New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

So, You Want to Be a Synesthete?

Several “artificial” approaches exist but most evidence suggests that training cannot capture a synesthete’s experience

Cross-stitchers learn to link numbers and colors much like a grapheme-color synesthete. But an fMRI scan conducted while both types of subjects added numbers showed that a synesthete (left) had more activity in visual areas than a stitcher did (right).

FROM “DISSOCIATING SEMANTIC AND PERCEPTUAL COMPONENTS OF SYNAESTHESIA: BEHAVIOURAL AND FUNCTIONAL NEUROANATOMICAL INVESTIGATIONS,” BY LORIN J. ELIAS ET AL., IN COGNITIVE BRAIN RESEARCH, VOL. 16, NO. 2; APRIL 2003

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Tasting words, smelling shapes and other synesthetic experiences can have their advantages. The condition has long been linked to creativity—as the lists of famous artists, writers and musicians with synesthesia would suggest—and the strange sensory overlaps may also boost memory. All of which leads many nonsynesthetes to wonder whether they could learn to see sound and taste letters.

There are several “artificial” approaches to synesthesia—sensory deprivation or psychedelic drugs, for instance, are purported to achieve a similar effect—but in most “natural” cases there is clearly a genetic component. Still, learned experience plays an important role in establishing specific sensory associations. This fact can help explain why, for example, people who see letters in color often see A, a frequently used letter, in red, a common hue.

Some experiments suggest people can be trained to acquire synesthetic experiences. In 2014 psychologist Nicolas Rothen and his colleagues, all then at the University of Sussex in England, signed up 14 volunteers—who had no personal history of synesthesia—for an intensive training course in which they were taught 13 letter-color associations. After nine weeks the participants started seeing letters in color even outside the laboratory. But the results of other similar studies were mixed, with several failing to train people to experience any form of synesthesia.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In one case report, a nonsynesthete spent eight years mastering the art of cross-stitching, in which numbers signify the use of specific thread colors (for example, “3” means “red”). When the nonsynesthete's performance on connecting colors with numbers was compared with that of a synesthete, the two were basically indistinguishable. But there was a catch. During functional MRI tests, their brains lit up very differently, suggesting that the experience of the synesthete was unlike that of the trained person. What is unique to synesthesia, the authors conclude, are “photisms”—involuntary, hallucinationlike sensations of light or color.

In 2014 Rothen and psychologist Beat Meier of the University of Bern in Switzerland reviewed the seven synesthesia-training studies published to date. They concluded that even if we can train some aspects of synesthesia so some people can mimic these sensations, the true experience probably remains out of reach for most of us.

Marta Zaraska, a freelance writer based in France, is author of Growing Young: How Friendship, Optimism and Kindness Can Help You Live to 100 (Appetite by Random House, 2020). She wrote “Shrinking Animals” in Scientific American's June 2018 issue.

More by Marta Zaraska
SA Mind Vol 27 Issue 6This article was published with the title “So, You Want to Be a Synesthete?” in SA Mind Vol. 27 No. 6 (), p. 69
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1116-69

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe