Ainan Celeste Cawley (Independent Researcher)
Valentine Cawley (HELP University College KL)

Published in psycho.philica.com

Abstract
The human sensorium is thought to be well defined and well-understood. It is an area in which few surprises could be expected. However, we have observed a new human sense perception in a boy child: Velociperception – the direct visual perception of the velocity of moving objects. The perception attaches a directly perceptible code to angular velocities. The code has colour, shape and textural/tangible aspects to it. The perception was tested, using a falling object of known angular velocity with respect to the viewer. The perception is shown to be repeatable, persistent, consistent and ever present when objects are moving above a threshold angular velocity of approximately 8.63 degrees per second. Differing angular velocities have their own discrete codes, in a quantized manner. This new perception is theorized to arise through a new type of synaesthesia. This is the first description in the literature of this new sensory perception – and its existence proves that the human sensorium is still evolving and that new sensory perceptions are possible and suggests that, perhaps, other unknown perceptions may yet lie undiscovered.

Article body

Introduction: the discovery of a new "sense"

Since the beginning of Mankind, we have come to think of the human senses as being but five: sight, hearing, touch, taste and smell. Yet, are there other senses to be found in the vast variability of the human gene pool? Do some people sense the world in a different way from others? We have found one such example of a sensory variation.

When Ainan Celeste Cawley was eight years old, in 2008, he noticed something strange about moving objects: when they moved fast enough, a colour was associated with them. The colour was not of the object itself, but apart from it. The colour was not present for slowly moving objects, but became evident as objects speeded up. Furthermore, it was always evident once an object began to move fast enough, past a certain threshold. This colour projected in front of, and trailed behind the moving object.

This sense perception related to motion had another characteristic: the colours changed depending on the velocity of the moving object. In some very real way, Ainan was perceiving velocity, directly, as a sensory percept.

We have named this new sensory perception, Velociperception. This sense perception has a number of interesting characteristics which are explored in this paper.

The problem and its solution

To study the nature of this Velociperception, we needed a consistently reproducible moving stimulus, which could be used to evoke Ainan's visual response to velocity, repeatably, to allow us to characterize what exactly was happening.

The problem was that we had no access to any high tech equipment or machinery of any kind, to allow us to create consistently controllable velocities, to allow him to test his perceptions against them. Thus, we settled on the simplest set up, imaginable: a falling object.

The acceleration of an object under gravity, near Earth's surface, is well known and entirely reproducible. Each time an object is released to fall at the same location, it exhibits the same acceleration. So, for any given length of fall, the same velocity would be reached, each time. Thus, it was deemed that a falling object would provide both the simplest and an entirely reproducible stimulus, against which to test his perceptions of velocity.

Our equipment was very simple. It consisted of three standard yellow tennis balls; a piece of chalk, a pen and notepad, a ten storey building and a tape measure.

The ninth storey was chosen as the place from which the balls were to be dropped for architectural reasons: the tenth storey had an obstruction, in its design, which prevented ready access to the perimeter wall, disallowing its use as a vantage for the ball to be dropped.

The distance between the same point on two floors was measured, by the tape measure, and was determined to be 3 metres. Thus the height of the ninth storey was 27 metres.

The distance from the building was measured using the tape measure, and was kept consistent between each trial, for each set of trials.

Ainan stood at the appointed distance from the building and watched the ball as it fell, perceiving its changing colours as it did so. He then wrote down what he had experienced as it fell, and the colours it had shown at each level of the building. Note that in these trials, his gaze followed the ball downwards as it fell.

The first trials of ball dropping took place on the 10^th March 2009. These results were interesting in that they showed that the colours experienced by Ainan changed at every storey of the building, as the ball fell. Thus, he was experiencing differences in velocity, as differences in colours perceived. However, there was one incidence of inconsistency in the results (a reversal of the colours, giving the wrong expected colour for a particular velocity) that caused us some problem. It was some while before an explanation occurred to us: the movement of his eyes, during the fall of the ball, was changing the apparent velocity.

Since we did not control for the motion of his eyes, in the first round in March 2009, the experiments were re-conducted in August 2009, with care to keep his gaze still, during the course of the experiment.

Under the new method, a ball was dropped three times, for each trial. This was to ensure reproducibility of the visual experience. Ainan's gaze was held fixed at the test level of the building and did not move during the three drops. Once the three drops had finished, Ainan wrote down what he had perceived, for each ball drop.

This procedure was repeated for every level of the building. Three balls were dropped, testing the response to each level of fall, three times, in a row.

For the set of experiments on August  4th 2009, Ainan stood at a distance of 17 metres from the building, during the first set of trials. The distance was varied thereafter, on other days, precisely, for theoretical reasons that will be discussed later.

Three days later, on August 7^th 2009, the very same experiment was repeated again, using all of the same conditions and distances, to see if the results were the same. They were.

On August 8^th and August 9^th 2009, further trials were conducted at precise differing distances, to elucidate characteristics of the sensory perception, explained in the results.

All trials were conducted in relatively bright sunlight, during the afternoon, so that the falling ball could be readily seen. Furthermore, a standard yellow tennis ball was used for three reasons. Firstly, it has consistent aerodynamic properties from ball to ball and so it would not matter which ball was used - each would fall in the same way, with the same air resistance and the same acceleration, under the standardized conditions. Secondly, the balls are bright yellow, which makes them readily visible against the white painted building and easy to pick out, as they fall. Thirdly, the elastic tennis balls were chosen to ensure that the object dropped was safe, should it hit someone, accidentally.

Results

We shall only consider the results for the August trials, since the March trials did not control for movement of Ainan's eyes, during the fall of the ball - and it was observed that relative motion of eye and ball changed the results.

Trial of August 4^th 2009

Standard yellow tennis balls were dropped from the 9^th storey, of a white building (height 27 metres). The falling ball was viewed, successively, from the same point, on each storey, all the way down to the basement level (level 0). (Though this was actually viewed at ½ a storey…see later).

For all of these trials, on August 4^th 2009, Ainan stood at a distance of 17 metres from the building.

There were three trials of each ball dropping. Each trial gave the same visual response for the same height viewed; as long as his eye was kept steady in its gaze, at the correct level.

Table 1: Trials of August 4^th 2009

Note that the architecture of the building prevented a clean sighting of the true 0^th level, since there is an obstruction at ground level: a large brick planter for ornamental plants.

Thus, an effective sighting of half the level may only be taken. Interestingly, there is an indication of a colour transition at half a level - not at one whole level, as occurred with the others.

For each height viewed, above, three identical visual responses were obtained, from three ball droppings. This confirmed that the visual responses are not random, but are constant and repeatable with respect to the same stimulus. They are a visual coding for a particular velocity stimulus, since they always occur when Ainan's eyes are stimulated by an object at that velocity.

Trial of 7^th August 2009

On this day, in the afternoon, as before, the entire experiment was repeated, to see if it was reproducible.

The protocol was the same, as on the 4^th August 2009.

At the end of each set of three ball droppings, Ainan had to write down what he had seen, WITHOUT reference to his notes of three days before. Thus, this second experiment constituted an independent test of the Velociperception sensory phenomenon and was conducted to see if it was stable and repeatable.

Table 2: Trials of August 7^th 2009

Except for slight variation in the wording and order of wording used, in his descriptions, on both trial days, the results are the same. Ainan confirmed that the images he was attempting to describe were identical on both days.

Thus, the visual responses to velocity are repeatable, consistent and persistent (at least for the period tested). They are also, importantly, the same for the same stimulus.

In our earlier trials in March 2009, we noticed that if the distance from the building was changed, so too would the visual responses be changed. In August 2009, we decided to test a theory about this, to uncover the true nature of this Velociperception.

The theory was that what Ainan was perceiving was the angular velocity of an object across his retina. Thus, he wasn't directly perceiving velocity itself, but the apparent velocity of the object, as it swept out an angle across his retina. This would explain, if true, why viewing the same velocity of ball, from a different distance, produced a different visual response: changing the distance, changed the angular velocity across his retina of the resultant image.

To investigate whether it was, indeed, angular velocity that Ainan was perceiving, new distances were calculated for him to view the falling ball from, that should produce exactly the same results, if it were angular velocity that were being perceived.

The reasoning was simple. If the viewing distance is doubled AND the velocity of fall is doubled, then the apparent angular velocity will remain the same. Thus the visual response should be the same. Indeed, this relationship should hold for any percentage of change: if both distance and velocity are changed, in the same way, by the same proportion, then the angular velocity will remain unchanged and so, too, should the visual response to it, be, if it is angular velocity that is being perceived.

Geographic constraints, around the building, limited which distances could be used for viewing (other buildings were in the way) - so we were not able to test all of the visual responses. However, all that were possible, were tested.

Since, Ainan's viewing position formed a right angle with the building being viewed, Pythagoras' theorem was used to calculate the appropriate distance at which Ainan should stand. This is that the sum of the squares of the two sides of a right angled triangle should equal the square of the hypotenuse. In this case, the hypotenuse is the line of sight to the falling ball.

Calculation for a 50% increase in viewing distance, tied to a 50% increase in velocity of fall

Increasing both velocity of fall, and viewing distance by the same proportion, should leave the angular velocity of the image across Ainan's retina, unchanged.

If we go from level 7 to level 6, the distance fallen from level 9 has increased 50 %. Thus we need to be 50% further away, to get the same angular velocity and visual response.

On first viewing: Level 7 is 21 m. Ainan's horizontal distance is: 17 m. Thus the diagonal is the square root of (21 squared plus 17 squared) = 27.02 m.

Level 6 is 18 m tall. The diagonal represents the line of sight between Ainan and the falling ball. Thus, the diagonal needs to be 1.5*27.02 for the same response to occur.

This gives a 40.53 m diagonal.

Therefore, the horizontal distance for Ainan to stand must be the square root of (40.53 squared - 18 m squared) = 36.31 metres.

If our theory is correct that Velociperception is actually the direct perception of angular velocity, then, viewing level 6, at 36.31 metres away, will elicit the same visual response as viewing level 7, at 17 metres away. Should this occur, then it demonstrates that what is being perceived is actually angular velocity across the retina (and therefore out in the world itself).

Calculation for a 33.3 % increase in viewing distance, tied to a 33.3 % increase in velocity of fall

The fall from 9 to 6 stories is 9 m. The additional fall to the 5^th storey is another 3 m or 33.3%.

To get the same perceptual response as at level 6, level 5 would have to be viewed from 33.3 % further away, if the response depends on angular velocity (since the velocity of fall has also increased by 33.3 %).

At level 6, the height is 18 m. The horizontal is 17m. The diagonal is: the square root of (18 squared plus 17 squared) = a diagonal of 24.76 m.

Thus at level 5, it must be viewed from 1.333 * 24.76 m = 33 m.

Thus the height at level 5 is 15 m. The diagonal is 33 m. Ainan's horizontal distance from the building must be:

The square root of (33 squared - 15 squared) =  29.39 m.

Calculation for a 25 % increase in viewing distance, tied to a 25 % increase in velocity of fall

Now, the drop from level 5 to level 4, represents a change of 25%: a four level fall, to a five level fall.

At level 5, the height is 15 m. The horizontal is 17m. The diagonal is: the square root of (15 squared plus 17 squared) = 22.67 m

At level 4, the height is 12 m. The diagonal must be 1.25 * 22.67 =  28.34 m

Therefore the horizontal distance would be: the square root of (28.34 squared - 12 squared) = 25.67 m.

Calculation for a 20 % increase in viewing distance, tied to a 20 % increase in velocity of fall

To go from level 4 to level 3, is to go from falling 5 levels to 6 levels. This is a 20% increase.

At level 4, the height is 12 m. The horizontal is 17m. Therefore the diagonal is: square root (17 squared plus 12 squared) = 20.81 m.

At level 3, to get the same response, the diagonal needs to be 1.2 * 20.81 = 24.97 m.

The height at level 3 is: 9 m. Therefore the horizontal distance is: square root (24.97 squared - 9 squared) = 23.29 m.

Calculation for a 16.6 % increase in viewing distance, tied to a 16.6% increase in velocity of fall

To go from level 3 to level 2, is to go from falling 6 levels to falling 7 levels. This is a 16.6 % increase.

At level 3, the height is 9 m. The horizontal distance is: 17 m. Therefore the diagonal is: 19.24 m.

At level 2, to get the same response, the diagonal must be 1.166 * 19.24 = 22.43 m.

The height at level 2 is 6 m. Therefore the horizontal distance is: square root (22.43 squared - 6 squared) = 21.61 m

Calculation for a 14.29 % increase in viewing distance, tied to a 14.29% increase in velocity of fall

To go from level 2 to level 1, is to go from falling 7 stories, to falling 8 stories. This is a change of 14.29%

The height at level 2 is 6 m. The horizontal distance is 17 m. Therefore the diagonal is: 18.03m.

The height at level 1 is 3 m. The diagonal must be 1.1429 * 18.03 = 20.61 m, to get the same response.

The horizontal distance must be: square root (20.61 squared - 3 squared) = 20.39 m.

Trials at specific distances, on 8^th August 2009, to test the theory that Velociperception is the direct perception of angular velocity

A ball was dropped three times, for each trial, to ensure repeatability.

View of level 6 at 36.31 metres

50% increase in both velocity of fall, and viewing distance.

Liquid mess of red and green with black spikes.

Analysis: this is the expected result if angular velocity is being perceived. The visual response is identical to viewing level 7, at 17 m.

View of level 5, at 29.39 metres, horizontally

33.3 % increase in both velocity of fall and viewing distance.

Visual response: liquid soft-greenish white with soft orange white with soft white.

Analysis: this is the expected result if angular velocity is being perceived. The visual response is identical to viewing level 6, at 17 m.

Trials at specific distances, on 9^th August 2009, to test the theory that Velociperception is the direct perception of angular velocity

View of level 4, at 25.67 m, horizontally

25% increase in both velocity of fall and viewing distance.

Visual response: soft green block attached to a soft orange line.

Analysis: this is the expected result if angular velocity is being perceived. The visual response is identical to viewing level 5, at 17 m.

View of level 3, at 23.29 m, horizontally

20% increase in both velocity of fall and viewing distance.

Visual response: all black except for 3 evenly spaced white lines.

Analysis: this is the expected result if angular velocity is being perceived. The visual response is identical to viewing level 4, at 17 m.

View of level 2, at 21.61 m, horizontally

16.6% increase in both velocity of fall and viewing distance.

Visual response: a curved white line with a background of black and grey.

Analysis: this is the expected result if angular velocity is being perceived. The visual response is identical to viewing level 3, at 17 m.

View of level 1, at 20.39 m, horizontally

14.29% increase in both velocity of fall and viewing distance.

Visual response: All yellow except for 2 lines of grey at sides like a Bugatti Veyron.

Analysis: this is the expected result if angular velocity is being perceived. The visual response is identical to viewing level 2, at 17 m.

Further trials on 9^th August 2009, to show what happens if the viewing distance is changed

In these trials, the falling ball was viewed from the wrong distance. This is necessary to further show that it is not the velocity, per se, that is being perceived, but the angular velocity. If the distance is wrong, the angular velocity will have changed and the visual response to that velocity should be different. Were it the velocity, itself, that is being perceived, directly, then viewing distance would make no difference to the perception. It would seem the same from all distances.

It was reasoned that a change of distance, equal to the quantum of change of distance necessary to view the falling ball correctly, at the next adjacent level (but wrong for the level being viewed) should be sufficient to change the visual response.

This means, quite simply, that for the first trial, the ball was viewed at level 2, for the distance that would be appropriate for correct viewing of level 1. The prediction was that the result would be different to that normally viewed for level 2, at the correct distance.

Level 2, seen from 20.39 metres, horizontally

Visual response: curved yellow line with a background of light grey and blue.

Analysis: This is not the visual response expected for level 2. Therefore, the change of distance has altered the response. This would only occur if angular velocity and not velocity, per se, were being perceived.

Ainan then viewed level 2, from the distance appropriate to viewing level 3.

Level 2, seen from 23.29 metres, horizontally

Visual response: Red S, with black spots on a white background.

Analysis: This is a new visual response. It bears no relation to the one expected for level 2. Again, this shows that it is not velocity, per se, that is being viewed, but angular velocity.

Calculation of the Angular Velocities perceived

All sightings are from a horizontal distance of 17 metres.

Pythagoras' theorem is used to calculate the diagonal distance to Ainan, from the falling ball.

The velocity of the falling ball is calculated from s = ½ a t^2

a = the acceleration due to gravity = 9.813 m/s^2; s = distance fallen.

Therefore: t = (2*s/9.813)^1/2, where t is the time spent falling under gravity.

Velocity of the falling ball = 9.813t

s= distance the ball has fallen.

Table 3: Calculations of the ball's velocity at different distances fallen.

To understand the relationship between angular velocity and the visual response to it, we need to determine the angular velocity of the falling ball, with respect to Ainan, at each level.

If θ is the angle made by the falling ball, with the diagonal line of sight to the observing Ainan then this angle may be calculated in the following manner:

Tan θ = horizontal distance to Ainan/height of storey. = 17/height of storey viewed.

θ = arctan 17/height of storey viewed.

Now, we wish to calculate the component of the falling ball's velocity that is perpendicular to the line of sight to Ainan. This component indicates how fast the ball is moving across Ainan's line of sight - and it is this that will be visible to him as an angular velocity.

The component perpendicular to the line of sight to Ainan makes, by definition, a right angle with that diagonal. The angle, however, that this perpendicular vector forms with the falling ball will be 90 - θ.

The Cosine (90 - θ) = Vector component of velocity perpendicular to line of sight to Ainan/ Velocity of falling ball

Therefore: Velocity of falling ball * Cos (90 - θ) = Component of velocity perpendicular to line of sight to Ainan.

Therefore: Component of velocity perpendicular to line of sight to Ainan =

Velocity of falling ball * Cos (90 - arctan (horizontal distance to Ainan/height of storey))

In all cases the horizontal distance to Ainan from the building is: 17 metres.

We will consider the angular velocity in degrees per second, because of its ease of understanding.

This may be calculated by imagining a circle swept out by the perpendicular component of velocity, with Ainan as its centre. Thus the radius of the circle is the diagonal line of sight from the ball to Ainan.

Remembering that the circumference of a circle is 2πr and there are 360 degrees in a circle:

Angular velocity in degrees/second = 360(Perpendicular velocity/2π*diagonal to Ainan.)

Perpendicular Velocity = Perp. Vel.

Angular Velocity = Angular Vel.           

The differential is the change in angular velocity between storeys of the building.

Table 4: Calculations of angular velocities of the falling ball, at different distances fallen (viewed at 17 m horizontally).

For the tests at horizontal distances other than 17 metres:

Table 5: Calculations of angular velocities of the falling ball, at different distances fallen, viewed from distances other than 17 m.

Table 6: A comparison of the angular velocity at the new viewing distances, compared to the benchmark angular velocities viewed at 17 m.

In the table above, the Angular Velocity listed is the angular velocity viewed from the new distances (not 17 m horizontally). These were supposed to emulate the angular velocity viewed from 17 m of the storey above, in each case. This was done by increasing the diagonal viewing distance in proportion to the velocity of fall. However, no account was taken of the fact that viewing is from different angles, depending on the height of the building at that storey, which affected the perpendicular velocity component and therefore angular velocity. These effects, though, are relatively small and did not affect the results obtained, significantly. (Note that if this was a viewing situation that was not at an angle (ie. that which was viewed was straight ahead), this calculation would have been exact.)

We can see that the angular velocities obtained at the new viewing distances are very close to the ones obtained in viewing the storey above, in each case, at 17 m horizontally. The result is that the same visual response is obtained, in each case. This shows that it is, indeed, angular velocity that is being perceived, in Velociperception. Note that there is a range of values of angular velocities, in each case, which produce the same visual response.

Discussion

Velociperception is the direct perception of angular velocity, encoded in visual - and other sensory - terms. Our experiments have shown that any given angular velocity gives rise, consistently, to a particular sensory experience, in Ainan. Each angular velocity is, therefore, represented by a colour (shape and texture) code in his mind.

The change from one colour code to the next, takes place in discrete steps: that is the range of perceived angular velocities does not appear to be a continuous spectrum, but has quantized values. These steps may represent basic perceptual units of angular velocity in the human mind. Or they may merely represent limitations in the sensitivity of this particular sense, in this particular individual case of it. We would need to examine more cases to determine the situation.

Please note that no attempt was made in this series of experiments to discover all the code transitions for all possible angular velocities. Thus, there may be transitions between storeys on the building observed in the ball dropping experiment.(No doubt, too, there are code transitions at higher angular velocities than those examined.) The nature of the experimental equipment placed limits on what was possible in these experiments. Future experiments will address whether there are, undescribed, angular velocity code transitions.

Velociperception makes manifest the experience of angular velocity in a very tangible way. For Ainan, a change of angular velocity is a very noticeable experience. Something moving faster in his vicinity is not just "faster", it appears to be totally different, in colouration and other characteristics. Velociperception is a new way of experiencing movement in the environment. With this sense, objects do not just move vaguely faster or slower - they may be understood to move, within very specific, bounded ranges of angular velocity. It is a sense that gives access to information that is not readily accessible by the typical human being. Ainan is sensing the magnitude of angular velocity, directly, as a sensory percept and at a sensory level. He is not "analyzing" the moving object to try to estimate its velocity: he is perceiving that velocity directly as a sensory experience and consequent percept.

Ainan is still learning about his Velociperception sense. Once completely familiar with it, and the colour codes it elicits, he will be able to state the angular velocity of any moving object, within narrow bounds, simply by looking at it. This is an ability which cannot reasonably be replicated by someone without the Velociperceptive sense. Therefore, Velociperception gives its bearers a new ability, not seen before in the human. It is a new way of looking at the world, a new way of perceiving.

What is the origin of this new sensory perception? It arises, we believe, in Ainan's multiple synaesthesia. However, unlike almost all cases of synaesthesia which simply colour code letters or musical notes, (Cytowic, R.E., 2003) Ainan's synaesthesia has created something new and useful.

Synaesthesia was first observed in 1880 by Sir Francis Galton (Galton, F., 1880). Since then, many types of synaesthesia have been discovered, although the grapheme-colour form seems most common. (Ward, J., Simner, J., Auyeung, V., 2005) Velociperception, however, is a type of synaesthesia new to science, since it is not listed as a known type of response (Day, S., 2009). Indeed, Velociperception goes beyond synaesthesia in that it constitutes a new form of sensory perception: the direct encoding of information about the world in an immediately perceptible form. It is an ordered perceptual, sensory, quantized response to angular velocity and is not just a series of apparently random associations, as synaesthesia often appears to be.

Synaesthesia is commonly thought to arise through the cross-wiring of adjacent brain areas. (Armel, K.C., Ramachandran, V.S., 1999). In Ainan's case there must be cross-wiring, or at least some form of heightened communication, between those areas of the brain that represent his understanding of angular velocity, and those that represent colour, shape and texture - since all three categories are evoked in his velociperceptive responses. This speaks of considerable additional cross-communication, in these four areas of the brain (representing angular velocity, colour, shape and texture) compared to a typical person without Velociperception. This cross-wiring has given rise to a new functionality: the direct perception of angular velocity, as a basic sensory phenomenon.

Dixon, Smilek and Merikle (2004), drew a distinction between two types of synaesthete, with respect to grapheme-colour synaesthetes: projectors and associators. Ainan sees his colour, shape and texture coded responses to angular velocity projected onto the world. They seem to be real and external. Thus, by Dixon's et. al's categorization, Ainan would be a projector synaesthete for Velociperception. Furthermore, it is notable that Ainan's synaesthetic colours for Velociperception seem somewhat more intense to him than real colours in the real world, do. Interestingly, Dixon et. al. also noted that their grapheme-colour projector synaesthetes also experienced more intense colours than those of the real world. This is suggestive, that a greater intensity of colours could be common to all types of projector synaesthete. Note, too, that Ainan also experiences synaesthetic projection for all types of sound, and graphemes. (Cawley, V., Cawley, A., 2009) This demonstrates that there are many types of projector synaesthete - probably as many types as there are types of synaesthesia. His colours for all types of synaesthetic projection are more intense than normal colours

Ainan's case of Velociperception is the first to be described in the literature.  It is possible that he is, in fact, the only case in human history. This cannot be determined at present. However, it is clear that, if this sense has arisen in one person, it could do so in others. It may, indeed, be passed on to his children, one day.

The importance of Velociperception lies not only in the specific ability it empowers its possessor with - but in that it shows that the human sensorium is still changing, still evolving. Humans are still becoming - they are not yet all that they can be. Velociperception indicates, rather surprisingly, that, even in the early 21^st century, there are matters yet undiscovered about the human mind and perception. It hints that, perhaps, there are other sensory perceptions, too, yet unidentified. The story of Man has not yet been fully told, and, indeed, it may never be - for Man is still becoming, still evolving - and ever will be.

References

Armel, K.C., Ramachandran, V.S, (1999) Acquired synesthesia in Retinitis Pigmentosa.Neurocase 1999 Vol 5. pp 293-296. Oxford University Press.

Cawley, V. & Cawley, A. (2009). Synaesthesia promotes child prodigiousness and influences creativity. An examination of the evidence from case studies.. PHILICA.COM Article number 176.

Cytowic, R.E., (2003) Synesthesia: anomalous binding of qualia and categories. Encyclopaedia of Neuroscience, 2003, Nueva York, Elsevier.

Day, S., (2009) Types of Synaesthesia. http://home.comcast.net/~sean.day/html/types.htm

Dixon, M.J., Smilek, D., Merikle, P.M. (2004) Not all synaesthetes are created equal: Projector versus associator synaesthetes. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience 2004, 4 (3), 335-343

Galton, F. (1880). Visualized numerals. Nature 21 (494-495)

Ward, J., Simner, J., Auyeung, V. (2005). A comparison of lexical-gustatory and grapheme-colour synaesthesia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2005, 22 (1), 28-41

Contributions

ACC discovered Velociperception in himself, at 8 years old and made initial observations of its characteristics through his life experiences. VC recognized that the perception was new and named it Velociperception. VC came up with the falling ball experiment to test it. VC and ACC worked on the experiment together, resolving all its problems. ACC made all the observations on his sensory understanding of Velociperception, at different angular velocities. VC solved the problem of the colour reversal, caused by relative movement of the eyes, to the falling ball. VC theorized that it was angular velocity and not velocity per se that was being perceived and designed a test set of experiments. VC did the calculations and wrote the paper. However ACC and VC reviewed the paper together, commented on it and came to an agreement on a final version.

Though the contributions of the authors differ, we consider that, on balance, they are equal, given the relative importance of each contribution.

Contact details

The authors may be contacted at the.cawleys@gmail.com

Information about this Article
This Article has not yet been peer-reviewed
This Article was published on 16th December, 2009 at 12:21:49 and has been viewed 967 times.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

The full citation for this Article is: Cawley, A. & Cawley, V. (2009). The observation of a new human “sense”, velociperception, and its characteristics. PHILICA.COM Article number 178.