Literature DB >> 26041554

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

John F Magnotti1, Debshila Basu Mallick, Guo Feng, Bin Zhou, Wen Zhou, Michael S Beauchamp.   

Abstract

Humans combine visual information from mouth movements with auditory information from the voice to recognize speech. A common method for assessing multisensory speech perception is the McGurk effect: When presented with particular pairings of incongruent auditory and visual speech syllables (e.g., the auditory speech sounds for "ba" dubbed onto the visual mouth movements for "ga"), individuals perceive a third syllable, distinct from the auditory and visual components. Chinese and American cultures differ in the prevalence of direct facial gaze and in the auditory structure of their languages, raising the possibility of cultural- and language-related group differences in the McGurk effect. There is no consensus in the literature about the existence of these group differences, with some studies reporting less McGurk effect in native Mandarin Chinese speakers than in English speakers and others reporting no difference. However, these studies sampled small numbers of participants tested with a small number of stimuli. Therefore, we collected data on the McGurk effect from large samples of Mandarin-speaking individuals from China and English-speaking individuals from the USA (total n = 307) viewing nine different stimuli. Averaged across participants and stimuli, we found similar frequencies of the McGurk effect between Chinese and American participants (48 vs. 44 %). In both groups, we observed a large range of frequencies both across participants (range from 0 to 100 %) and stimuli (15 to 83 %) with the main effect of culture and language accounting for only 0.3 % of the variance in the data. High individual variability in perception of the McGurk effect necessitates the use of large sample sizes to accurately estimate group differences.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26041554      PMCID: PMC4536079          DOI: 10.1007/s00221-015-4324-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  26 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.  Visual speech speeds up the neural processing of auditory speech.

Authors:  Virginie van Wassenhove; Ken W Grant; David Poeppel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2005-01-12       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Differences in susceptibility to the "blending illusion" among Native Hebrew and English speakers.

Authors:  S Aloufy; M Lapidot; M Myslobodskym
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 2.381

4.  Editors' Introduction to the Special Section on Replicability in Psychological Science: A Crisis of Confidence?

Authors:  Harold Pashler; Eric-Jan Wagenmakers
Journal:  Perspect Psychol Sci       Date:  2012-11

5.  Audio-visual integration in schizophrenia.

Authors:  Beatrice de Gelder; Jean Vroomen; Leonie Annen; Erik Masthof; Paul Hodiamont
Journal:  Schizophr Res       Date:  2003-02-01       Impact factor: 4.939

6.  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

7.  Is Alzheimer's disease a disconnection syndrome? Evidence from a crossmodal audio-visual illusory experiment.

Authors:  X Delbeuck; F Collette; M Van der Linden
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  2007-05-22       Impact factor: 3.139

8.  Impact of language on development of auditory-visual speech perception.

Authors:  Kaoru Sekiyama; Denis Burnham
Journal:  Dev Sci       Date:  2008-03

9.  Developmental factors and the non-native speaker effect in auditory-visual speech perception.

Authors:  Yuchun Chen; Valerie Hazan
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.840

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

Authors:  John F Magnotti; Michael S Beauchamp
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-06
View more
  12 in total

1.  Rethinking the McGurk effect as a perceptual illusion.

Authors:  Laura M Getz; Joseph C Toscano
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  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

3.  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

4.  Neural evidence accounting for interindividual variability of the McGurk illusion.

Authors:  Antoine J Shahin
Journal:  Neurosci Lett       Date:  2019-06-07       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Audiovisual speech perception: A new approach and implications for clinical populations.

Authors:  Julia Irwin; Lori DiBlasi
Journal:  Lang Linguist Compass       Date:  2017-03-26

6.  The McGurk effect in the time of pandemic: Age-dependent adaptation to an environmental loss of visual speech cues.

Authors:  Kateřina Chládková; Václav Jonáš Podlipský; Natalia Nudga; Šárka Šimáčková
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2021-01-14

7.  Intact lip-reading but weaker McGurk effect in individuals with high autistic traits.

Authors:  Yuta Ujiie; Akio Wakabayashi
Journal:  Int J Dev Disabil       Date:  2019-12-17

8.  Relative Contribution of Auditory and Visual Information to Mandarin Chinese Tone Identification by Native and Tone-naïve Listeners.

Authors:  Yueqiao Han; Martijn Goudbeek; Maria Mos; Marc Swerts
Journal:  Lang Speech       Date:  2019-12-30       Impact factor: 1.500

9.  What accounts for individual differences in susceptibility to the McGurk effect?

Authors:  Violet A Brown; Maryam Hedayati; Annie Zanger; Sasha Mayn; Lucia Ray; Naseem Dillman-Hasso; Julia F Strand
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Published estimates of group differences in multisensory integration are inflated.

Authors:  John F Magnotti; Michael S Beauchamp
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.