CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 367Multisensory perception and integrationPhonetics and Phonology ResearchLanguage Development and Disorders

The McGurk effect in infants

Open access
Rosenblum, Lawrence D., Schmuckler, Mark A., Johnson, Jennifer A.·1997·Perception & Psychophysics
DOI 10.3758/bf03211902
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In the McGurk effect, perceptual identification of auditory speech syllables is influenced by simultaneous presentation of discrepant visible speech syllables. This effect has been found in subjects of different ages and with various native language backgrounds. But no McGurk tests have been conducted with prelinguistic infants. In the present series of experiments, 5-month-old English-exposed infants were tested for the McGurk effect. Infants were first gaze-habituated to an audiovisual /va/. Two different dishabituation stimuli were then presented: audio /ba/-visual /va/ (perceived by adults as /va/), and audio /da/-visual /va/ (perceived by adults as /da/). The infants showed generalization from the audiovisual /va/ to the audio /ba/-visual /va/ stimulus but not to the audio /da/-visual /va/ stimulus. Follow-up experiments revealed that these generalization differences were not due to a general preference for the audio /da/-visual /va/ stimulus or to the auditory similarity of /ba/ to /va/ relative to /da/. These results suggest that the infants were visually influenced in the same way as English-speaking adults are visually influenced.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Five-month-old English-exposed infants showed a McGurk-type visual influence: they generalized from an audiovisual /va/ to audio /ba/-visual /va/ but not to audio /da/-visual /va/. Control experiments indicated this was not due to a general preference for the /da/-visual /va/ token or to relative auditory similarity among the syllables.

Key findings

  • In Experiment 1, infants looked at the final audio /va/-visual /va/ habituation trials for 11.96 sec, at audio /ba/-visual /va/ test trials for 13.00 sec, and at audio /da/-visual /va/ test trials for 18.83 sec. The /da/-visual /va/ trials differed significantly from both habituation (mean difference = 6.86 sec, p < .05) and /ba/-visual /va/ trials (mean difference = 5.83 sec, p < .05), while habituation and /ba/-visual /va/ did not differ (mean difference = 1.04 sec, n.s.).
  • Experiment 2 found no inherent preference for audio /da/-visual /va/ over audio /ba/-visual /va/: mean looking times were 20.88 sec vs. 22.81 sec, with no main effect of stimulus type [F(1,18) = 0.32, p = .58].
  • Experiment 3, using a neutral unmoving face, showed the opposite auditory-similarity pattern: infants generalized from audio /va/ to audio /da/ but not to audio /ba/; /va/ habituation was 8.25 sec, /ba/ test 12.79 sec, and /da/ test 9.84 sec, with /va/ vs. /ba/ significant (mean difference = 4.54 sec, p < .05) and /va/ vs. /da/ not significant (mean difference = 1.59 sec, n.s.).
  • In Experiment 4, adults reported audio /ba/-visual /va/ as something other than “ba” over 98% of the time, with 98.6% of incorrect responses being “va”; audio /da/-visual /va/ elicited 96.5% correct “da” responses, and the visual /va/ component was identified correctly 99% of the time.

Methods

  • Experiments 1–3 tested 20 five-month-old infants each (mean ages 21.4, 20.7, and 21.2 weeks, respectively) using an infant-control habituation-of-looking time procedure. Infants were habituated to audiovisual speech and then presented with dishabituation test stimuli; looking time was the dependent measure.
  • Stimuli were synthesized auditory /ba/, /va/, and /da/ syllables dubbed with a visual /va/ articulation or, in Experiment 3, a neutral unmoving face.
  • Experiment 4 tested 15 University of California, Riverside undergraduates who identified audio-alone, video-alone, and audiovisual tokens. Analyses used ANOVAs and Newman-Keuls pairwise comparisons, with reliability codings of infant looking times.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the infant results alone cannot provide direct support for either experiential or extraexperiential accounts of the McGurk effect, because the infants may have had sufficient audiovisual speech experience to produce the observed effects.
  • The paper notes that testing younger infants would be hampered by immaturities in the auditory and especially visual systems, so even a failure to find the effect in younger infants would be difficult to interpret.
  • The paper reports that infants in Experiment 3 had trouble discriminating the audio /va/ and /da/ stimuli despite adults identifying them clearly, and states it is unclear why; also, detailed SES and ethnic background information was not collected.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03211902

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 67 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data
    § The McGurk effect in infants

    The generalization differences were not due to a general preference for the audio /da/-visual /va/ stimulus.

    “Follow-up experiments revealed that these generalization differences were not due to a general preference for the audio Idal-visual Ivai stimulus”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data
    § The McGurk effect in infants

    The generalization differences were not due to the auditory similarity of /ba/ to /va/ relative to /da/.

    “or to the auditory similarity of /ba/ to Ivai relative to Idal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 4, the visual /va/ component used in the infant experiments was identified correctly by adults 99% of the time.

    “The visual Ivai component used in the infant experiments was identified correctly by adults 99% of the time.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 3, looking times to /ba/ test stimuli were significantly longer than to final /va/ habituation stimuli (mean difference = 4.54 sec, p<.05).

    “Subsequent Newman-Keuls tests revealed a significant difference in looking times between the Ivai habituation stimuli and the Ibal test stimuli (mean difference = 4.54 sec, p < .05)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Experiment 3, looking times to /ba/ and /da/ test stimuli did not differ significantly (mean difference = 2.95 sec, n.s.).

    “no difference between /ba! and Ida! test stimuli (mean difference = 2.95 sec, n.s.)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 34
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 5
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 18

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § The McGurk effect in infants

    Infants showed generalization from the audiovisual /va/ stimulus to the audio /ba/-visual /va/ stimulus but not to the audio /da/-visual /va/ stimulus.

    “The infants showed generalization from the audiovisual Ivai to the audio /ba/-vtsual Ivai stimulus but not to the audio Idal-visual Ivai stimulus.”
    • Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · hedged
      “These results indicate that the infants generalized to the audio !hal-visual Ivai stimulus, but not to the audio Ida/-visual Ivai stimulus.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    The experimenters and adult pilot participants perceived the audio /va/-visual /va/ and audio /ba/-visual /va/ stimuli as /va/, and the audio /da/-visual /va/ stimuli as /da/.

    “To us, as well as to (native English-speaking) adult pilot participants, the audio Ivai-visual Ivai stimuli were perceived as Ivai, while the audio Iba/-visual Ivai stimuli were perceived as Ivai”
    • Also stated in: § Method · plain
      “the audio /dax-visual Iva/ stimuli were perceived as Ida/.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 4, adults could easily identify the audio-alone /da/ and /va/ tokens, and to a slightly lesser extent the /ba/ token.

    “From the means for the audio-alone presentations it is clear that adults could easily identify the Ida/ and Ivai, and, to a slightly lesser extent, the /ba/ token as well.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 1, infants looked at the final two audio /va/-visual /va/ habituation stimuli for 11.96 sec (SD = 7.08), at the two audio /ba/-visual /va/ test trials for 13.00 sec (SD = 8.47), and at the two audio /da/-visual /va/ test trials for 18.83 sec (SD = 11.99).

    “Infants looked at the final two audio Ivai-visual Ivai habituation stimuli for 11.96 sec (SD = 7.08), at the two audio !hal-visual Ivai test trials for 13.00 sec (SD = 8.47), and at the two audio Ida/-visual Ivai test trials for 18.83 sec (SD = 11.99).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 4, the percentage of correct auditory-based responses for audio /ba/-visual /va/ was significantly lower than for audio-alone /ba/ [t(14)=29.61, p<.0001], indicating a significant visual influence.

    “A t test revealed that the percentage of correct (auditory-based) responses for the audio Iba/-visual Ivai token was significantly lower than the percentage of correct responses for the audio-alone /ba/ token [t(14) = 29.61,P < .0001], indicating a significant visual influence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, the only significant result was a main effect of repetition, F(2,26) = 9.86, p < .001, with increased looking times on the first trial (M = 35.1 sec) relative to the second and third trials (Ms = 15.1 and 15.3 sec).

    “The only significant result produced by this analysis was a main effect of repetition [F(2,26) = 9.86,p < .001],with increased looking times on the first trial (M = 35.1 sec) relative to the second and third trials (Ms = 15.1 and 15.3 sec, respectively).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 4, the visual-alone and audiovisual tokens were effective in conveying the intended information.

    “From the means for the visual-alone and audiovisual stimuli, it is clear that these tokens also were effective in conveying the intended information.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, there was no main effect of stimulus type, F(1,18) = 0.32, p = .58, and no interaction of stimulus type and repetition, F(2,36) = 0.68, p = .51.

    “Most importantly, there was no main effect of stimulus type [F(l,18) = 0.32,p = .58]and no interaction of stimulus type and repetition [F(2,36) = 0.68, p = .51].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 4, the percentage of correct auditory-based responses for audio /da/-visual /va/ was not significantly different from audio-alone /da/ [t(14)=1.31, p=.21], indicating no significant visual influence.

    “A t test revealed that the percentage of correct (auditory-based) responses for the audio Ida/-visual Ivai token was not significantly different from the percentage ofcorrect responses for the audio-alone Idal token [t(14) = 1.31,P = .21],indicating no significant visual influence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There was no effect of order, F(1,18) = 0.002, n.s., and no interaction between trial type and order, F(2,36) = 1.58, n.s.

    “There was no effect of order [F(1,18) = 0.002, n.s.], and no interaction between the trial type and order variables [F(2,36) = 1.58, n.s.].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Experiment 2, infants looked at the audio /ba/-visual /va/ stimulus for 20.88 sec (SD = 23.70) and at the audio /da/-visual /va/ stimulus for 22.81 sec (SD = 27.59).

    “On the average, infants looked at the audio Iba/-visual Ivai for 20.88 sec (SD = 23.70) and at the audio Ida/-visual Ivai for 22.81 sec (SD = 27.59).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Newman-Keuls tests revealed that the audio /da/-visual /va/ test trials differed significantly from the final audio /va/-visual /va/ habituation trials (mean difference = 6.86 sec, p < .05) and from the audio /ba/-visual /va/ test trials (mean difference = 5.83 sec, p < .05).

    “These tests revealed that the audio Ida/- visual Ivai test trials differed significantly from the final audio Ivai-visual Ivai habituation trials (mean difference = 6.86 sec, p < .05)and the audio Iba/-visual Ivai test trials (mean difference = 5.83 sec, p < .05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    With regard to the audiovisual stimuli, audio /ba/-visual /va/ did show a substantial McGurk effect, whereas audio /da/-visual /va/ did not.

    “With regard to the audiovisual stimuli, the audio Iba/-visual Ivai did show a substantial McGurk effect, whereas the audio Idal-visual Ivai did not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The reduced McGurk effects in children are attributable to developmental differences in visual information sensitivity rather than to differences in integration processes.

    “However, these researchers also showed that the reduced effects are attributable to developmental differences in visual information sensitivity rather than to differences in integration processes.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Massaro et al., 1986 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given
    § The McGurk effect in infants

    Most subjects report hearing a syllable that has been visually influenced, either through visual dominance or through fusion.

    “Most subjects report hearing a syllable that has been visually influenced in some way, so that there is either visual dominance”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Although the strength of the McGurk effect may increase with development, audiovisual speech integration does occur in young children.

    “Thus, although the strength of the McGurk effect may increase with development, there is evidence that audiovisual speech integration does occur in young children.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    McGurk and MacDonald reported that two groups of English-speaking children (3-5 years and 7-8 years old) displayed a smaller overall visual influence than adult subjects.

    “McGurk and MacDonald (1976) reported that two groups of English-speaking children (3-5 years and 7-8 years old) displayed a smaller overall visual influence than did adult subjects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McGurk & MacDonald, 1976 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    For some audiovisual tokens, the younger children displayed as many fused responses as adults did.

    “For some audiovisual tokens, however, the younger children displayed as many fused responses as adults did.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McGurk & MacDonald, 1976 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § The McGurk effect in infants

    The McGurk effect is robust to substantial visual stimulus changes and is maintained regardless of what the observer knows about the stimuli.

    “Thus, the McGurk effect is robust to the extent that it holds over substantial visual stimulus changes and is maintained regardless of what the observer knows about the stimuli.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § The McGurk effect in infants

    Integration occurs even when subjects are explicitly told of the dubbing procedure or are asked to attend to only one information stream.

    “Furthermore, integration occurs even when subjects are explicitly told of the dubbing procedure or when they are asked to attend to only one of the information streams”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Massaro, 1987

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The perception of audiovisual speech correspondence involves underlying representations that specify both auditory and visual concomitants to phonetic units: speech is intermodally or amodally represented.

    “Kuhl and Meltzoff (1988) have proposed that the perception of audiovisual speech correspondence involves underlying representations that specify both auditory and visual concomitants to phonetic units: speech is intermodally-or amodallyrepresented”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Meltzoff & Kuhl, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The observer could have determined the order of test trials on the basis of the rewinding and forwarding of the stimulus videotape.

    “helshe could have determined it on the basis of the rewinding and forwarding of the stimulus videotape.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Audiovisual information can be matched to amodal representations by an identity match or by a supramodal representation that mediates nonidentical auditory and visual information.

    “Kuhl and Meltzoff(l984) have proposed two possible processes by which audiovisual information can be matched to amodal representations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1984 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Meltzoff & Kuhl, 1994

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    All the stimuli seemed equally synchronous to the experimenters.

    “all the stimuli seemed equally synchronous to the experimenters.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The observer in the control room was blind to the order of test trials.

    “Although this observer was blind to the order of test trials”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The perceived audiovisual synchrony might still differ across the tokens.

    “Although it is acknowledged that the perceived audiovisual synchrony might still differ across the tokens”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Three- to four-month-old infants imitate only audiovisually compatible vowels (/a/-/u/) and not stimuli dubbed to be incompatible.

    “Legerstee (1990) has found that 3-to 4-month-old infants will only imitate audiovisually compatible vowels (la/-Iu/) and not stimuli that are dubbed to be incompatible.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Legerstee, 1990 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The onset lag time for dubbing for all tokens was no greater than 9.4 msec, well below the 80-msec range required for observers to detect an audiovisual asynchrony.

    “The onset lag time for dubbing for all tokens was found to be no greater than 9.4 msec, well below the 80-msec range required for observers to detect an audiovisual asynchrony”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites McGrath & Summerfield, 1985 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    A second observer, also unaware of the order of test trials, provided reliability codings of the looking times from videotaped recordings of the infants' faces.

    “a second observer (who was also unaware of the order of test trials) provided reliability codings of the looking times by using the videotaped recordings of the infants' faces.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The supramodal account implies that infants should also be able to integrate nonidentical speech information.

    “In being used as an explanation for infant sensitivity to audiovisual correspondence, the supramodal account implies that infants should also be able to integrate nonidentical speech information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The vowel-matching findings were replicated with /i/ and /u/ vowels and with disyllables such as /mama/ and /lulu/.

    “Additional research has replicated these findings with iii and lui vowels (Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1988) and with disyllables such as Imama/ and Iluiul”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Kuhl & Meltzoff, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites MacKain, Studdert-Kennedy, Spieker, & Stern, 1983 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Two additional infants participated in Experiment 2, but their data were not considered usable owing to equipment failure while the study was being run.

    “Two additional infants participated in this study, but their data were not considered usable, owing to equipment failure while the study was being run.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The /da/ and /va/ tokens were identified as they had been designed to be, suggesting that the inability of infants to discriminate these tokens in Experiment 3 was not due to ambiguous stimuli.

    “Thus, the Idal and Ivai tokens were identified as they had been designed to be, suggesting that the inability of infants to discriminate these tokens in Experiment 3 was not due to ambiguous stimuli.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The perceptual clarity of speech tokens for adults indicates that the same tokens are not ambiguous for infants.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Evidence has shown that infants can make virtually all of the consonantal discriminations that have been tested, including /va/ from /sa/ and /va/ from /oa/.

    “Furthermore, evidence has shown that infants can make virtually all of the consonantal discriminations that have been tested (Kuhl, 1987), including Ivai from Isal (Eilers & Minifie, 1975; Eilers, Wilson, & Moore, 1977) and Ivai from loal (Levitt, Jusczyk, Murray, & Carden, 1988).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Kuhl, 1987

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Eilers & Minifie, 1975 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Levitt, Jusczyk, Murray, & Carden, 1988 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Experiment 2, original and reliability codings were strongly correlated, with r(118) = .98, p < .001.

    “Original and reliability codings were strongly correlated, with r(118) = .98,p< .001.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The pattern of results in Experiment 3 was different from that obtained in Experiment 1, suggesting that the results of Experiment 1 were not a consequence of relative auditory similarity among the tokens.

    “This pattern of results is quite different from that obtained in Experiment I, suggesting that the results of that experiment were not a consequence of relative auditory similarity among the tokens.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    In Experiment 3, infants generalized from audio /va/ to audio /da/ token, but not to audio /ba/ token.

    “These results indicate that the infants generalized from audio Iva! to the audio Ida! token, but not to the audio Iba! token.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    There is some evidence that 5- and 6-year-old children have some trouble discriminating /v/ and /θ/ segments.

    “(There is some evidence, however, that 5-and 6-year-old children have some trouble discriminating Ivl and 101 segments [Massaro, 1987;Snyder & Pope, 1970]).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Massaro, 1987

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Snyder & Pope, 1970 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Experiment 2, across all six trials, the mean absolute difference between the original and reliability coding of visual fixations was 2.75 sec, with a standard deviation of 4.9 sec.

    “Across all six trials, the mean absolute difference between the original and reliability coding of visual fixations was 2.75 sec, with a standard deviation of 4.9 sec.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Twelve other infants participated in Experiment 1, but their data were not considered usable because of fussiness (7), experimenter error (2), equipment failure (2), and parent noise (1).

    “Twelve other infants participated in this study, but their data were not considered usable because of fussiness by the infant during the study (7), experimenter error in running the study (2), equipment failure (2), and the parent's making noise during the experiment (I).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The results of Experiment 1 were based on a perceived similarity between the audio /va/-visual /va/ and audio /ba/-visual /va/ displays and on a corresponding dissimilarity between the audio /va/-visual /va/ and audio /da/-visual /va/ displays.

    “As such, these results provide further support that the results of Experiment 1 were based on a perceived similarity between audio Iva/- visual Ivai and audio Ibal-visual Ivai displays and on a corresponding dissimilarity between audio Ivai-visual Ivai and audio Idal-visual Ivai displays.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Looking at the test trials only, the mean absolute difference between original and reliability codings was 0.69 sec, with a standard deviation of 0.998.

    “Looking at the test trials only, the mean absolute difference between original and reliability codings was 0.69 sec, with a standard deviation of 0.998.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    There is evidence that very little if any experience is needed in order to detect correspondences and that specialized mechanisms might be involved.

    “Thus, there is evidence that very little-ifany-experience is needed in order to detect correspondences and that specialized mechanisms might be involved.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Walton & Bower, 1993 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites MacKain et al., 1983 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Although the infant results on their own do not provide unequivocal support for an extraexperiential basis, they add to the evidence for linguistic universality, haptic influences, and early sensitivity to audiovisual speech correspondence.

    “To summarize, although our infant results on their own do not provide unequivocal support for an extraexperiential basis, they do add to the evidence for linguistic universality (Massaro et al., 1993), haptic influences (Fowler & Dekle, 1991), and early sensitivity to audiovisual speech correspondence (see, e.g., Walton & Bower, 1993) toward these ends.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Massaro et al., 1993 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fowler & Dekle, 1991 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Walton & Bower, 1993 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    There is support that the general strategies underlying the McGurk effect are independent of specific language experience, which could implicate a non experiential basis.

    “Thus, there is support that the general strategies underlying the McGurk effect are independent of specific language experience, which could implicate a non experiential basis.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Massaro et al. (1993) source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationcitation

    Our evidence could be used to buttress other recent findings that support an extraexperiential account.

    “However, our evidence could be used to buttress other recent findings that support an extraexperiential account.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Nine other infants participated in Experiment 3 but their data were not considered usable due to fussiness (5), equipment failure (3), and sibling separation (1).

    “Nine other infants participated in this study, but their data were not considered usable, owing to the fussiness of the infant during the study (5), equipment failure during the experiment (3), and a sibling who refused to be separated from his/her baby sister during the experiment (l).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Taken together, the experiments suggest that infants generalize across two different audiovisual stimuli that are perceived as the same by adults, and that this generalization is based on a visual influence.

    “Taken together, these experiments suggest that infants generalize across two different audiovisual stimuli that are perceived as the same by adults, and that this generalization is based on a visual influence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
48 of 48

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the habituation-of-looking-time procedure, the amount of looking time to test stimuli indexes the similarity perceived by infants between the habituation and test stimuli.

    “The amount oflooking time for these test stimuli was the main dependent measure; generally, this indexes the similarity perceived by infants between the habituation and test stimuli.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The perceptual clarity of speech tokens for adults indicates that the same tokens are not ambiguous for infants.

    “Thus, the Idal and Ivai tokens were identified as they had been designed to be, suggesting that the inability of infants to discriminate these tokens in Experiment 3 was not due to ambiguous stimuli.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There is no evidence in the literature that infants can make the specific /va/-/da/ discrimination.

    “Although there is no evidence in the literature that infants can make this specific discrimination, these syllables differ in both place and manner of articulation.”
3 of 3

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?

  • Infants' polymodal speech representations likely contain information regarding visual, as well as auditory, instantiations of speech.

    “Infants' polymodal speech representations are thus likely to contain information regarding visual, as well as auditory instantiations of speech (ref. 98, see also refs. 99–101).”

    From A new view of language acquisition (2000) · cites this paper as [100]

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentr(78) = 0.998reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(78) = .998,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 36) = 3.71reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .034

    “F(2,36) = 3.71,p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 18) = 0.002reported n.s. · recomputed p = .965

    “F(1,18) = 0.002, n.s.”

  • ConsistentF(2, 36) = 1.58reported n.s. · recomputed p = .220

    “F(2,36) = 1.58, n.s.”

  • Consistentr(118) = 0.98reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(118) = .98,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 26) = 9.86reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2,26) = 9.86,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(1, 18) = 0.32reported p = .58 · recomputed p = .579

    “F(l,18) = 0.32,p = .58”

  • ConsistentF(2, 36) = 0.68reported p = .51 · recomputed p = .513

    “F(2,36) = 0.68, p = .51”

  • Consistentr(78) = 0.985reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “r(78) = .985,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 36) = 4.13reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .024

    “F(2,36) = 4.13, p < .05”

  • ConsistentF(1, 18) = 0.72reported n.s. · recomputed p = .407

    “F(l,18) = 0.72, n.s.”

  • ConsistentF(2, 36) = 2.35reported n.s. · recomputed p = .110

    “F(2,36) = 2.35, n.s.”

  • Consistentt(14) = 29.61reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(14) = 29.61,p < .0001”

  • Consistentt(14) = 1.31reported p = .21 · recomputed p = .211

    “t(14) = 1.31,p = .21”

  • ConsistentF(2, 28) = 7.53reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002

    “F(2,28) = 7.53, p = .002”

  • ConsistentF(1, 14) = 0.68reported p = .43 · recomputed p = .423

    “F(I, 14) = 0.68, p = .43”

16 of 16

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Incorrect denominator degrees of freedom for Experiment 2 repetition effect

    Minor

    Experiment 2 has 20 infants in two order groups, so the denominator degrees of freedom for the three-level repetition effect should be (20 − 2) × 2 = 36, not 26. The same analysis reports 18 denominator degrees of freedom for the between-subjects effect and 36 for another two-degree-of-freedom effect.

    Reported 26 · recomputed 36

  • Experiment 2 note names a stimulus that was not tested

    Minor

    The Experiment 2 method says the two stimuli were audio /ba/-visual /va/ and audio /da/-visual /va/. The note describing a reanalysis instead names audio /ba/-visual /da/ as the second stimulus.

2 of 2

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 68 · Cited by 367

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fowler, C. A., &Rosenblum, L. D. (1991). Perception of the phonetic gesture. In I. G. Mattingly & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.),Modularity and the motor theory (pp. 33–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Authors
Rosenblum, L. D., Schmuckler, M. A., & Johnson, J. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Riverside (US)
  • University of Toronto Scarborough (CA)
Corresponding author
Rosenblum, Lawrence D.
ORCID
Venue
Perception & Psychophysics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1997-04
Volume
59
Issue
3
Pages
347-357
ISSN
  • 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5962
DOI
10.3758/bf03211902
OpenAlex
W1963926913
Semantic Scholar
d10101a1e6dd716a71d73ad844b3feb7fdb75743
Cited by
367
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 51 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 20
FWCI
6.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Multisensory perception and integration
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
McGurk effect, audiovisual speech perception, infants, speech perception, audiovisual integration, visual speech, prelinguistic infants, generalization
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Infant, Language, Male, Speech Perception, Visual 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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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