Literature DB >> 33884572

Rethinking the McGurk effect as a perceptual illusion.

Laura M Getz1,2, Joseph C Toscano3.   

Abstract

Visual speech cues play an important role in speech recognition, and the McGurk effect is a classic demonstration of this. In the original McGurk & Macdonald (Nature 264, 746-748 1976) experiment, 98% of participants reported an illusory "fusion" percept of /d/ when listening to the spoken syllable /b/ and watching the visual speech movements for /g/. However, more recent work shows that subject and task differences influence the proportion of fusion responses. In the current study, we varied task (forced-choice vs. open-ended), stimulus set (including /d/ exemplars vs. not), and data collection environment (lab vs. Mechanical Turk) to investigate the robustness of the McGurk effect. Across experiments, using the same stimuli to elicit the McGurk effect, we found fusion responses ranging from 10% to 60%, thus showing large variability in the likelihood of experiencing the McGurk effect across factors that are unrelated to the perceptual information provided by the stimuli. Rather than a robust perceptual illusion, we therefore argue that the McGurk effect exists only for some individuals under specific task situations.Significance: This series of studies re-evaluates the classic McGurk effect, which shows the relevance of visual cues on speech perception. We highlight the importance of taking into account subject variables and task differences, and challenge future researchers to think carefully about the perceptual basis of the McGurk effect, how it is defined, and what it can tell us about audiovisual integration in speech.
© 2021. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Audiovisual integration; McGurk effect; Speech perception

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33884572     DOI: 10.3758/s13414-021-02265-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  54 in total

1.  Auditory-visual speech integration by prelinguistic infants: perception of an emergent consonant in the McGurk effect.

Authors:  Denis Burnham; Barbara Dodd
Journal:  Dev Psychobiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.038

2.  The McGurk phenomenon in Italian listeners.

Authors:  R Bovo; A Ciorba; S Prosser; A Martini
Journal:  Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.124

3.  Mental imagery changes multisensory perception.

Authors:  Christopher C Berger; H Henrik Ehrsson
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 10.834

4.  Audiovisual integration in noise by children and adults.

Authors:  Ayla Barutchu; Jaclyn Danaher; Sheila G Crewther; Hamish Innes-Brown; Mohit N Shivdasani; Antonio G Paolini
Journal:  J Exp Child Psychol       Date:  2009-10-12

5.  Auditory-visual speech perception and aging.

Authors:  Kathleen M Cienkowski; Arlene Earley Carney
Journal:  Ear Hear       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 3.570

6.  Range effect in the perception of voicing.

Authors:  S A Brady; C J Darwin
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1978-05       Impact factor: 1.840

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.  The McGurk effect in children with autism and Asperger syndrome.

Authors:  James M Bebko; Jessica H Schroeder; Jonathan A Weiss
Journal:  Autism Res       Date:  2013-10-17       Impact factor: 5.216

9.  Is the integration of heard and seen speech mandatory for infants?

Authors:  Renée N Desjardins; Janet F Werker
Journal:  Dev Psychobiol       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.038

10.  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

View more
  1 in total

1.  FORUM: Remote testing for psychological and physiological acoustics.

Authors:  Z Ellen Peng; Sebastian Waz; Emily Buss; Yi Shen; Virginia Richards; Hari Bharadwaj; G Christopher Stecker; Jordan A Beim; Adam K Bosen; Meredith D Braza; Anna C Diedesch; Claire M Dorey; Andrew R Dykstra; Frederick J Gallun; Raymond L Goldsworthy; Lincoln Gray; Eric C Hoover; Antje Ihlefeld; Thomas Koelewijn; Judy G Kopun; Juraj Mesik; Daniel E Shub; Jonathan H Venezia
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2022-05       Impact factor: 2.482

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.