CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 239Multisensory perception and integrationPhonetics and Phonology ResearchSpeech and Audio Processing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Integrating speech information across talkers, gender, and sensory modality: Female faces and male voices in the McGurk effect

Open access
Green, Kerry P., Kuhl, Patricia K., Meltzoff, Andrew N., Stevens, Erica B.·1991·Perception & Psychophysics
DOI 10.3758/bf03207536
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Studies of the McGurk effect have shown that when discrepant phonetic information is delivered to the auditory and visual modalities, the information is combined into a new percept not originally presented to either modality. In typical experiments, the auditory and visual speech signals are generated by the same talker. The present experiment examined whether a discrepancy in the gender of the talker between the auditory and visual signals would influence the magnitude of the McGurk effect. A male talker's voice was dubbed onto a videotape containing a female talker's face, and vice versa. The gender-incongruent videotapes were compared with gender-congruent videotapes, in which a male talker's voice was dubbed onto a male face and a female talker's voice was dubbed onto a female face. Even though there was a clear incompatibility in talker characteristics between the auditory and visual signals on the incongruent videotapes, the resulting magnitude of the McGurk effect was not significantly different for the incongruent as opposed to the congruent videotapes. The results indicate that the mechanism for integrating speech information from the auditory and the visual modalities is not disrupted by a gender incompatibility even when it is perceptually apparent. The findings are compatible with the theoretical notion that information about voice characteristics of the talker is extracted and used to normalize the speech signal at an early stage of phonetic processing, prior to the integration of the auditory and the visual information.

Overview

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/bf03207536

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Binnie, C. A., Montgomery, A. A., &Jackson, P. L. (1974). Auditory and visual contributions to the perception of selected English consonants for normally hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. In H. Bir Nielsen & E. Kampp (Eds.),Visual and audio-visual perception of speech (Scandinavian Audiology Supplementum 4, pp. 181–209). Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell.
  2. Cohen, M. M. (1984).Processing of visual and auditory information in speech perception. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz.
  3. Kuhl, P. K. (1980). Perceptual constancy for speech-sound categories in early infancy. In G. H. Yeni-Komshian, J. F. Kavanaugh, & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.),Child phonology: Vol. 2. Perception (pp. 41–66). New York: Academic Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 239

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Green, K. P., Kuhl, P. K., Meltzoff, A. N., & Stevens, E. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
ORCID
Venue
Perception & Psychophysics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1991-11
Volume
50
Issue
6
Pages
524-536
ISSN
  • 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5962
DOI
10.3758/bf03207536
OpenAlex
W1976571557
Cited by
239
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 7
FWCI
9.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1r29ns026475-01, 5r01hd018286-12)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS-26475)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD18286)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Signal Processing › Speech and Audio Processing
Keywords
McGurk effect, speech perception, audiovisual speech integration, voice characteristics, multisensory integration, phonetic processing
MeSH terms
Adult, Arousal, Attention, Discrimination Learning, Face, Gender Identity, Humans, Phonetics, Psychoacoustics, Speech Perception, Visual Perception, Voice Quality

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