![The Bouba-Kiki Effect: Why Animals and Humans Link Sounds to Shapes [2025]](https://tryrunable.com/blog/the-bouba-kiki-effect-why-animals-and-humans-link-sounds-to-/image-1-1771531836062.jpg)
The Bouba-Kiki Effect: Why Animals and Humans Link Sounds to Shapes [2025]
Close your eyes for a second. Say "bouba" out loud. Now say "kiki." Did one feel round? Did the other feel sharp?
If you're like roughly 98% of people tested in cognitive science experiments, you just experienced something that shouldn't exist. "Bouba" and "kiki" are nonsense words. They don't describe anything real. Yet almost everyone hearing them for the first time makes the exact same association: bouba is round, kiki is spiky.
This phenomenon is called the bouba-kiki effect, and it's one of the strangest, most persistent mysteries in cognitive science. For decades, researchers assumed it was uniquely human, something that separated us from the animal kingdom and maybe explained why we could develop language so sophisticated it let us write Shakespeare.
Then in 2025, Italian researchers did something that would've sounded absurd at an academic conference five years earlier. They played "bouba" and "kiki" to newly hatched chickens. One-day-old chicks. Animals that, by any reasonable measure, shouldn't care about human phonetics.
The chickens overwhelmingly moved toward round shapes when they heard "bouba." When they heard "kiki," they went for the spiky ones, as detailed in KUOW's report.
The implications are profound, unsettling, and force us to rethink what we thought we knew about perception, language, and animal cognition. This isn't just a curiosity for neuroscientists. Understanding why our brains automatically link certain sounds to certain shapes reveals fundamental truths about how we process information, how language evolved, and how perception works across the animal kingdom.
TL; DR
- The bouba-kiki effect is universal: Both humans and newly hatched chickens associate round-sounding words with round shapes and sharp-sounding words with angular ones, as shown in Scientific American's coverage.
- It appears early in development: Infants as young as 4 months old show the effect, long before they can speak.
- It's not a language thing: The effect occurs in infants before language acquisition and now in animals with no language capability.
- It's called crossmodal correspondence: The brain automatically links input from one sense (hearing) to perception in another sense (vision).
- The mechanism remains mysterious: Scientists still don't fully understand why certain sounds feel round and others feel sharp.
Estimated data shows that the visual cortex and insula have significant activation during the bouba-kiki effect, highlighting the role of sensory integration.
A Brief History of Sound-Shape Association
The bouba-kiki effect wasn't discovered by accident in some laboratory. It emerged quietly in 1947 when a psychologist noticed that people consistently paired certain nonsense sounds with particular shapes. The observation felt almost too trivial to publish, but it proved remarkably robust. When researchers returned to the question decades later, they found the same pattern replicated with remarkable consistency.
By the 1990s and 2000s, cognitive scientists became genuinely intrigued. If everyone makes the same association despite having no shared language, no shared culture, no shared education about what words "should" mean, then something deeper must be happening in the brain. Something primal.
The effect got a name: the bouba-kiki effect, officially recognized in cognitive psychology literature and eventually earning its own Wikipedia page. That legitimacy brought serious researchers into the field. Major universities started conducting experiments. Neuroscientists began looking at brain imaging. The simple observation that "bouba" sounds rounder than "kiki" became a gateway to understanding fundamental principles of perception.
Why? Because if we can explain the bouba-kiki effect, we might understand how the brain makes connections between seemingly unrelated sensory inputs. We might understand how language gets its structure. We might even understand why certain words feel the way they do, why "fluffy" sounds softer than "sharp," why "mellifluous" feels smooth while "grating" feels harsh.
The initial explanation seemed obvious: phonetics. Maybe languages evolved so that sharp sounds go with sharp meanings and soft sounds go with soft meanings. Onomatopoeia, extended outward. It's why we have words like "hiss" and "buzz" and "splash." Those words sound like what they describe.
But then researchers tested speakers of completely different languages and alphabets. Speakers of Arabic, Japanese, Mandarin, Hindi. Languages with entirely different sound structures, different writing systems, different phonetic inventories.
They all made the same associations.
The explanation couldn't be language-based. It had to be something deeper.
Synaesthesia is estimated to have the strongest influence on the bouba-kiki effect, followed by developmental differences. Estimated data based on discussed factors.
Crossmodal Correspondence: When Your Senses Talk to Each Other
The technical term for what's happening when you associate "bouba" with round shapes is crossmodal correspondence. It's a fancy way of saying that your sensory systems are somehow talking to each other, that input in one sensory channel influences perception in another channel.
You experience crossmodal correspondence constantly, usually without noticing. High-pitched sounds feel brighter and smaller. Low-pitched sounds feel deeper and larger. This association is so automatic that neuroscientists have found evidence of it in animals from dogs to tortoises.
But the bouba-kiki effect goes further. It's not just about pitch. The shape of the mouth when you say "bouba"—the rounded lips, the open throat—might map onto round shapes in your visual perception. The sharp, clipped consonants in "kiki" might mirror the sharp angles you see visually. Your mouth might be teaching your eyes what to look for.
There's another possibility: acoustic spectrograms. When sound scientists visualize sound waves, "bouba" produces softer, rounder spectrograms with gentle curves. "Kiki" produces sharper spectrograms with jagged peaks. Maybe your brain unconsciously reads these visual-like patterns in sound and maps them directly onto visual perception.
Or maybe it's proprioceptive. When you say "bouba," your mouth and tongue move in rounded, flowing motions. When you say "kiki," your mouth makes sharp, quick movements. Your brain might be feeling the shape of the word through the movements required to say it, then projecting that feeling outward onto what you see.
The truth is, neuroscientists don't fully understand the mechanism yet. What they do know is that the effect is real, consistent, and appears to bypass conscious decision-making entirely. It's automatic. It's involuntary. Your brain does it without asking permission from your conscious mind.
The Evolution of Experimental Design: How Scientists Tested the Effect
Early bouba-kiki research was straightforward. Show people a round shape and a spiky shape. Play them a sound. Ask which one matches. Results were remarkably consistent: around 95-98% of participants matched "bouba" with round.
But scientists wanted to go deeper. They needed to rule out alternative explanations. What if language was somehow involved? What if people were unconsciously using spelling patterns to make associations?
So researchers tested infants. Four-month-old babies who couldn't read, couldn't really speak, couldn't possibly have learned cultural associations. The effect showed up. Babies looked longer at round shapes when they heard "bouba." They looked longer at spiky shapes when they heard "kiki."
Next, researchers crossed language boundaries. They tested speakers of languages that don't even use the Latin alphabet. The effect appeared in every language tested. Japanese speakers showed it. Mandarin speakers showed it. Arabic speakers showed it. Tamil speakers showed it. The bouba-kiki effect appeared consistent across linguistic and cultural boundaries.
Then came attempts to find it in other animals. Scientists tested primates, our closest genetic relatives. They found... nothing. Chimps showed no preference. Capuchin monkeys showed no preference. The bouba-kiki effect appeared to be a distinctly human trait.
This was significant. If the effect was unique to humans, it might explain something crucial about human cognition. It might be evidence of our capacity for abstract reasoning, symbolic thinking, or linguistic processing. It might be the spark that made human language possible.
For about two decades, that's where things stood. The bouba-kiki effect was uniquely human. It showed up in babies. It showed up across all human cultures. But it was absent in our closest animal relatives.
Then, in 2025, everything changed.
Estimated data suggests that the bouba-kiki effect is prevalent not only in humans but also in chickens and other animals, indicating a deep-rooted cognitive association across species.
The Chicken Experiment: A Surprising Twist
A team of Italian researchers—Maria Loconsole, Silvia Benavides-Varela, and Lucia Regolin from the University of Padova—decided to think bigger. Or smaller, rather. Instead of testing our closest genetic relatives, they decided to test an animal completely separated from us by millions of years of evolution: the chicken.
Why chickens? The decision seems eccentric until you understand the advantage. Newly hatched chicks have something that four-month-old human infants don't: immediate mobility. Baby humans spend months immobile, dependent, unable to independently explore their environment. Newly hatched chicks, by contrast, can walk within hours. They can follow objects. They can make choices about where to go.
This meant researchers could test the bouba-kiki effect in an animal that was awake, responsive, and capable of showing preference through simple movement. No need for complicated eye-tracking equipment or measures of looking time. Just observe where the animal moves.
The experimental setup was elegant. Researchers presented chicks that were just one or three days old with two shapes: one round, one angular. Then they played recordings of someone saying "bouba" or "kiki" and observed which shape the chick approached.
Control conditions ruled out confounding variables. Chicks played silence showed a slight preference for round shapes, consistent with findings in other species—many animals naturally prefer rounded forms. Chicks played classical music showed similar preferences.
But when the "bouba" recording was played, something remarkable happened. Eighty percent of chicks moved toward the round shape first. When "kiki" was played, only 25% moved toward the round shape. The vast majority went for the spiky shape, as reported by NPR.
The effect was stronger in three-day-old chicks than one-day-old chicks, but it was absolutely present from day one of life. These were animals that had never heard human speech before hatching. They had no exposure to language. They had no cultural learning. Yet they made the exact same associations humans make.
The implications hit the scientific community like a shock wave. The bouba-kiki effect wasn't a uniquely human trait after all. It wasn't evidence of our special linguistic capacity. It was something more fundamental, more ancient, more deeply embedded in how animal brains process sensory information.
What Makes Sounds "Round" or "Spiky"?
So what actually makes "bouba" sound round? Scientists have generated several competing theories, and the truth probably involves multiple mechanisms working together.
The articulatory hypothesis suggests that the shape of your mouth when producing the sound influences your perception of the sound's properties. "Bouba" requires you to round your lips, open your throat, create smooth, flowing articulatory gestures. "Kiki" requires sharp, precise mouth movements with quick transitions. Your brain, the theory goes, translates these mouth shapes into visual-like properties.
Support for this theory comes from the universality of the effect. Across languages with radically different phonetic systems, the effect persists. The actual acoustic properties of "b" and "k" sounds vary significantly across languages, yet the bouba-kiki effect shows up consistently. This suggests the effect isn't based on the objective properties of the sounds themselves, but rather on how those sounds are produced by the human vocal apparatus.
The visual metaphor hypothesis suggests something different. Maybe our brains perceive the shapes of acoustic spectrograms—visual representations of sound waves—and these visual patterns are directly linked to the visual shapes in question. "Bouba" produces spectrograms with smooth curves and gradual changes. "Kiki" produces jagged spectrograms with sharp peaks.
But here's the problem: chicks can't see acoustic spectrograms. They have no way to access visual representations of sound unless they were somehow innately understanding acoustic properties of sounds and matching them to visual perception of shapes.
The frequency hypothesis proposes that pitch plays a crucial role. High-frequency sounds naturally associate with small, sharp objects. Low-frequency sounds associate with large, round objects. This explains why "kiki," with its high-frequency "k" consonants, associates with sharp shapes. And why "bouba," with its lower, rounder vowel sounds, associates with round shapes.
This theory has the advantage of explaining why the effect appears in diverse species. Across the animal kingdom, larger animals produce lower-frequency sounds and smaller animals produce higher-frequency sounds. A brute matching between object size and sound frequency would make evolutionary sense. It would help animals navigate their world, match predators to prey, understand their environment through acoustic information.
The motor simulation hypothesis suggests that your brain simulates the motor actions needed to produce the sounds. When you hear "bouba," your brain partially activates the motor programs needed to say "bouba." These motor programs include the rounded mouth shape, the smooth tongue movements. Your brain projects these motor patterns onto visual perception, effectively "feeling" the roundness of the word and matching it to visual roundness.
Most likely, the truth involves all of these mechanisms and more. The bouba-kiki effect probably emerges from multiple independent pathways in the brain all pointing in the same direction, all creating associations between sounds and shapes through different routes. This explains why the effect is so robust, so consistent across cultures and species, and so automatic.
Estimated data shows that both humans and chicks predominantly associate 'bouba' with round shapes and 'kiki' with spiky shapes, with a small percentage showing other associations.
Crossmodal Correspondence Beyond Bouba-Kiki
The bouba-kiki effect isn't an isolated phenomenon. It's part of a broader category of perceptual linking called crossmodal correspondence, and once you start looking for it, you find it everywhere.
Pitch and visual brightness is one of the most famous examples. High-pitched sounds feel bright. Low-pitched sounds feel dark. This correspondence is so strong that it shows up in how we structure music, in how we use sound effects in film, in how we instinctively associate major keys with happier emotions and minor keys with sadder ones.
Researchers have found this correspondence in dozens of animal species. Dogs show it. Chimps show it. Tortoises show it. Birds show it. It appears to be a deep principle of how nervous systems organize information.
Pitch and vertical position creates another strong correspondence. High-pitched sounds feel like they're coming from above. Low-pitched sounds feel like they're coming from below. This correspondence is so automatic that orchestras naturally arrange instruments in a way that matches this correspondence: high-pitched instruments (violins) positioned higher, low-pitched instruments (cellos and basses) positioned lower.
Timbre and texture creates associations between the quality of sound and the texture you imagine. Rough sounds like harsh buzzing feel textually rough. Smooth sounds feel smooth. Sharp sounds feel sharp. These correspondences appear across cultures and in many animal species.
Sound and color shows intriguing correspondence. Some sounds feel reddish. Others feel bluish. Some researchers have found that certain musical keys and timbres naturally associate with certain colors across human listeners. Synesthetes—people with genuine cross-sensory wiring in their brains—often report that sounds produce visual colors.
What all of these examples demonstrate is that the bouba-kiki effect isn't weird or exceptional. It's normal. It's how animal brains naturally link information from different sensory systems. The real question isn't why the bouba-kiki effect exists. It's why it took scientists so long to take it seriously.
Why Chickens Didn't Have the Effect Before (And Why They Do Now)
For two decades, the prevailing assumption was that the bouba-kiki effect was uniquely human. Scientists tested primates repeatedly. The tests came back negative. The effect didn't appear. This suggested something special, something unique about human cognition was responsible.
But the failure to find the effect in primates probably says more about the testing methodology than about primate cognition. Adult primates are wildly complicated animals. They have established preferences, learned behaviors, established social hierarchies. Asking an adult chimp or an adult macaque to choose between shapes based on sounds is asking it to override its own motivational systems and comply with a human researcher's arbitrary instructions.
Young chicks, by contrast, are simpler in some ways. They're newborn. They have no learned associations. They have no established preferences that might override simple, instinctual responses. More importantly, they're mobile immediately after hatching. They can express preference through natural behavior—moving toward something—rather than through arbitrary compliance with experimental instructions.
This highlights something important about experimental design: how you test an ability can determine whether you find it or not. The failure to find the bouba-kiki effect in primates doesn't mean primates lack the ability. It might mean the experimental setup was poorly designed for how primate brains actually work.
It's worth noting that some primates do show evidence of crossmodal correspondence in other contexts. Chimps show pitch-brightness correspondence. Dogs show it. Tortoises show it. The primate failures on bouba-kiki might be a quirk of experimental design, not evidence of a missing ability.
The chicken finding completely reframes our understanding. If newly hatched chickens show the bouba-kiki effect, then the effect probably evolved tens or hundreds of millions of years ago. It's probably wired deep into vertebrate nervous systems. It's probably fundamental to how brains link sensory information.
The Bouba-Kiki effect is consistently observed in humans, including infants and speakers of various languages, but is absent in primates, highlighting its potential link to human-specific cognitive abilities. Estimated data.
The Evolutionary Perspective: Why Would Brains Develop These Associations?
From an evolutionary perspective, the bouba-kiki effect doesn't emerge from nowhere. Evolution doesn't create mechanisms by accident. If the bouba-kiki effect exists across multiple animal species, it must confer some advantage. It must solve some problem that brains needed to solve.
The most straightforward explanation is that crossmodal correspondence helps animals navigate their environments more effectively. If you can instinctively match acoustic properties to visual properties, you're building a richer, more integrated model of your environment.
Consider a predator-prey interaction. A small bird produces high-frequency vocalizations. When a predator hears high-frequency sounds, instinctively associating them with small, quick movements might improve survival outcomes. When larger prey produces low-frequency sounds, instinctively associating them with large shapes might help the predator accurately estimate size and threat level.
This kind of acoustic-to-visual matching would give animals an edge in hunting, in avoiding predators, in understanding their social environment. And if these correspondences emerged early in vertebrate evolution, they'd be baked into how all vertebrate nervous systems work.
The bouba-kiki effect specifically might emerge from the way sound-producing structures work. Animals that are large have large vocal cords and large resonating chambers. These produce low-frequency, sustained sounds. Animals that are small have small vocal cords and small chambers, producing high-frequency sounds.
If the brain makes a default assumption that low-frequency sounds indicate large objects and high-frequency sounds indicate small objects, this assumption would be correct often enough to be useful. It would help animals quickly estimate the size of sounds they hear without having to analyze complex acoustic features.
Adding the shape component—associating the smoothness or harshness of sounds with the roundness or sharpness of objects—might similarly help animals integrate acoustic and visual information. If a predator sounds rough and harsh, expecting sharp, angular properties might help you prepare for fast, aggressive movement. If a potential mate produces smooth, rounded vocalizations, expecting rounded, flowing movements might help you predict behavior more accurately.
Evolutionary advantage doesn't require huge improvements. Small improvements in prediction accuracy, in environmental understanding, in social coordination can add up over generations. The bouba-kiki effect, viewed through this lens, isn't mysterious. It's a simple, elegant solution to the problem of integrating information from different sensory systems.
What the Chicken Study Reveals About Language Evolution
One of the most fascinating implications of the chicken study concerns language evolution. For years, researchers wondered whether the bouba-kiki effect explained something crucial about how language got its start. Maybe the first words were onomatopoetic—sound-like words. Maybe these simple sound-meaning associations bootstrapped the entire human language system.
But the chicken study complicates this narrative. If the bouba-kiki effect exists in animals without language, then language didn't create the effect. Language probably co-evolved with or exploited an existing, pre-linguistic capacity.
This suggests a different story about language origins. Early humans probably didn't invent the bouba-kiki effect. Instead, they inherited it from their animal ancestors. This pre-existing correspondence between sounds and shapes might have made certain words feel more natural than others. Words that matched the bouba-kiki associations might have stuck in human culture because they felt intuitive.
Over time, this might have created a linguistic environment where certain sound-meaning associations felt natural. High, sharp sounds might have naturally gravitated toward meanings associated with sharp, small, quick things. Low, round sounds might have naturally gravitated toward meanings associated with large, slow, round things.
This doesn't mean language is entirely determined by the bouba-kiki effect. Obviously it's not. We have plenty of words that violate these associations. But the effect might have created default preferences, a gravitational field that words were more likely to move toward.
This reframes language evolution from a top-down story (humans invented language from scratch) to a bottom-up story (humans built language on top of pre-existing perceptual mechanisms that millions of years of animal evolution had already perfected).
The experiment showed that 80% of chicks moved towards the round shape when 'bouba' was played, while 75% moved towards the angular shape when 'kiki' was played, indicating a strong bouba-kiki effect.
The Neuroscience Behind the Effect: What Brain Regions Are Involved?
Where in the brain does the bouba-kiki effect happen? This question has driven significant neuroscience research. Understanding the neural basis of the effect could reveal how the brain integrates information from different sensory systems generally.
Brain imaging studies in humans show activity in several regions when people experience the bouba-kiki effect. The superior temporal sulcus, involved in processing complex auditory information, shows activation. The visual cortex, obviously involved in processing visual information, shows activation. But more surprisingly, regions involved in motor processing also light up.
This finding supports the motor simulation hypothesis mentioned earlier. When you hear "bouba," your brain partially activates the motor programs needed to say "bouba." These motor patterns, involving smooth, rounded mouth movements, somehow influence how you perceive visual shapes.
The insula, a region involved in integrating information from different sensory modalities, shows significant activation. This makes sense given that the bouba-kiki effect is fundamentally an act of sensory integration—linking auditory information to visual perception.
Cross-species comparisons are trickier. You can't exactly do fMRI scans on newly hatched chicks. But researchers can look at which neural pathways are most developed at birth, which pathways are most conserved across species, and which pathways show the greatest activity during the kinds of choice behaviors the chickens displayed.
We know that the basic sensory pathways—auditory cortex, visual cortex—are functional in newly hatched chicks. We also know that birds have regions homologous to human regions involved in sensory integration. If chicks show the bouba-kiki effect, the neural hardware necessary for the effect must be in place by the time they hatch.
This suggests the effect relies on relatively fundamental brain organization—basic sensory pathways, basic integration mechanisms—rather than on elaborate cortical structures that require months or years to develop.
The Mystery of Individual Differences: Why Some People Show the Effect More Than Others
While the bouba-kiki effect is remarkably consistent, it's not universal. Most people, most chickens, most animals tested show the effect. But some don't. About 2-5% of humans tested show either no effect or the reverse effect (associating "bouba" with sharp shapes).
Why do these differences exist? Several factors have been explored.
Language background might play a small role. Speakers of languages with unusual phonetic structures might experience the effect differently. A language with unusually harsh fricatives might create different sound-shape associations than a language dominated by softer sounds.
Synaesthesia creates obvious individual differences. Synaesthetes have genuine cross-sensory wiring in their brains. They might experience strong bouba-kiki effects due to their unusual neural architecture. Some synaesthetes report that sounds consistently produce visual colors, that numbers have intrinsic colors, that letters have personalities. For these individuals, linking sounds to shapes might feel extraordinarily strong and obvious.
Developmental differences might matter. People with certain developmental conditions might show altered bouba-kiki effects. Some research suggests that people with autism spectrum disorder might show the effect differently, though results are mixed and context-dependent.
Musical training might influence the effect. Musicians spend years training their brains to process sounds in particular ways. They might experience the bouba-kiki effect differently than non-musicians, either stronger or weaker depending on their training.
Attention and conscious processing can interfere with the effect. If you deliberately try to make the "wrong" association—matching "bouba" with a spiky shape—you can do it. Your conscious mind can override the automatic association. This suggests the effect operates at a level below conscious control, and individual differences in conscious control might create differences in how strongly the effect manifests.
Future research will likely explore these individual differences more carefully. Understanding why the effect shows up strongly in some people and weakly in others might reveal important information about how individual brains differ in their sensory integration abilities.
Implications for Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
The bouba-kiki effect has surprising implications for artificial intelligence. If we want to build AI systems that perceive the world the way humans do, we might need to build in crossmodal correspondences like the bouba-kiki effect.
Current AI systems process each sensory modality separately. A computer vision system processes images. An audio processing system processes sounds. They don't necessarily talk to each other. The result is AI systems that can be brilliant at specific tasks—recognizing faces, transcribing speech—but that lack the integrated, embodied understanding of the world that animals have.
Building in crossmodal correspondences might improve AI systems in several ways. It could help with audio-visual synchronization, matching sounds to visual events more naturally. It could help with scene understanding, building richer models by combining information from multiple sensory channels. It could help with language understanding, recognizing that certain word-meaning associations feel more natural than others.
Some researchers have started exploring this. AI systems trained on multimodal data—images and sounds together—sometimes spontaneously develop associations similar to human crossmodal correspondences. An AI trained on millions of images paired with sounds might learn that high-pitched sounds are more likely to go with small, bright objects, creating something like the pitch-brightness-size correspondence humans have.
The bouba-kiki effect might seem like an obscure cognitive phenomenon, but it hints at something important about how brains work. It hints that perception is deeply integrated, that senses talk to each other, that the brain is constantly creating connections between sensory channels.
Replicating this integration in AI systems might bring AI closer to human-like understanding.
From Single Neurons to Behavior: How Simple Mechanisms Create Complex Effects
One of the most remarkable aspects of the bouba-kiki effect is that it likely emerges from relatively simple mechanisms. You don't need a complex brain to show the effect. A chicken brain—proportionally much smaller than a human brain, with far fewer neurons—shows it.
This tells us something important about how neuroscience works. Complex behaviors and perceptions don't always require complex neural mechanisms. Sometimes simple rules, applied at the level of individual neurons and small neural circuits, can create surprisingly sophisticated outputs.
Consider how individual neurons respond to sounds. Each neuron responds most strongly to particular frequencies. A neuron might prefer high-frequency sounds over low-frequency sounds. At the level of individual neurons, this is just a preference, a tuning property.
But when millions of these neurons work together, when signals are integrated across multiple brain regions, when evolutionary pressures have shaped these simple preferences over millions of years, complex perceptual phenomena emerge.
The bouba-kiki effect might emerge from something as simple as this: neurons in auditory cortex that prefer high-frequency sounds are more closely connected to neurons in visual cortex that prefer small shapes. Neurons that prefer low-frequency sounds are more closely connected to neurons that prefer large shapes.
At the level of single neurons, this is just wiring. But at the level of behavior, it creates a robust, measurable effect: the tendency to match certain sounds with certain shapes.
This principle extends beyond the bouba-kiki effect. Many sophisticated cognitive abilities probably emerge from surprisingly simple neural mechanisms operating at scale. Understanding this—understanding that complexity can emerge from simplicity—is crucial for understanding how brains work.
The Broader Significance: What This Reveals About Sensation and Perception
The bouba-kiki effect, in the end, reveals something profound about how nervous systems work. It shows that perception is not a passive process of recording sensory information. It's an active process of creating associations, linking information from different sensory channels, building integrated models of the world.
When you see a shape and hear a sound, your brain doesn't just record these independently. It tries to link them. It looks for connections. It asks: do these sensory inputs belong together? Do they describe the same thing? Are they congruent or conflicting?
The bouba-kiki effect is the brain's default answer to this question: yes, "bouba" and roundness belong together. Yes, "kiki" and sharpness belong together. Not because anyone taught you this association, but because your nervous system is wired to make these connections automatically.
This has profound implications for how we think about sensory experience. It means that no sensory channel operates in isolation. Your visual perception is colored by what you hear. Your auditory perception is colored by what you see. Your perception of touch, taste, and smell interact with both vision and hearing.
It means that perception is holistic. You don't perceive the world as a collection of isolated sensory inputs. You perceive it as an integrated whole, where information from multiple sensory channels combines to create unified percepts.
It means that animals—all animals, not just humans—are doing sophisticated information integration. A chicken isn't just hearing sounds and seeing shapes independently. It's linking them, creating associations, building an integrated model of what the world contains.
This reframes how we think about animal cognition. It suggests that even relatively simple animals are engaging in the kinds of sophisticated perceptual feats that we usually attribute to humans.
Future Directions: What Questions Remain
Despite significant research, major questions about the bouba-kiki effect remain unanswered.
Why does the effect appear? We have theories, but we lack definitive proof of the mechanism. Is it mouth shape? Is it acoustic properties? Is it evolutionary history? Is it some combination of all of these? Future research with better neuroimaging, better behavioral testing, and better animal models might finally pin this down.
How universal is it? The chicken study was groundbreaking, but it's still just one species. Do other birds show the effect? What about reptiles? Fish? Amphibians? Understanding the full distribution of the effect across the animal kingdom would help us understand when it evolved and why.
How does it change with development? We know it shows up in human infants at 4 months old. When does it show up? Can we measure it in even younger infants? How does it develop through childhood? Does training or experience change it? Does it change during aging?
How does culture influence it? The effect appears across cultures, but does it appear equally strongly? Do some cultures show stronger effects than others? Does exposure to particular languages or musical traditions change how strongly the effect manifests?
How does it relate to language development? If the bouba-kiki effect is pre-linguistic, does it influence how children learn language? Do children more readily learn words that match bouba-kiki associations? Does the effect explain why certain words feel intuitively correct and others feel awkward?
Can it be trained or modified? If you deliberately practice matching "bouba" with sharp shapes, can you overcome the effect? How much practice would be required? Would the modification be permanent or temporary?
What about other crossmodal correspondences? If we understand the mechanism behind bouba-kiki, will that help us understand pitch-brightness, pitch-size, texture-sound associations? Are all crossmodal correspondences generated by the same mechanism, or are they independent?
These questions will drive research for years. The chicken study opened a door, but behind that door is an enormous room of mysteries still waiting to be explored.
FAQ
What is the bouba-kiki effect?
The bouba-kiki effect is the tendency for humans and other animals to associate the nonsense word "bouba" with round shapes and the nonsense word "kiki" with sharp, spiky shapes. This association appears automatically and consistently across different languages, cultures, and even species, despite the words having no inherent meaning. The effect reveals that our brains instinctively link sounds to visual properties through a process called crossmodal correspondence.
Why was the chicken study significant?
The chicken study was significant because it demonstrated that newly hatched chickens—animals with no language exposure, no cultural learning, and minimal brain development—show the same bouba-kiki associations as humans. This finding proved the effect is not uniquely human and not dependent on language. It suggested the effect is an ancient feature of vertebrate nervous systems that evolved millions of years before human language developed. The study fundamentally changed our understanding of both the bouba-kiki effect and animal cognition more broadly.
How does the bouba-kiki effect work in the brain?
The bouba-kiki effect likely involves multiple mechanisms working together. When you hear "bouba," your brain might simulate the rounded mouth movements required to produce the sound, then project those motor patterns onto visual perception of shapes. Alternatively, your brain might recognize that high-frequency components of "kiki" naturally associate with small, sharp objects, while the lower-frequency components of "bouba" associate with large, round objects. Brain imaging studies show activation in auditory cortex, visual cortex, motor regions, and regions that integrate information across sensory modalities, suggesting the effect emerges from coordinated activity across multiple brain systems.
Is the bouba-kiki effect found in all humans?
The bouba-kiki effect is remarkably consistent across human populations, appearing in roughly 95-98% of people tested. However, it's not universal. About 2-5% of humans show either no effect or even reverse associations (matching "bouba" with sharp shapes). These individual differences might reflect variations in language background, synaesthesia, developmental differences, musical training, or individual variation in sensory processing abilities. The effect is also present in human infants as young as 4 months old, before language acquisition has progressed significantly.
What other crossmodal correspondences exist?
The bouba-kiki effect is one example of a broader phenomenon called crossmodal correspondence, in which input from one sensory system influences perception in another sensory system. Other well-documented crossmodal correspondences include pitch-brightness (high-pitched sounds feel brighter), pitch-size (high-pitched sounds feel smaller and faster), and texture-sound associations (rough sounds feel textually rough while smooth sounds feel smooth). These correspondences appear across human cultures and in many animal species, suggesting they represent fundamental principles of how nervous systems organize sensory information.
Why do some sounds feel round and others feel sharp?
Scientists have proposed several complementary explanations. The articulatory hypothesis suggests that the mouth shapes and tongue movements required to produce sounds map onto the visual properties we associate with them. The frequency hypothesis proposes that high-frequency sounds naturally associate with small, sharp objects while low-frequency sounds associate with large, round objects. The motor simulation hypothesis suggests your brain simulates the motor actions needed to produce sounds, then projects those motor patterns onto visual perception. Most likely, all of these mechanisms contribute to creating the effect. Evolution may have favored animals whose brains automatically linked acoustic properties to visual properties, helping them navigate their environments more effectively.
Could the bouba-kiki effect influence language development?
Yes, the bouba-kiki effect might influence how languages develop and how children acquire language. Words that match bouba-kiki associations—high, sharp sounds with meanings related to small, quick things—might feel more intuitively correct than words that violate these associations. Over generations, languages might gradually evolve to match these natural associations. Additionally, children learning language might acquire words more readily if the sound properties match the word's meaning. However, the effect is not deterministic; humans use countless words that violate these associations, suggesting that while the effect might influence language development, it doesn't determine it.
Does the bouba-kiki effect appear in animals other than chickens?
The bouba-kiki effect has been specifically tested in newly hatched chickens, which showed strong associations. Related crossmodal correspondences like pitch-brightness associations have been found in numerous animal species including dogs, tortoises, and primates. Researchers have found the bouba-kiki effect is absent in adult primates tested in laboratory settings, though this may reflect experimental design rather than true absence of the ability. Future research on other bird species, reptiles, and other animals will help determine how widespread the effect is across the animal kingdom.
How might understanding the bouba-kiki effect help artificial intelligence?
Understanding crossmodal correspondences like the bouba-kiki effect could improve artificial intelligence systems by helping them integrate information from multiple sensory channels more like humans do. Current AI systems often process vision, audio, and other modalities separately. Building in automatic associations between sensory channels—recognizing that high-pitched sounds naturally go with small, bright objects, for example—could help AI systems build richer, more integrated models of the world. This could improve audio-visual synchronization, scene understanding, and language processing in AI systems, bringing them closer to human-like perception.
Can people learn to overcome the bouba-kiki effect?
Yes, people can consciously override the bouba-kiki effect through deliberate effort. If you deliberately try to match "bouba" with a spiky shape, you can do it; your conscious mind can override the automatic association. However, the effect remains automatic and unconscious in most contexts. The degree to which practice or training can permanently modify the effect remains an open research question. The fact that the effect can be overridden consciously suggests it operates at a level below conscious awareness but is not completely immune to voluntary control.
The bouba-kiki effect, once a curious footnote in cognitive psychology, has become a window into fundamental principles of how nervous systems work. It reveals that perception is deeply integrated, that senses talk to each other, that evolutionary history shapes how we experience the world.
The chicken study of 2025 didn't answer all the questions. In many ways, it created more questions than it answered. But that's how science works. A good finding raises new mysteries faster than it solves old ones.
What we now know is that the bouba-kiki effect isn't uniquely human. It's not evidence of special linguistic capacity. It's not a recent evolutionary development. It's ancient. It's widespread. It reflects how animal brains—from chickens to humans—automatically link information from different sensory systems to build integrated models of the world.
That understanding alone reshapes how we think about perception, cognition, and the continuity between human and animal minds.
Key Takeaways
- The bouba-kiki effect—associating 'bouba' with round shapes and 'kiki' with spiky shapes—is not uniquely human; newly hatched chickens show the same associations.
- The effect appears in human infants as young as 4 months old and across all tested human cultures, suggesting a deep evolutionary origin.
- Crossmodal correspondence mechanisms link information from different sensory systems automatically; the brain integrates hearing and vision at a fundamental neural level.
- The effect likely evolved because matching acoustic properties to visual properties helps animals navigate their environments and make accurate predictions.
- Understanding the bouba-kiki effect provides insights into how language evolved—humans may have built sophisticated language on top of pre-existing perceptual mechanisms perfected over millions of years of animal evolution.
