Close
today i learned (til)

Enigmatic World of Chromesthesia

May 2, 2024

When we listen to music, we evoke a wide range of emotions within ourselves. Whether it be the lyrics of a song or the beats of the music, we connect with the music and feel all types of emotions. Whether they are emotions of sadness or feelings of joy, music is more to us than just an auditory sensation. But imagine if music is more than that, instead of just emotions, you find yourself stuck in a world full of vivid colors, like a kaleidoscope changing constantly due to each note, beat, and chord within a song. People who experience music through colors like that have the neurological phenomenon called chromesthesia, which allows them to constantly see vibrant colors in their minds whenever they hear a tune. 

Synesthesia is a neurological phenomenon where one sensory pathway triggers the experiences of another, which offers a unique interconnectedness between the senses. Amongst its various forms, one of the most common forms of synesthesia is chromesthesia, where different sounds evoke a different vivid color in someone’s mind. For individuals with chromesthesia, listening to music isn’t just an auditory experience but a very visual one. Each note, chord, and melody create different colors, shapes, and patterns in their mind, and every time the music changes, these colors, shapes, and patterns change as well. These synthetic experiences are deeply personal, with each person associating specific sounds with distinct colors, textures, and intensities that they have no control over. 

“Chromesthesia” Image Credit: Chromesthesia Music Visualizer

Chromesthesia is estimated to affect approximately 1–2% of the population, but it is very common to people with synthetic experience. However, due to the individualized nature of chromesthesia, it is very hard to accurately determine its prevalence. Research indicates that both genetic and environmental factors influence chromesthesia. Family studies have shown a higher prevalence among relatives of synesthetes, while environmental factors, such as early exposure to music or language, also play a significant role. There are many neuroimaging studies that reveal there is an increased connectivity between auditory and visual brain regions in individuals with chromesthesia. This connectedness is based on a theory called the cross-activation theory of synesthesia. This theory suggests that synesthetic experiences arise from increased communication between different brain regions, suggesting a remarkable cross-modal integration of sensory information. According to this theory, people with synthesis have a sensory input in one modality (e.g., hearing a sound) that automatically triggers another modality (e.g., seeing colors). This cross-activation is thought to occur due to atypical neural connections between sensory areas of the brain, causing the stimulation of one sensory pathway to spill over into another. This theory suggests that synesthesia arises from the brain’s inherent flexibility and ability to create novel connections between sensory pathways, leading to the blending or merging of sensory experiences.

In conclusion, chromesthesia, a form of synesthesia where sounds evoke vivid colors, shapes, and patterns, offers a unique glimpse into the interconnectedness of our senses. For individuals with chromesthesia, music isn’t just heard but also seen, creating a rich multisensory experience. While it affects an estimated 1-2% of the population, its prevalence is difficult to accurately determine due to its highly individualized nature. Both genetic predispositions and environmental factors, such as early exposure to music or language, contribute to the development of chromesthesia. Neuroimaging studies suggest that chromesthesia arises from increased connectivity between auditory and visual brain regions, supporting the cross-activation theory of synesthesia. This theory proposes that synesthetic experiences emerge from atypical neural connections, allowing sensory input in one modality to trigger experiences in another. Chromesthesia showcases the remarkable flexibility and complexity of the human brain in integrating sensory information, offering a fascinating window into the wonders of perception and cognition.

References:

Chromesthesia Music visualizer (PC). realovirtual.com. (n.d.). https://www.realovirtual.com/rovdb/juegos/11997/chromesthesia-music-visualizer

Dring, D. (2017, November 9). Chromesthesia: Hearing and seeing sound in colour: Beardedgmusic. Bearded Gentlemen Music. https://beardedgentlemenmusic.com/2017/11/09/chromesthesia-seeing-sound-in-colour/

Hubbard, Edward M., et al. “Individual differences among grapheme-color synesthetes: brain-behavior correlations.” Neuron 45.6 (2005): 975-985.

Makhlin, J. (2014). Chromesthesia as phenomenon: emotional colors.

Simner, J., & Hubbard, E. M. (2006). Variants of synesthesia interact in cognitive tasks: Evidence for implicit associations and late connectivity in cross-talk theories. Neuroscience, 143(3), 805-814.

0Likes
About Author

Student at Georgia Tech, studying Computer Science

You May Also Like

Courtesy of Bella Beeco
Articles, Story Time, today i learned (til)
The Evolution from Fossil to Monster
Funny Bone, today i learned (til)
Badass Biology: Humanity’s Most Important Adaptation
Articles, Field Notes, today i learned (til)
A Spotlight on Black Licorice and its Darker Side
Articles, today i learned (til)
To Vibe or Not to Vibe

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.