ArticleNeuroscience letters2019
Neural evidence accounting for interindividual variability of the McGurk illusion.
Article in Neuroscience letters, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Repeatedly experiencing the McGurk effect induces long-lasting changes in auditory speech perception.Communications psychology · 2024Article
- Synthetic faces generated with the facial action coding system or deep neural networks improve speech-in-noise perception, but not as much as real faces.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2024Article
- Neural alpha oscillations index context-driven perception of ambiguous vowel sequences.iScience · 2023Article
- Experimental suppression of transcranial magnetic stimulation-electroencephalography sensory potentials.Human brain mapping · 2022Article
- A structured ICA-based process for removing auditory evoked potentials.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A Laboratory Study of the McGurk Effect in 324 Monozygotic and Dizygotic Twins.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The McGurk illusion is experienced to various degrees among the general population. Previous studies have implicated the left superior temporal sulcus (STS) and auditory cortex (AC) as regions associated with this interindividual variability. We sought to further investigate the neurophysiology underlying this variability using a variant of the McGurk illusion design. Electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded while human subjects were presented with videos of a speaker uttering the consonant-vowels (CVs) /ba/ and /fa/, which were mixed and matched with audio of /ba/ and /fa/ to produce congruent and incongruent conditions. Subjects were also presented with unimodal stimuli of silent videos and audios of the CVs. They responded to whether they heard (or saw in the silent condition) /ba/ or /fa/. An illusion during the incongruent conditions was deemed successful when individuals heard the syllable conveyed by mouth movements. We hypothesized that individuals who experience the illusion more strongly should exhibit more robust desynchronization of alpha (7-12 Hz) at fronto-central and temporal sites, emphasizing more engagement of neural generators at the AC and STS. We found, however, that compared to weaker illusion perceivers, stronger illusion perceivers exhibited greater alpha synchronization at fronto-central and posterior temporal sites, which is consistent with inhibition of auditory representations. These findings suggest that stronger McGurk illusion perceivers possess more robust cross-modal sensory gating mechanisms whereby phonetic representations not conveyed by the visual system are inhibited, and in turn reinforcing perception of the visually targeted phonemes.
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.