N SSGC, Graphemecolor; MT, Mirrortouch; OLP Ordinallinguistic personification; SS, sequence space; TSC, Temporal sequencecolora Banissy b Sagiv c Seronet al people were recruited systematically and folks had been recruited by selfreferral.et al Nongraphemecolor synesthetes have been recruited systematically (n ) but graphemecolor synesthetes (n ) had been selfreferred on the net.et al From a mixed recruitment group (see Table , footnote for any complete explanation), detailed questionnaires showed out of SS who had GC aswell; brief questionnaires showed out of SS who had GC as well.synesthesia.In spite of such a bias, the primary outcome of that study a clustering of subtypes of synesthesiais likely valid, and in that case very informative.Continuing the thought experiment, if only graphemecolor synesthetes visited the synaesthesia battery website, that alone wouldn’t lead to a greater proportion of these also experiencing colors for temporal sequences than those also experiencing sequencespace (as observed by Novich et al).Such strong bias would predict the exact same proportion of graphemecolor synesthetes (which is, within this intense case) amongst their entire sample and also the subset of synesthetes with sequencespace (as observed by Novich et al), but with no influence on the proportions of PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21542426 synesthetes with soundcolor associations, for instance, inside the whole sample and among sequencespace synesthetes.For that reason we’ve no cause to suspect that their recruitment bias concerns their observed clustering of subtypes of 4′-Methoxyflavonol medchemexpress synesthesia inside five groups.Such clustering leads to precise predictions for our study.Amongst the five subtypes integrated in each Novich and our study, four varieties belonged to unique groups.Only graphemecolor and temporal sequencecolor belonged for the exact same group.In agreement with Novich et al cooccurrence amongst these two varieties was the only one in our study that reached a medium impact size.Novich and colleagues emphasized the relative independence between subtypes of synesthesia, showing, by way of example that the proportion of individuals possessing every sort of synesthesia was pretty comparable for synesthetes with or with no sequencespace synesthesia.Our final results usually do not contradict this observation sequencespace synesthesia was drastically correlated with each other subtype, not any subtype in distinct (all small impact sizes, phi involving .and .see Table).Novich and colleagues could not measure such a correlation since they had no handle group without synesthesia.Our benefits therefore show that, even when synesthetic subtypes cluster in distinct groups, as shown by Novich et al synesthetes tend to experience various subtypes of synesthesia, an important argument for inclusion within a distinctive phenotype.Following such logic, one may well argue for like mirrortouch and ticker tape also inside the synesthesia phenotype.Having said that, cooccurrence should really not be the sole criterion deemed, as exemplified by the cooccurrence of absolute pitch and synesthesia (Gregersen et al).In addition, the typical effect sizes of cooccurrences among phenomenal traits and synesthesia had been weak (.for mirrortouch and .for ticker tape), even weaker than involving subgroups of synesthesia .Provided the higher uncertainty surrounding these numbers (resulting from our methodological limitations), further analysis will likely be necessary ahead of reaching any sturdy conclusion.At this stage, we would like to conclude that genetic andor neurological hyperlinks involving synesthesia, mirrortouch and (but to.