Literature DB >> 25802068

Variability and stability in the McGurk effect: contributions of participants, stimuli, time, and response type.

Debshila Basu Mallick1, John F Magnotti2, Michael S Beauchamp3.   

Abstract

In the McGurk effect, pairing incongruent auditory and visual syllables produces a percept different from the component syllables. Although it is a popular assay of audiovisual speech integration, little is known about the distribution of responses to the McGurk effect in the population. In our first experiment, we measured McGurk perception using 12 different McGurk stimuli in a sample of 165 English-speaking adults, 40 of whom were retested following a one-year interval. We observed dramatic differences both in how frequently different individuals perceived the illusion (from 0 % to 100 %) and in how frequently the illusion was perceived across different stimuli (17 % to 58 %). For individual stimuli, the distributions of response frequencies deviated strongly from normality, with 77 % of participants almost never or almost always perceiving the effect (≤10 % or ≥90 %). This deviation suggests that the mean response frequency, the most commonly reported measure of the McGurk effect, is a poor measure of individual participants' responses, and that the assumptions made by parametric statistical tests are invalid. Despite the substantial variability across individuals and stimuli, there was little change in the frequency of the effect between initial testing and a one-year retest (mean change in frequency = 2 %; test-retest correlation, r = 0.91). In a second experiment, we replicated our findings of high variability using eight new McGurk stimuli and tested the effects of open-choice versus forced-choice responding. Forced-choice responding resulted in an estimated 18 % greater frequency of the McGurk effect but similar levels of interindividual variability. Our results highlight the importance of examining individual differences in McGurk perception instead of relying on summary statistics averaged across a population. However, individual variability in the McGurk effect does not preclude its use as a stable measure of audiovisual integration.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Audiovisual integration; Individual differences; McGurk effect; Speech perception

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25802068      PMCID: PMC4580505          DOI: 10.3758/s13423-015-0817-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  30 in total

1.  Hearing lips and seeing voices.

Authors:  H McGurk; J MacDonald
Journal:  Nature       Date:  1976 Dec 23-30       Impact factor: 49.962

2.  A comparison of the McGurk effect for spoken and sung syllables.

Authors:  Lena Quinto; William Forde Thompson; Frank A Russo; Sandra E Trehub
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.199

3.  Neural correlates of interindividual differences in children's audiovisual speech perception.

Authors:  Audrey R Nath; Eswen E Fava; Michael S Beauchamp
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2011-09-28       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Hearing lips and seeing voices: how cortical areas supporting speech production mediate audiovisual speech perception.

Authors:  Jeremy I Skipper; Virginie van Wassenhove; Howard C Nusbaum; Steven L Small
Journal:  Cereb Cortex       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 5.357

5.  The Psychophysics Toolbox.

Authors:  D H Brainard
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

6.  Confusions among visually perceived consonants.

Authors:  C G Fisher
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1968-12

7.  Individual differences in the multisensory temporal binding window predict susceptibility to audiovisual illusions.

Authors:  Ryan A Stevenson; Raquel K Zemtsov; Mark T Wallace
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-03-05       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  The noisy encoding of disparity model of the McGurk effect.

Authors:  John F Magnotti; Michael S Beauchamp
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-06

9.  Improvement in speech-reading ability by auditory training: Evidence from gender differences in normally hearing, deaf and cochlear implanted subjects.

Authors:  K Strelnikov; J Rouger; S Lagleyre; B Fraysse; O Deguine; P Barone
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2008-10-30       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  Speech and non-speech audio-visual illusions: a developmental study.

Authors:  Corinne Tremblay; François Champoux; Patrice Voss; Benoit A Bacon; Franco Lepore; Hugo Théoret
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2007-08-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  44 in total

1.  Similar frequency of the McGurk effect in large samples of native Mandarin Chinese and American English speakers.

Authors:  John F Magnotti; Debshila Basu Mallick; Guo Feng; Bin Zhou; Wen Zhou; Michael S Beauchamp
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 1.972

2.  Acoustic noise and vision differentially warp the auditory categorization of speech.

Authors:  Gavin M Bidelman; Lauren Sigley; Gwyneth A Lewis
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2019-07       Impact factor: 1.840

3.  Audiovisual integration as conflict resolution: The conflict of the McGurk illusion.

Authors:  Luis Morís Fernández; Emiliano Macaluso; Salvador Soto-Faraco
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2017-08-09       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Links between temporal acuity and multisensory integration across life span.

Authors:  Ryan A Stevenson; Sarah H Baum; Juliane Krueger; Paul A Newhouse; Mark T Wallace
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2017-04-27       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  Audiovisual sentence recognition not predicted by susceptibility to the McGurk effect.

Authors:  Kristin J Van Engen; Zilong Xie; Bharath Chandrasekaran
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Free viewing of talking faces reveals mouth and eye preferring regions of the human superior temporal sulcus.

Authors:  Johannes Rennig; Michael S Beauchamp
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-08-06       Impact factor: 6.556

7.  Parallel linear dynamic models can mimic the McGurk effect in clinical populations.

Authors:  Nicholas Altieri; Cheng-Ta Yang
Journal:  J Comput Neurosci       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 1.621

8.  McGurk stimuli for the investigation of multisensory integration in cochlear implant users: The Oldenburg Audio Visual Speech Stimuli (OLAVS).

Authors:  Maren Stropahl; Sebastian Schellhardt; Stefan Debener
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2017-06

9.  Cross-modal effects in speech perception.

Authors:  Megan Keough; Donald Derrick; Bryan Gick
Journal:  Annu Rev Linguist       Date:  2018-08-01

10.  Face viewing behavior predicts multisensory gain during speech perception.

Authors:  Johannes Rennig; Kira Wegner-Clemens; Michael S Beauchamp
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2020-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.