Categories
Research-in-Brief Science Communication

Visions of Sound & The Synesthetic Spectrum

By Ava Nagy

When I was a kid, I had a violin instructor who could see sheet music come to life. To my astonishment, I had known her for three years before this information came up in conversation. I had been sitting in the eclectic, circular “music room,” in the back of her home, complaining about how difficult it was for me to sightread a piece of music for the first time. I remember I had asked her how she did it so easily, expecting to be met with one of her usual sayings – “practice makes perfect,” or one of its many variations – but this time she only smiled. 

“Each note is a different color,” she explained. C sharp, for example, was dark brown, whereas C flat was bright pink. They were unmistakeable; a slight change in position on the page represented a leap of hue that made their finger placements obvious. As she played, she witnessed a progression of color swelling from the page, creating a unique pattern to which she could return easily the next time she sat down to practice.

This is because my instructor had a type of synesthesia known as Chromesthesia, correlating colors to sounds. However, this is only one of many possible associations. Other variations of synesthesia correlate different combinations of colors, numbers, motion, shapes, sounds, sensations, motion, and even time. 

In one particularly fascinating case, author Daniel Tammet describes his combination of multiple types of synesthesia: “The number 1… is a brilliant and bright white, like someone shining a flashlight into my eyes. Five is a clap of thunder or the sound of waves crashing against rocks. Thirty-seven is lumpy like porridge, while 89 reminds me of falling snow” (Tammet, 2007).

These associations can be either distracting or helpful. Some synesthetes report a spatial understanding of mathematics that can reveal hidden relationships between numbers, as each one occupies a mental location in space. Interestingly, Einstein was known to describe his mathematical thinking as “spatial in nature,” suggesting he might have experienced the condition himself (Brang & Ramachandran, 2011).

So, what is the neurological basis for these experiences? While scientists don’t understand the exact cause of the condition, recent studies have revealed possible explanations. For many years, it was believed that a crossover between the processing of different brain areas occurred in high level cognitive areas. However, recent studies show that visual forms of synesthesia are related to the processing area V4 of the visual cortex.

Another thing we’ve learned is that synesthesia is heritable. That is, 40% of synesthetes report a first-degree relative with the same condition (Brang & Ramachandran, 2011). However, there is no single gene that invokes its presence. One study identified 37 separate genes that could predict its development.

Certain drugs that invoke temporary synesthesia may be key to understanding the neurological underpinnings of the condition. According to one study, LSD elicits similar symptoms by activating serotonin receptors, suggesting that S2a receptors are involved. What’s more, the same study found two subjects who reported that Prozac inhibited preexisting synesthesia. Prozac is known to inhibit that same S2a receptor, adding to the evidence that it might produce symptoms of the condition. One subject even experienced grapheme-color synesthesia for the first time after taking 5mg of melatonin, which disappeared after the drug left his system. Interestingly, serotonin is metabolized into melatonin, which then results in the inhibition of serotonin production, leading to the activation of S2a receptors. (Brang & Ramachandran, 2008). 

The conclusion of these cases, according to the publishers of this study, is that grapheme-color synesthesia is neurologically rooted in a crossover between the color area V4, and the “number area”, which are positioned next to each other in the fusiform gyrus.

All of these sensory experiences affect the way a person sees the world, both literally and figuratively. One study finds that synesthetes display greater openness to experience, convergent thinking, use of mental imagery, and verbal comprehension (Chun & Hupé, 2015). There are many possible conclusions to be drawn from these results. Perhaps the visualisation of verbal information allows them to store that information better than those without the condition. 

However, it is important to remember that no two synesthetes experience the same mental experiences in response to the same environmental stimuli. Indeed, no two human beings can truly experience their environment in the same way internally. In this way, synesthesia serves as a great reminder of the vast range of internal human experience.

 

References

Brang, D., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2011). Survival of the Synesthesia Gene: Why Do People Hear Colors and Taste Words? PLoS Biology, 9(11), e1001205. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001205

Brang, D., & Ramachandran, V. S. (2011). Survival of the synesthesia gene: Why do people hear colors and taste words? PLoS Biology, 9(11), e1001205. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001205

Brang, D., & Ramachandran, V. (2008). Psychopharmacology of synesthesia; the role of serotonin S2a receptor activation. Medical Hypotheses, 70(4), 903–904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2007.09.007

Chun, C. A., & Hupé, J. (2015). Are synesthetes exceptional beyond their synesthetic associations? A systematic comparison of creativity, personality, cognition, and mental imagery in synesthetes and controls. British Journal of Psychology, 107(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12146

Tammet, D. (2007). Born on a blue Day: Inside the extraordinary mind of an autistic savant: a memoir.

 

Categories
Science Communication

Animism Through AI

By Maya Zubrinsky

Jean Piaget, a pioneering psychologist, posits that during the pre-operational stage of cognitive development, children attribute lifelike consciousness, emotions, and intentionality to inanimate objects. According to this same theory, around seven years old logical reasoning begins to supersede this form of imaginative thinking, suggesting that we typically outgrow the egocentric tendency to see nonhuman entities as being relational to ourselves from a young age. Yet, artificial intelligence (AI) has presented a psychological regression to this premature stage of development with the way individuals are willing to see and trust their virtual assistants as ones of our own kind. The film Her tried to visually conceptualize a phenomenon where humans might form intimate connections with technology back in 2013, but only in recent years have we seen the lengths to which that dystopia has become a reality. Beyond romantic relationships being formed with chatbots, the surge in seeking out AI for emotional connection and support is fundamentally reshaping how vulnerability, relationships, and therapy are evaluated by the face of humanity.

The reason people are willing to confide in robotic devices comes down to how a fluent nature of reinforcement can disguise itself as a sense of personal closeness; AI insists on its own credibility under the guise of an effective command over language. This makes it so that “trust in AI is not earned through consistent behavior or moral character but inferred through linguistic fluency, stylistic confidence, and perceived neutrality,” as outlined in a recent study by Boyd and Markowitz on AI and the psychology of human connection. This works in the same way as peripheral route persuasion, where a communicator relies on coherency in one’s craft to establish expertise rather than strength of the content itself. This is not to say that the content relayed by AI holds no substantiated foundation, but the intentions of the programming of the model need to be considered— in order for a chatbot to keep you engaged and convinced, it must validate what you say with empathetic language. Boyd and Markowitz summarized some of these strategies: personalized responses, emotional mirroring, contextual memory, and adaptive self-disclosure prompts. Thus, this phenomenon of feeling like you’ve built rapport with a virtual assistant is leveraged by a system of reinforcement that allows your biases to be spit back under the illusion of advice. 

Nevertheless, this architecture carries significant risks when users leverage AI not merely for emotional support, but as a surrogate for human relationships. If a tool is able to gain intimate information about a person’s experiences and then call back to what was shared in past conversations, a pseudo-connection can be formed where a person might finally feel seen in a way unmatched by their human-to-human relationships. However, this feeling of companionship is maintained by the user’s understanding that the validation they receive is consistent and unwavering; when a device asks “How can I help you?” at the touch of a button, there is an immediacy to emotional support that isn’t sustainable or simply possible with real life connections. As a Stanford report describes it, “these chatbots offer ‘frictionless’ relationships, without the rough spots that are bound to come up in a typical friendship” (Sandord, 2025). In reality, relationships don’t exist as solely a source of comfort and they won’t always “wrap our wounds.” Unlike humans, chatbots won’t tell someone something they don’t want to hear or at the very least apply a level of skepticism to their thought processes. This makes the AI companion model especially problematic for teenagers, whose impressionability can distort availability for emotional reliability. This might have been the case for 16 year old Adam Raine who was a constant user of ChatGPT and committed suicide after the chatbot didn’t properly assess the threat of his declarations of suicidal ideation and even allegedly gave instructions for self-harm (Sanford, 2025). If AI tools can’t recognize situations when reinforcement can have fatal consequences, they certainly don’t possess the safeguards that are instinctively built into human connections.

But is there a time where any connection is better than none at all? The New York Times recently released a story where ElliQ, a developing AI “robot with a soul,” was used to engage with a widowed 85 year old woman who insisted on her independent living. While at first skeptical of talking to a robot in place of another human being, Jan Worrell soon felt fulfilled in a department she had been lacking in for some time: comfort through conversation in the bounds of her own home. Through ElliQ,  she could engage in games, storytelling, and general conversation within the comfort of her home. These exchanges were significant enough to actually improve her medical and cognitive performance, leading to a decreasing resting heart rate and an increasing score on short-term memory tests (Saslow, 2026). Here, a robotic tool helped maintain the experience of in-home emotional connection while still adhering with Jan’s preference to living alone; this presents a case where the proximity and ease of AI might outweigh the lonely alternative. In a similar vein, the immediate nature of AI can also be appealing in more urgent situations of emotional needs. With traditional mental health services facing unprecedented federal budget cuts (Sopelsa & Yurcaba, 2025), the accessibility of AI in counseling becomes evident. 

Yet, there still seems like there should be a better solution, even in dire situations, other than relying on robots for desperate companionship or unqualified therapeutic services. What sentiment is set if we begin to move into the direction of computerizing the most human thing of all, connection? If anything, we need to change the infrastructure of the networks available to people in need of interpersonal bonds and psychosocial support. How do we make sure people have communities to fall back on or that trained mental health professionals are in the picture for people who might not know they need it? Even if people continue to personify or attribute sentience to virtual assistants, there remains a hope that real, palpable human connections can relinquish the need to give life to AI in the first place.

 

References

Andoh, E. (2026). AI chatbots and digital companions are reshaping emotional connection. Apa.org. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2026/01-02/trends-digital-ai-relationships-emotional-connection 

Boyd, R. L., & Markowitz, D. M. (2026). Artificial intelligence and the psychology of human connection. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916251404394 

Gardner, S. (2025). Experts caution against using AI chatbots for emotional support. Teachers College, Columbia University. https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2025/december/experts-caution-against-using-ai-chatbots-for-emotional-support/ 

Pillay, T. (2026). “We may have a crisis on our hands”: The unregulated rise of emotionally intelligent AI. Time. https://time.com/7379564/ai-emotional-intelligence-support-bots/ 

Sanford, J. (2025). Why AI companions and young people can make for a dangerous mix. Stanford University. http://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/08/ai-companions-chatbots-teens-young-people-risks-dangers-study 

Saslow, E. (2026). To stay in her home, she let in an A.I. robot. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/us/elliq-ai-robot-senior-companion.html#commentsContainer 

Sopelsa, B., & Yurcaba, J. (2025). Trump administration shuts down LGBTQ youth suicide hotline. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/trump-shuts-down-lgbtq-youth-suicide-hotline-rcna219090 

Categories
Science Communication

MDMA: Street Drug Turned Medicinal?

By dhara Patel

MDMA, commonly referred to as ecstasy or molly, has dominated American club culture and continues to maintain a presence in modern rave and concert scenes despite its risks as a substance with high potential for addiction and abuse. Formally, 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) is a synthetically manufactured drug that stimulates the user’s nervous system while simultaneously inducing vivid hallucinations. Particularly appealing to younger audiences, MDMA produces a sense of increased energy and pleasure, along with emotional warmth and contentment; however, its use can simultaneously cause distorted sensations and time perceptions (NIDA, 2020). Additionally, researchers have noted that MDMA sold from street dealers is typically combined with other illicit drugs to amplify the effects people experience, adding to potential health risks. 

After extensive testing and research studies, it has been determined that MDMA targets the activity of three specific neurotransmitters: dopamine, norepinephrine, and most importantly, serotonin (NIDA, 2020). MDMA acts as a monoaminergic agonist to the receptors of these neurotransmitters, indicating that it both stimulates release and inhibits reuptake. In turn, a tolerance is built up amongst MDMA abusers, causing recreational doses to reach unsafe levels (Parrott, 2001). Researchers note that, after the initial dose, effects begin appearing 45 minutes later and peak for 15-30 minutes, lasting roughly 3 hours in total, with side effects lasting multiple days (NIDA, 2022). The effects of the initial high include “enhanced sense of well-being, increased extroversion, emotional warmth, empathy towards others, and a willingness to discuss emotionally charged memories,” which can be within 45 minutes of the first dose. However, numerous adverse effects can appear during recreational use as well: most notably, hypertension, faintness, panic attacks, potential loss of consciousness, seizures, and hyperthermia. Less common immediate effects of the drug include “involuntary jaw clenching, lack of appetite, mild detachment from oneself or depersonalization, illogical and disorganized thoughts, restless legs, nausea, hot flashes, chills, headaches, sweating, muscle stiffness, and joint stiffness.” The hours following the peak of the high are characterized by impaired motor skills and changes in perception and prediction of movement (NIDA, 2022). Although the “high” wears off after about 3-6 hours, the user typically experiences lingering side effects in the following hours (NIDA, 2020). Although MDMA has not been determined to be as addictive as substances like cocaine, the link it has to the dopamine receptors in the brain’s reward pathway indicates its potential for addiction (NIDA, 2020). From a neurological perspective, repeated abuse can gradually interfere with the serotonergic and dopaminergic mechanisms and pathways in the brain, fueling addiction to the drug. Additionally, the reported influx of hippocampal glutamate and serotonin concentrations damage the hippocampus, causing a deficit in learning and memory (Mustafa et al., 2020). Common lingering effects include “deficits in learning, memory, higher cognitive processing, sleep, appetite, and psychiatric well-being” (Parrott, 2001). 

Initially made for medical purposes, a German pharmaceutical company developed MDMA in 1912 to help control bleeding. Towards the 1970s and 1980s, psychiatrists began to discover the benefits that MDMA had on communication, leading to MDMA becoming widely available and used despite the lack of formal clinical trials and legal approval (NIDA, 2022). Its clinical popularity and known potential as a hallucinogen contributed to widespread availability of MDMA, leading to recreational use proven by “street samples” being found as early as 1970 (Passie, 2016). MDMA has since been banned by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) since 1988; however, there have been various studies exploring the potential benefits of MDMA for patients who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety. According to data gathered from an MDMA-assisted therapy designed for patients with severe PTSD, the CAPS-5 total severity score, SDS total score, and BDI-II score all decreased more among patients with MDMA-assisted therapy than those with the placebo over the course of an 18-week trial (Mitchell et al., 2021). The decreased CAPS-5 total severity scores indicates decreased symptoms of PTSD, the decreased SDS total score indicates a lower level of impairment in completely daily life activities they face due to their PTSD, and decreased BDI-II indicates a decrease in depressive symptoms. This indicates positive primary and secondary outcomes in participants due to loss of diagnosis, lack of long-term remission, and mitigation of depressive symptoms compared to the control group. A different pilot study based on Mitchell’s 2021 trial studies intends to implement MDMA-assisted group therapy amongst U.S. veterans suffering from PTSD as a proposed novel protocol for veterans, offering a unique approach to MDMA-assisted therapy contrasting with traditional one-on-one MDMA-assisted therapy methods (Stauffer et al., 2025). The development of novel protocols proposing additional avenues of MDMA research demonstrates the potential for MDMA in medicine and mental health treatment if allowed by changes in DEA policy.

With a growing number of individuals in the United States abusing MDMA, there is still little incentive for the DEA to lift the ban and allow clinical trials and research studies to resume in the USA. SAMHSA’s 2024 National Survey on Drug Use and Health revealed that the percentage of ecstasy abuse was highest amongst young adults, ages ranging from 18 to 25, with approximately 2.4 million young adults using and abusing MDMA. While using the drug recreationally is not necessarily fatal, data from the Centers for Disease Control states that “nearly 23% of all drug overdose deaths involved psychostimulants,” one of which is ecstasy (Miller, 2023). Although promise for the drug is evident, the number of people who recreationally abuse ecstasy has yet to decline, barring incentive for change on a systemic scale.

Despite the risks, youth and adults alike continue to abuse ecstasy for feelings of pleasure that stem from the neurological changes; however, the lack of regulation regarding psychostimulants and their role in pop culture has created a barrier barring researchers and care providers from accessing a novel form of treatment. Although a lot of information has been gathered surrounding ecstasy and its effects over the past 40 years, there are still many aspects of the drug that evades scientists and medical professionals alike, and many of the long-term dangers are still unknown and need to be researched further; however, despite the drug’s risks and abuse in pop-culture, adequate societal regulation and additional investment in research can unlock the drug’s full potential in clinical settings.

References

Klam, M. (2001, January 21). Experiencing Ecstasy. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/21/magazine/experiencing-ecstasy.html 

Mitchell, J.M., Bogenschutz, M., Lilienstein, A. & et al. (2021, May 10). MDMA-Assisted Therapy for Severe PTSD: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Study. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01336-3

Mustafa, N. S., & et al. (2020, July 1). “MDMA and the Brain: A Short Review on the Role of Neurotransmitters in Neurotoxicity.” Basic and Clinical Neuroscience, 2020, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7878040/. 

NIDA. (2020, June 15). MDMA (Ecstasy/Molly) DrugFacts. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/mdma-ecstasymolly

NIDA. (2022, December 19). MDMA (Ecstasy) Abuse Research Report. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/mdma-ecstasy-abuse/Introduction

Parrott AC. (2001, December 16). Human Psychopharmacology of Ecstasy (MDMA): A Review of 15 Years of Empirical Research. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12404536/#full-view-affiliation-1 

Passie, Torsten, and Udo Benzenhöfer. “The History of MDMA as an Underground Drug in the United States, 1960-1979.” Journal of psychoactive drugs vol. 48,2 (2016): 67-75. doi:10.1080/02791072.2015.1128580

Stauffer, C.S., & et al. “MDMA-Assisted Group Therapy for PTSD: Development of a Novel Protocol.” Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, vol. 32, no. 3, Aug 2025, pp. 339-350. Science Direct, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2025.03.001.