ArticlePloS one2018
Published estimates of group differences in multisensory integration are inflated.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perception of temporal synchrony not a prerequisite for multisensory integration.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Prefrontal Blood Flow Activity During Drawing Intervention in School-Age Children with Autism: An fNIRS Hyperscanning Study.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- The McGurk effect is similar in native Mandarin Chinese and American English speakers.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- The effect of native language and bilingualism on multimodal perception in speech: A study of audio-aerotactile integrationa).The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2024Article
- The noisy encoding of disparity model predicts perception of the McGurk effect in native Japanese speakers.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Investigation of Cross-Language and Stimulus-Dependent Effects on the McGurk Effect with Finnish and Japanese Speakers and Listeners.Brain sciences · 2023Article
- Bayesian causal inference in visuotactile integration in children and adults.Developmental science · 2022Article
- Weak observer-level correlation and strong stimulus-level correlation between the McGurk effect and audiovisual speech-in-noise: A causal inference explanation.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2020Article
- Reduced resting state functional connectivity with increasing age-related hearing loss and McGurk susceptibility.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Stability of Variables Derived From Measures of Multisensory Function in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder.American journal on intellectual and developmental disabilities · 2020Article
- A relationship between Autism-Spectrum Quotient and face viewing behavior in 98 participants.PloS one · 2020Article
- Neural evidence accounting for interindividual variability of the McGurk illusion.Neuroscience letters · 2019Article
- Skilled musicians are indeed subject to the McGurk effect.Royal Society open science · 2019Article
- A Laboratory Study of the McGurk Effect in 324 Monozygotic and Dizygotic Twins.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
- Free viewing of talking faces reveals mouth and eye preferring regions of the human superior temporal sulcus.NeuroImage · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A common measure of multisensory integration is the McGurk effect, an illusion in which incongruent auditory and visual speech are integrated to produce an entirely different percept. Published studies report that participants who differ in age, gender, culture, native language, or traits related to neurological or psychiatric disorders also differ in their susceptibility to the McGurk effect. These group-level differences are used as evidence for fundamental alterations in sensory processing between populations. Using empirical data and statistical simulations tested under a range of conditions, we show that published estimates of group differences in the McGurk effect are inflated when only statistically significant (p < 0.05) results are published. With a sample size typical of published studies, a group difference of 10% would be reported as 31%. As a consequence of this inflation, follow-up studies often fail to replicate published reports of large between-group differences. Inaccurate estimates of effect sizes and replication failures are especially problematic in studies of clinical populations involving expensive and time-consuming interventions, such as training paradigms to improve sensory processing. Reducing effect size inflation and increasing replicability requires increasing the number of participants by an order of magnitude compared with current practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.