Several experiences, kept distinct
Keep word-related taste or texture, observed-touch impressions and symbol-related bodily impressions distinct; this editorial group is not a single measured sensory trait.
Read the three chosen responses separately. Counts describe recollection within this original checklist, without a strength scale, type assignment or confirmation of synaesthesia.
Three prompts with different subjects
- The first prompt concerns a taste-like or mouth-texture impression accompanying a familiar word, without deliberately recalling a meal. The second concerns a touch-like impression on your own body when seeing an ordinary non-painful touch to someone else. The third concerns a specific touch-like or bodily-location impression accompanying a word or written symbol without deliberate visualization.
- These are different reported phenomena, placed together only to organize a short reading collection. A yes to a word-related taste description does not imply a response to observed touch, and the reverse is equally true. Always read the individual chosen responses rather than interpreting the group as one taste-touch ability or a single sensory mechanism.
Ordinary recollection, without exposure
- Nothing needs to be tasted, eaten, touched or acted out for this checklist. Do not seek a painful scene, touch another person or expose yourself to an uncomfortable sensation to answer. The past three months are a recall window for ordinary occasions that already happened, rather than a request to create new experiences during the test.
- No food preferences, bodily locations or personal examples are entered on the page. You may understand a prompt but have no relevant occasion, or prefer not to consider it. The separate opportunity or skip choice retains that information. It is valid even if other prompts in the same group have clear yes or no answers.
Related words do not establish the same event
- A food word can intentionally remind someone of a meal, and seeing touch can invite a deliberate image of how it might feel. Those familiar possibilities differ from the unplanned accompaniment described here. Language such as a bitter remark can also be metaphorical. The checklist cannot determine the source of an impression merely because the wording seems familiar.
- Watching another person receive touch is not by itself a measure of empathy, compassion or understanding their emotions. A bodily impression does not show what that person actually feels. This guide makes no inference about relationship quality, pain sensitivity, health status or moral character from any selected answer. It also provides no explanation for a new physical symptom.
The record keeps the distinctions visible
- Each response appears beside its own prompt, followed by four literal counts for the group: yes, no, unsure and skipped out of three. Those counts describe recalled answers only. Because the prompts concern distinct experiences, a combined strength, average, majority label or percentage would obscure the differences. None is calculated.
- No means you had relevant opportunities but do not recall the described experience within the requested window. It does not prove that an experience has never happened. Unsure and skipped are never counted as no, and every prompt requires an explicit choice. You may finish with all fifteen unsure or skipped responses and still access every complete public guide.
No experiment hidden in the checklist
- The website does not deliver controlled touch, taste stimuli, observer tasks or repeated response trials. It therefore cannot test sensory consistency, automaticity or an underlying neural mechanism. A positive recollection is useful as a description, without establishing that it meets research criteria or belongs to one particular scientific category.
- Research about a different family, such as grapheme-colour associations, does not automatically validate these items. A conceptual theory relating multisensory experiences is background, not an empirical scoring rule for an individual. The source links explain why these distinctions matter; they do not endorse these new questions or validate their English and Chinese wording.
An optional description for yourself
- If you already notice such an experience during a comfortable everyday occasion, you can privately distinguish the word or observation, any deliberate recall, and the impression that seemed to accompany it. There is no need to collect examples or make the experience recur. The website does not offer induction exercises, exposure tasks or a programme for increasing these responses.
- You can stop reflecting or leave any prompt unanswered until you decide whether to continue. This original checklist is not a treatment, a health assessment or a way to monitor improvement. For new, distressing or disruptive sensations, seek appropriate advice based on the experience itself and its circumstances, rather than using a checklist count to determine the cause.
A short editorial map, used privately
- FermatMind Editorial wrote all fifteen prompts and five complete guides independently. The families are content groups, not validated dimensions; the three-month window is an editorial recall policy. There is no norm, probability, cutoff, condition classification or confirmation of synaesthesia. Different answers on a later occasion do not constitute a validated measurement of change.
- Responses remain only in page memory and clear on refresh, language change, leaving or retaking. Public sharing copies all five guide links without bodily details, selected responses or counts. Optional anonymous action counts need both page permission and global analytics consent. You can read every guide free before answering, with no account or sensory history required.