless trait is, they say, "It helps remember things—phone numbers, addresses, items on a shopping list, etc." I first learned of the word synesthesia by reading a very old book by A.R. Luria, the Soviet father of neuropsychology. He wrote about a man named S who had extraordinary memory thanks to all these extra hooks that he had. This guy, S, went on to become a stage performer as a memory expert.

Glasp: Thank you. Nowadays, what is the research frontier in synesthesia? What is a hot topic in this area?

Richard E. Cytowic: Most people studying synesthesia around the world are limited by single case studies. There are also imaging studies, but the imaging studies basically tell us what we already know from basic neuroanatomy—that when people who say they hear colors hear words, the color area of the brain, V4, activates. That's not terribly exciting. What's really exciting and what's going to come in the future, and what I would like to see, is a mapping down of the timeline between child development and what kind of synesthesia an individual has. For a child to have synesthesia, you've got to be born with a genetic propensity to hook different kinds of sensations together, but you also must be exposed to cultural artifacts such as letters, numbers, the names of foods, how to tell time on the clock, etc. We know from about 60 years of research at the Gesell Institute of Child Development the exact timeline of when children learn certain things. If we can get children of synesthetes who we suspect might themselves become synesthetes and look at them early enough, we can see how their developmental milestones are coming along and if there is an indication of when synesthesia develops and if there is a time-locked occurrence between the two. That would be very exciting but very difficult. People have never shied away from difficult problems before.

Glasp: Yes, and I'm curious if you could tell us about the challenges and benefits that people with synesthesia experience in their daily lives.

Richard E. Cytowic: First of all, it's a wonderful thing to have. To lose it would be an odious state. They love having it. When you talk to them, it's astonishing because they'll describe a street name as delightful or a phone number as beautiful. These are mundane things, yet they have such an exciting emotional reaction to them. Most of all, when you ask what good it does, they say it helps them remember. That's the main thing—it endows them with an exceptional memory. Some of them have an eidetic memory, often called a photographic memory. They can look at something, like a book, and simply read off the page what they've seen. It definitely has a benefit in terms of memory. Other than being a beautiful, fuzzy, warm thing to have, it's not worth much, but the people who have it would never give it up for an instant. Once you have it as a child, you never lose it. All your life, it stays the same. I've had people in their 60s and 70s say, "Oh no, the colors shine as brightly as they ever did," and they love it. You can't deny human happiness.

Glasp: Exactly, and not only ordinary people but a lot of artists and composers have synesthesia.

Richard E. Cytowic: Yes, it turns out that we know many more famous artists who happen to be synesthetic than synesthetes who happen to be famous artists. Katherine V. Houck has done research showing that indeed synesthetes as a group are more creative than non-synesthetes. They speak a foreign language, they play a musical instrument, and they are engaged in something like knitting, pottery, sculpture, archery, whatever. Then the question is, are they more creative because they're synesthetic, or are they more synesthetic because they're creative? It's a chicken and egg problem. It is true that as a group, synesthetes are indeed more creative than the rest of us, and this fits in with the metaphor hypothesis. If you accept the metaphor hypothesis of synesthesia, it makes us more creative as a species, and synesthetes are proving this to be true.

Glasp: Yes, and you touched on the topic of the digital age and Stone Age brains. You first started researching synesthesia, but now you're researching Stone Age brains and digital distraction.

Richard E. Cytowic: Yes, I was really struck by how my iPhone was such a distraction. For years, my husband and I had what are called track phones, which basically you could just make phone calls, and that was it. One day in New York, we were looking for an address, and by that time, all the phone booths had been ripped out of Manhattan. We finally said, "We've got to get an iPhone if only for the maps." So, we got iPhones, and within days, I was just mesmerized by it. I said, "My God, no wonder everybody is so addicted to these things." That's what led me to this whole notion of digital distractions and the Stone Age brain. The brain that you and I have now resting comfortably in our heads is no different than the brain that our ancestor had three, four, five, six millennia ago. Brains just don't change that fast. What has changed fast is culture. The question is, can culture live up to what it's putting on the brain? My answer is no, it can't. Many people think they can multitask. Clifford Nass at Stanford University showed decades ago that no, you can't multitask. Even when he showed his young students how poor they were at multitasking, they didn't believe him. They discounted him and said, "No, of course we can." They wouldn't believe the evidence in front of their eyes. Today's era of smartphones, almost everybody I talk to says, "I'm addicted to my phone." If they say that, there must be some truth to it. The Stone Age brain has a fixed amount of bandwidth for attention that no amount of sudoku puzzles, diet, exercise, or you name it is going to change. You cannot change it. If you cannot change the amount of energy that's available for attention, you will overwhelm it and become confused, have fuzzy memory, brain fog, you name it. This is the issue of screens. We are so addicted and distracted by our screens today—iPhones, iPads, desktops—that it's overwhelming the attention bandwidth that our brain has to give.

Glasp: I see. Do you have some ideas, maybe you wrote about it in the upcoming book, but what do you think people should do to live with screens in the future? What is the best practice or a good way to not get distracted much and be productive?

Richard E. Cytowic: One is to understand that you are addicted and react appropriately rather than be defensive and say, "No, I'm not addicted." The biggest thing would be to realize the importance of silence, nature, and real-world interactions. I have a chapter called "Silence is an Essential Nutrient" suggesting that we need quiet around us, not constant stimulation—Snapchat streaks, notifications, endless distractions. The brain needs quiet and time to think and contemplate. Also, interacting with other human beings, not people on social media, because that's not interaction at all, that's just another distraction. This has been shown by recent research. Schools in California are now banning smartphones from their classes because they realize that replacing real human interaction leads to loneliness and social isolation. This has a corrosive effect on young children, causing depression and anxiety. The simple solution is to take the devices away and learn how to talk to one another.

Glasp: I see. At the same time, AI technology is advancing and improving over time. AI is creating new information, sometimes false news. On the other hand, some people say in the new era with AI, people who can leverage AI can do more. Do you have any thoughts on how to deal with AI or how we should adopt AI in this age of distraction?

Richard E. Cytowic: I have used AI myself, like ChatGPT, and it's amazing. I asked it to summarize my book, and it did so within 15 seconds, giving me all the highlights. That's quite an achievement. Where we go from here, I don't know. AI is here, and we're going to have to deal with it. The question is how to deal with it while staying as humanistically based as we can be. It's important to look at AI critically. Yes, it's wonderful and amazing, but we need to ask what it is doing, how it benefits us, and whether it is making our lives richer or just making us lazy. It comes down to the user and how the user regards AI—as a tool or a replacement. For me, I think of it as a tool. It's an incredible one, but I look at its output skeptically and think, "Okay, what's it come up with? Is this good or not?" We know that it hallucinates and comes up with wrong answers, so there always has to be a human being on the other end examining its output. I don't think it will replace human beings. When people talk about connecting the dots, that's fine, but if you don't know what dots are out there to connect, you're basically stupid. Young people say, "I can just look anything up on Google," but how do you know what to look up if you don't know anything about the world, about history, about current events, etc.? It always takes a human being with context to approach these tools.

Glasp: I totally agree with that. That's also a kind of message to new researchers at the university. I'm curious, in your daily life, how much are you using AI?

Richard E. Cytowic: I've used it in the past to help me write a column for my Psychology Today column, and it's been okay for things like oxymorons, etc. I used it to summarize my book talking points, but that's about it. I'm very new to this, just like everybody else, so I'm learning as we go along. I'll see how it goes. I'm open to seeing what it can do, and I think what it can do is incredible. I learned from somebody like Joanna Stern at the Wall Street Journal how to write good prompts for ChatGPT. You have to learn how to ask it questions in the right way, so that's another learning experience. We're all in this together.

Glasp: I'm curious about what interests you now and in the future. Do you have some ideas you want to address or work on in the near future? Maybe you're cooking something interesting behind the scenes.

Richard E. Cytowic: What I'm interested in is my garden. I have four gardens on each side of the house, and I spend time in there every day. I love digging in the dirt. It's kind of a physical Buddhist meditation to be in the gardens. At my age, I've done enough. I've had my time, I did my thing. It's time for younger people to take over. I'm interested in giving guidance and advice where I can to younger scientists and encouragement. There's really nothing else that I want to achieve. I'm quite happy with the books that I've written; those are my legacies. I'm extremely happy that I told orthodoxy to go away, listened to what is, and I think that's very important to tell young people. Remind people that the nature of orthodoxy is always to deny or explain away what it can't or doesn't wish to explain or understand. That was the case with synesthesia and many things. I think I sent you a piece from The New York Times about a woman who is a hyperosmotic. She can smell things and smell Parkinson's disease years before it's diagnosed. She was poo-pooed, "Oh no, no, this is ridiculous. It can't possibly be real." But after the people she was targeting were proved to have Parkinson's disease, the critics were silenced. That's another example of orthodoxy being told to shut up and not be so certain of what you think is true, but to have an open mind as to what might be. What might be is far more exciting than the rigid certainty of what we think we know. Our knowledge is very fluid, and this is the beauty of being a scientist. It's perfectly fine to be wrong. I've been wrong, and I remember somebody telling me, "Oh my God, he was so impressed that I admitted I was wrong." When you're wrong, it just means you're not barking up the right tree, so you've got to go look elsewhere. That's the beauty of science. If you're wrong, you can move elsewhere and look at something else.

Glasp: Thank you. I think we can apply that to anything in our life.

Richard E. Cytowic: I think so too. The ability to admit that you're wrong is one of the most liberating things a person can do. If you've had an argument with somebody, whatever it could be, and then you realize, "Oh, I was mistaken," do you have the humility to say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong, I apologize?" To say that is so liberating. There's nothing wrong with being wrong; own it.

Glasp: Thank you. Thank you so much for all the advice and sharing your insights.

Richard E. Cytowic: I don't know how useful that is. You said you wanted my philosophy of science. I don't know if I have a philosophy of science. I'm a mad dog with a bone in my jaw, and I just keep going, following the beat of my own drummer. I would suggest that young people do the same thing too. You will either be proven right or wrong, but if you feel in your heart that you're onto something, you should stick with it and pursue it and see where it goes. If you're wrong, you haven't lost a thing. If you're right, you should feel enormously gratified. That's just how science goes. It is what it is.

Glasp: I 100% agree with that. Thank you so much for joining today.

Richard E. Cytowic: Thank you for inviting me. I've got this book coming out from MIT Press on October 1st, and I'm looking for a young, savvy person to help me with social media. I used to write computer programs, and I was very proud of being able to do so, but today social media has changed so fast, so rapidly that I just don't know what to do. If you have any suggestions or people who might like to help me with promoting my new book on social media, I would be more than happy to hear from them.

Glasp: I also have your book. This is the Japanese edition.

Richard E. Cytowic: Oh, that one! The Japanese version. I was invited to the Aroma Science Foundation in Tokyo. I had a wonderful time doing that. It was great. I gave a talk in Tokyo, then we went to Kyoto, and I gave another talk at the science village there. I had a great time. I came home with lots of incense, by the way. Shoyeido incense. Yes, thank you for that. I haven't seen that cover in years. How does it translate? I was told in Tokyo that it was called "The Surprising Something or Other."

Glasp: This is the English edition, but this is a direct translation. The title makes sense; I can understand what you're talking about in the book.

Richard E. Cytowic: How does the title translate in English?

Glasp: "Surprising daily life of synesthesia." The original title is "The Man Who Tasted Shapes."

Richard E. Cytowic: It's always amazing how different languages translate the title. In German, it's quite different; in Italian and Korean, it's different. It's interesting to see how different languages translate the title.

Glasp: Does each country's publisher decide what the title will be?

Richard E. Cytowic: Yes, they do. It's never a literal quote from "The Man Who Tasted Shapes." It's always whatever they decide on, and it's amazing to see. In German, it's "Farbton," which means "hearing colors, tasting shapes." I speak German, so that's the only one I really understand.

Glasp: I love your book. I love the scientific approach. You came up with the question, and now you're interested in finding a clue to what is happening.

Richard E. Cytowic: I'm also interested in art. My father was a physician, my mother was an artist. His father was a technical glass blower at RCA who also made beautiful glass sculptures, whereas my mother's father was a botanist and a farmer. I had one foot in science and one foot in art as a child. To me, there was no difference between the two. This is what our family is. Synesthesia as an artistic thing spoke to me, and as a scientific thing, it spoke to me. I still see it that way. I'm very blessed to be a many-time recipient of an artist fellowship from the DC Commission on the Arts and Humanities. These are not project-based; they are merit-based. They must like what I do because they keep giving me money. I'm grateful, and I keep writing. Right now, I'm collaborating with an old classmate of mine from American University, where I got my Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing, and we're writing a murder suspense thriller called "What She Saw." I'm always doing something. I think this is what keeps people going and keeps people alive. Every day I wake up with a sense of purpose and think, "Yes, let's go, let's get at it. There's something to do." It's wonderful. I don't understand people who say they're bored because there's so much to do. The world is full of endless possibilities.

Glasp: Yes, you may count me as an optimist at heart. The glass is always half full, if not more full.

Richard E. Cytowic: I'm highly curious. I get that from my mother. She was very, very everything was always the best, the most wonderful, etc. Nothing was ever blah; it was always the best, this, that, and the other. No matter what she was doing. I think that's a gift to be able to see the possibility in every circumstance rather than to be sour and turn it down. I'm glad for my inheritance.

Glasp: Thank you so much.

Richard E. Cytowic: I won't keep you any longer. Thank you so much, the two of you. I enjoyed talking with you. Thank you for inviting me to chat with you, and I hope this was useful.

Glasp: Yes, thank you. Bye.

Richard E. Cytowic: Bye.

Follow Richard E. Cytowic on social:

• Twitter: @Cytowic
• LinkedIn: @cytowic
• Website: cytowic.net
• Book, "Your Stone Age Brain in the Screen Age: Coping with Digital Distraction and Sensory Overload"
• Book, "Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses - Second Edition"
• Top Highlights of "Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses - Second Edition"