Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33884572›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2021

Rethinking the McGurk effect as a perceptual illusion.

Laura M Getz, Joseph C Toscano

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Audiovisual speech perception: Moving beyond McGurk.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022
    Article
  10. FORUM: Remote testing for psychological and physiological acoustics.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Laura M GetzDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA. lgetz@sandiego.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3429-7506
Joseph C ToscanoDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Visual speech cues play an important role in speech recognition, and the McGurk effect is a classic demonstration of this. In the original McGurk & Macdonald (Nature 264, 746-748 1976) experiment, 98% of participants reported an illusory "fusion" percept of /d/ when listening to the spoken syllable /b/ and watching the visual speech movements for /g/. However, more recent work shows that subject and task differences influence the proportion of fusion responses. In the current study, we varied task (forced-choice vs. open-ended), stimulus set (including /d/ exemplars vs. not), and data collection environment (lab vs. Mechanical Turk) to investigate the robustness of the McGurk effect. Across experiments, using the same stimuli to elicit the McGurk effect, we found fusion responses ranging from 10% to 60%, thus showing large variability in the likelihood of experiencing the McGurk effect across factors that are unrelated to the perceptual information provided by the stimuli. Rather than a robust perceptual illusion, we therefore argue that the McGurk effect exists only for some individuals under specific task situations.Significance: This series of studies re-evaluates the classic McGurk effect, which shows the relevance of visual cues on speech perception. We highlight the importance of taking into account subject variables and task differences, and challenge future researchers to think carefully about the perceptual basis of the McGurk effect, how it is defined, and what it can tell us about audiovisual integration in speech.

Indexed as

IllusionsSpeech PerceptionAuditory PerceptionHumansSpeechVisual PerceptionAudiovisual integrationMcGurk effectSpeech perception

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.