<p><strong>Short answer</strong><br>
Ideaesthesia does not comprise a theory or even a hypothesis. It is merely a term meaning 'sensing concepts' or 'perceiving meaning'.  </p>

<p><strong>Background</strong><br>
As Steven Jeuris also comments, <em>ideaesthesia</em> is not a theory, it is simply a term. It is a combination of two Greek words, namely 'concept' or 'idea', and the other is 'sensation', or '<em>aisthesis</em>'. In translation, ideaesthesia means sensing concepts or perceiving meaning (source: <a href="https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/36309785/Synesthesia2009_Nikolic_Ideaesthesia.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&amp;Expires=1502807619&amp;Signature=b%2FDNAan6jvg9iU3tPQWxAmo%2BY7I%3D&amp;response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DIs_synaesthesia_actually_ideaesthesia_An.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Danko Nikolić</a>).</p>

<p>It it used to denote phenomena as the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2016/oct/17/the-boubakiki-effect-how-do-we-link-shapes-to-sounds" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>Kiki/Bouba</strong></a> effect (<a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2013/00000020/F0020001/art00005" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Milan <em>et al</em>., 2013</a>; <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emilio_Gomez3/publication/316657036_EXPANDING_KIKIBOUBA_EXPERIMENTAL_PARADIGM_TO_OTHER_CASES_OF_IDEAESTHESIA/links/590a0c46458515ebb4a51b29/EXPANDING-KIKI-BOUBA-EXPERIMENTAL-PARADIGM-TO-OTHER-CASES-OF-IDEAESTHESIA.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Martinez &amp; Milan, 2015</a>) and <strong><a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/synesthesia" rel="nofollow noreferrer">synesthesia</a></strong> <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/tnsci.2012.3.issue-1/s13380-012-0010-4/s13380-012-0010-4.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Jürgens &amp; Nikolić, 2012)</a> as you write. These phenomena are associated with assigning shapes to names, and colors to graphemes (and the likes), respectively. As far as I can see, <em>ideaesthesia</em> does not explain anything, it is not an observation, it is not a hypothesis, let alone a theory. It is a term used to group phenomena where people <strong><em>associate seemingly unrelated concepts</em></strong>.</p>

<p>Further, for what it's worth, a cursory <a href="https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=en&amp;q=Ideaesthesia&amp;btnG=&amp;as_sdt=1%2C5&amp;as_sdtp=" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Google Scholar search on '<em>ideaesthesia</em>'</a> yields few hits (82), and those hits that pop up, in part referenced here, point sometimes to questionable journals or to irrelevant papers. I would hence use the term cautiously as it doesn't seem to be widely used.   </p>

<p><sub><strong>References</strong><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/tnsci.2012.3.issue-1/s13380-012-0010-4/s13380-012-0010-4.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Jürgens &amp; Nikolić, <em>Translat Neurosci</em> (2012); <strong>3</strong>(1): 22-7</a><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emilio_Gomez3/publication/316657036_EXPANDING_KIKIBOUBA_EXPERIMENTAL_PARADIGM_TO_OTHER_CASES_OF_IDEAESTHESIA/links/590a0c46458515ebb4a51b29/EXPANDING-KIKI-BOUBA-EXPERIMENTAL-PARADIGM-TO-OTHER-CASES-OF-IDEAESTHESIA.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Martinez &amp; Milan, <em>V Int Conf Synesthesia: Science and Art</em>. Alcalà la Real de Jaén. España. 16–19<sup>th</sup> May 2015</a><br>
<strong>-</strong> <a href="http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2013/00000020/F0020001/art00005" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Milan <em>et al</em>., <em>J Consciousness Studies</em>, <strong>20</strong>(1-2</a></sub> </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-25T11:34:48.713Z
According to the [Ideasthesia and Art](https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/nikolic20160222) article, there are at least two theories related to the term: "**theory of ideasthesia** states that concepts precede sensory-like experiences in synesthesia", and "**ideasthesia balance theory** states a particular relationship between the depth of meaning and the intensity of sensation". Do you have any evaluation on these?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-01-09T04:12:09.273Z
My understanding is that *ideaesthesia* is not about *concept-to-concept* association, but rather about *concept-to-sensory-experience* induction. Originally, these sensory effects were believed to be induced from seemingly unrelated sensory inputs (*sensory-to-sensory*), but later discovery showed that at least some such effects sprung from semantic activation, hence the impetus to form a new word.
Michael
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-15T13:52:57.387Z
2017-08-16T09:11:36.293Z
2017-08-16T09:11:36.293Z
AliceD
<p>Ideasthesia &quot;can be defined as a phenomenon in which activation of concepts produces phenomenal experience&quot;. The examples vary from the Kiki/Bouba phenomenon applied to (possibly) everyone to actually seeing colors in graphemes like in synesthetic people. According to the theory, &quot;there is a strong similarity between semantics and sensations&quot;.
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/H3t6E.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/H3t6E.jpg" alt="" /></a><br />
<sub>(source: <a href="https://ieet.org/archive/Figure5555.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ieet.org</a>)</sub></p>
<p><sub><strong>Figure</strong>: Sensation vs. meaning balance shown for hypothetical pieces of entertainment (red), art (yellow) and science (white), as they are broken down into their components. Only an art piece is consistently located in the gray area.</sub></p>
<p>Given that this theory is pretty young (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideasthesia&amp;dir=prev&amp;action=history" rel="nofollow noreferrer">first creation in Wikipedia</a> was in 2012 by presumably one avid contributor on the field, based on their username), I wonder if there are any review or critic on the theory. What challenges does it need to answer? Which theory is it incongruent with?</p>
<p><sub><strong>Source</strong>:<br />
• Wikipedia: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideasthesia" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ideathesia</a><br />
• TED-Ed: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIF2tssedLI&amp;feature=youtu.be" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ideasthesia: How do ideas feel? - Danko Nikolić</a><br />
• IEEE: Danko Nikolić, <a href="https://archive.ieet.org/articles/nikolic20160222.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ideasthesia and Art</a>
</sub></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-15T12:24:08.943Z
How is this a 'theory'? Ideasthesia seems to be a definition. Are you asking about the validity of a specific experiment which lead to the introduction/usefulness of the definition? If so, which?
Steven Jeuris
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-08-15T15:02:26.213Z
@AliceD and StevenJeuris, how about asking "Is there an evident about a strong similarity between semantics and sensations?"?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-12-08T13:54:44.570Z
Multiple theories are related to the concept of ideasthesia. This term was introduced because of a theory that what underlies synesthesia are concepts and thus, synesthesia occurs through such a concept-sensing mechanisms. Therefore, ideasthesia is related to a theory. After that another theory emerged--that our sensations in general are conceptual in their nature, not only those in synesthesia. Therefore, this would be the second theory associated with ideasthesia. Finally, also a third theory emerged, that of the balance between ideas (concepts) and sensations in art.
Danko Nikolic
<reference-request><creativity><aesthetics><ideation>
What challenges the ideasthesia balance theory has to answer?
Ooker
# What challenges the ideasthesia balance theory has to answer?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-08-15)

Ideasthesia "can be defined as a phenomenon in which activation of concepts produces phenomenal experience". The examples vary from the Kiki/Bouba phenomenon applied to (possibly) everyone to actually seeing colors in graphemes like in synesthetic people. According to the theory, "there is a strong similarity between semantics and sensations".
[![](https://i.sstatic.net/H3t6E.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/H3t6E.jpg)  
(source: [ieet.org](https://ieet.org/archive/Figure5555.jpg))

**Figure**: Sensation vs. meaning balance shown for hypothetical pieces of entertainment (red), art (yellow) and science (white), as they are broken down into their components. Only an art piece is consistently located in the gray area.

Given that this theory is pretty young ([first creation in Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ideasthesia&dir=prev&action=history) was in 2012 by presumably one avid contributor on the field, based on their username), I wonder if there are any review or critic on the theory. What challenges does it need to answer? Which theory is it incongruent with?

**Source**:  
• Wikipedia: [Ideathesia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideasthesia)  
• TED-Ed: [Ideasthesia: How do ideas feel? - Danko Nikolić](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIF2tssedLI&feature=youtu.be)  
• IEEE: Danko Nikolić, [Ideasthesia and Art](https://archive.ieet.org/articles/nikolic20160222.html)

**Tags:** reference-request, creativity, aesthetics, ideation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: How is this a 'theory'? Ideasthesia seems to be a definition. Are you asking about the validity of a specific experiment which lead to the introduction/usefulness of the definition? If so, which?  
> **username_0**: @username_3 and StevenJeuris, how about asking "Is there an evident about a strong similarity between semantics and sensations?"?  
> **username_2**: Multiple theories are related to the concept of ideasthesia. This term was introduced because of a theory that what underlies synesthesia are concepts and thus, synesthesia occurs through such a concept-sensing mechanisms. Therefore, ideasthesia is related to a theory. After that another theory emerged--that our sensations in general are conceptual in their nature, not only those in synesthesia. Therefore, this would be the second theory associated with ideasthesia. Finally, also a third theory emerged, that of the balance between ideas (concepts) and sensations in art.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2017-08-15. Score: 5 | Accepted answer

**Short answer**  
Ideaesthesia does not comprise a theory or even a hypothesis. It is merely a term meaning 'sensing concepts' or 'perceiving meaning'.

**Background**  
As username_1 also comments, *ideaesthesia* is not a theory, it is simply a term. It is a combination of two Greek words, namely 'concept' or 'idea', and the other is 'sensation', or '*aisthesis*'. In translation, ideaesthesia means sensing concepts or perceiving meaning (source: [Danko Nikolić](https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/36309785/Synesthesia2009_Nikolic_Ideaesthesia.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1502807619&Signature=b%2FDNAan6jvg9iU3tPQWxAmo%2BY7I%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DIs_synaesthesia_actually_ideaesthesia_An.pdf)).

It it used to denote phenomena as the [**Kiki/Bouba**](https://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2016/oct/17/the-boubakiki-effect-how-do-we-link-shapes-to-sounds) effect ([Milan *et al*., 2013](http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2013/00000020/F0020001/art00005); [Martinez & Milan, 2015](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emilio_Gomez3/publication/316657036_EXPANDING_KIKIBOUBA_EXPERIMENTAL_PARADIGM_TO_OTHER_CASES_OF_IDEAESTHESIA/links/590a0c46458515ebb4a51b29/EXPANDING-KIKI-BOUBA-EXPERIMENTAL-PARADIGM-TO-OTHER-CASES-OF-IDEAESTHESIA.pdf)) and **[synesthesia](https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/synesthesia)** [(Jürgens & Nikolić, 2012)](https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/tnsci.2012.3.issue-1/s13380-012-0010-4/s13380-012-0010-4.pdf) as you write. These phenomena are associated with assigning shapes to names, and colors to graphemes (and the likes), respectively. As far as I can see, *ideaesthesia* does not explain anything, it is not an observation, it is not a hypothesis, let alone a theory. It is a term used to group phenomena where people ***associate seemingly unrelated concepts***.

Further, for what it's worth, a cursory [Google Scholar search on '*ideaesthesia*'](https://scholar.google.nl/scholar?hl=en&q=Ideaesthesia&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=) yields few hits (82), and those hits that pop up, in part referenced here, point sometimes to questionable journals or to irrelevant papers. I would hence use the term cautiously as it doesn't seem to be widely used.

**References**  
**-** [Jürgens & Nikolić, *Translat Neurosci* (2012); **3**(1): 22-7](https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/tnsci.2012.3.issue-1/s13380-012-0010-4/s13380-012-0010-4.pdf)  
**-** [Martinez & Milan, *V Int Conf Synesthesia: Science and Art*. Alcalà la Real de Jaén. España. 16–19th May 2015](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Emilio_Gomez3/publication/316657036_EXPANDING_KIKIBOUBA_EXPERIMENTAL_PARADIGM_TO_OTHER_CASES_OF_IDEAESTHESIA/links/590a0c46458515ebb4a51b29/EXPANDING-KIKI-BOUBA-EXPERIMENTAL-PARADIGM-TO-OTHER-CASES-OF-IDEAESTHESIA.pdf)  
**-** [Milan *et al*., *J Consciousness Studies*, **20**(1-2](http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/imp/jcs/2013/00000020/F0020001/art00005)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: According to the [Ideasthesia and Art](https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/nikolic20160222) article, there are at least two theories related to the term: "**theory of ideasthesia** states that concepts precede sensory-like experiences in synesthesia", and "**ideasthesia balance theory** states a particular relationship between the depth of meaning and the intensity of sensation". Do you have any evaluation on these?  
> **username_4**: My understanding is that *ideaesthesia* is not about *concept-to-concept* association, but rather about *concept-to-sensory-experience* induction. Originally, these sensory effects were believed to be induced from seemingly unrelated sensory inputs (*sensory-to-sensory*), but later discovery showed that at least some such effects sprung from semantic activation, hence the impetus to form a new word.  

---

