Sensory Substitution Devices (SSDs) are typically used to restore functionality of a sensory modality that has been lost, like vision for the blind, by recruiting another sensory modality such as touch or audition. Sensory substitution has given rise to many debates in psychology, neuroscience and philosophy regarding the nature of experience when using SSDs. Questions first arose as to whether the experience of sensory substitution is represented by the substituted information, the substituting information, or a multisensory combination of the two. More recently, parallels have been drawn between sensory substitution and synaesthesia, a rare condition in which individuals involuntarily experience a percept in one sensory or cognitive pathway when another one is stimulated. Here, we explore the efficacy of understanding sensory substitution as a form of ‘artificial synaesthesia’. We identify several problems with previous suggestions for a link between these two phenomena. Furthermore, we find that sensory substitution does not fulfil the essential criteria that characterise synaesthesia. We conclude that sensory substitution and synaesthesia are independent of each other and thus, the ‘artificial synaesthesia’ view of sensory substitution should be rejected.

中文翻译：

---

混合感官：感官替代不是人工诱导的通感形式

感觉替代设备 (SSD) 通常用于通过招募另一种感觉方式（例如触摸或听觉）来恢复已丢失的感觉方式的功能，例如盲人的视力。感官替代在心理学、神经科学和哲学领域引起了许多关于使用 SSD 时体验性质的争论。首先出现的问题是，感官替代的体验是由替代信息、替代信息还是两者的多感官组合来表示的。最近，感觉替代和联觉之间有了相似之处，这是一种罕见的情况，当另一个人受到刺激时，个体会不由自主地体验一种感觉或认知途径中的知觉。这里，我们探索将感觉替代理解为“人工联觉”的一种形式的功效。我们确定了先前关于这两种现象之间联系的建议的几个问题。此外，我们发现感觉替代不满足表征联觉的基本标准。我们得出结论，感觉替代和联觉是相互独立的，因此，“人工联觉”的感觉替代观点应该被拒绝。