CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 358Multisensory perception and integrationSpeech and Audio ProcessingTactile and Sensory Interactions

Temporal constraints on the McGurk effect

Open access
Munhall, K. G., Gribble, P., Sacco, L., Ward, M.·1996·Perception & Psychophysics
DOI 10.3758/bf03206811
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Three experiments are reported on the influence of different timing relations on the McGurk effect. In the first experiment, it is shown that strict temporal synchrony between auditory and visual speech stimuli is not required for the McGurk effect. Subjects were strongly influenced by the visual stimuli when the auditory stimuli lagged the visual stimuli by as much as 180 msec. In addition, a stronger McGurk effect was found when the visual and auditory vowels matched. In the second experiment, we paired auditory and visual speech stimuli produced under different speaking conditions (fast, normal, clear). The results showed that the manipulations in both the visual and auditory speaking conditions independently influenced perception. In addition, there was a small but reliable tendency for the better matched stimuli to elicit more McGurk responses than unmatched conditions. In the third experiment, we combined auditory and visual stimuli produced under different speaking conditions (fast, clear) and delayed the acoustics with respect to the visual stimuli. The subjects showed the same pattern of results as in the second experiment. Finally, the delay did not cause different patterns of results for the different audiovisual speaking style combinations. The results suggest that perceivers may be sensitive to the concordance of the time-varying aspects of speech but they do not require temporal coincidence of that information.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03206811

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Seeing a person talking makes understanding easier than only hearing the person talking.

    “For example, seeing a person talking makes understanding easier, as compared with only hearing the person talking (Campbell, Dodd, & Burnham, 1998;Munhall, Gribble, Sacco, & Ward, 1996).”

    From Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review (2013) · cites this paper as Munhall, Gribble, Sacco, & Ward, 1996

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [2]2. BERNSTEIN, L. E., COULTER, D., O'CONNELL, M. P.. EBERHARDT, S., & DEMOREST, M, (1992, June). Vibrotactile and haptic speech codes. Paper presented at the Second International Conference on Tactile Aids, Hearing Aids, & Cochlear Implants, Stockholm.
  2. [5]5. COHEN, M, M. (1984). Processing of visual and auditory information in speech perception. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
  3. [9]9. GAGNE, J.-P., MASTERSON, V., MUNHALL, K. G., BILIDA, N., & QUERENGESSER, C (1994). Across talker variability in speech intel- ligibility for conversational and clear speech: A crossmodal investi- gation. Journal ofthe Academy ofRehabilitative Audiology; 27, 133- 158.
  4. [12]12. GERDEMAN, A. (1994). Temporal incongruity and the McGurk effect. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Arizona, Tucson.
  5. [24]24. LIBERMAN, A., COOPER, E, SHANKWEILER, D., & STUDDERT- KENNEDY, M. (I 967). Perception ofthe speech code. Psychological Review, 74, 431-461.
  6. [37]37. PICHENY, M. A., DURLACH, N., & BRAIDA, L. (1985). Speaking clearly forthe hard of hearing I: Intelligibility differences between clear and conversational speech. Journal ofSpeech & Hearing Research, 28, 96-103.
  7. [39]39. REMEZ, R. E., & RUBIN, P. E. (in press). Acoustic shards, perceptual glue. In 1. Charles-Luce, P. A. Luce, & 1. R. Sawusch (Eds.), Theo- ries in spoken language: Perception, production, and development. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  8. [43]43. SMEELE, P. M. T., SITTIG, A. C., & VAN HEUVEN, V. J. (1992). Intelli- gibility ofaudio-visually de synchronized speech: Asymmetrical ef- fect of phoneme position. In Proceedings ofthe International Con- ference on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 65-68).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Munhall, K. G., Gribble, P., Sacco, L., & Ward, M.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
Munhall, K. G.
ORCID
Gribble, P.
Venue
Perception & Psychophysics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1996-01
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
351-362
ISSN
  • 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5962
DOI
10.3758/bf03206811
OpenAlex
W2061698928
Cited by
358
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 18
FWCI
8.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC000594, DC-00594)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
Keywords
McGurk effect, audiovisual speech perception, temporal synchronization, audiovisual integration, vowel perception, speech rate, speech style, multisensory integration
MeSH terms
Attention, Humans, Lipreading, Paired-Associate Learning, Phonetics, Psychoacoustics, Speech Intelligibility, Speech Perception, Time Perception

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review