Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35610409›Full record

ArticleAttention, perception & psychophysics2022

Speech and non-speech measures of audiovisual integration are not correlated.

Jonathan M P Wilbiks, Violet A Brown, Julia F Strand

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors.

Jonathan M P WilbiksDepartment of Psychology, University of New Brunswick, Saint John, NB, Canada. jwilbiks@unb.ca.
Violet A BrownDepartment of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Julia F StrandDepartment of Psychology, Carleton College, Northfield, MN, USA.

Funding

Listening effort and audiovisual speech by L1 ("native") and LX ("nonnative") English speakersR15DC018114 · NIDCD · CARLETON COLLEGE · PI STRAND, JULIA F · 2019 to 2023
$841k
NIDCD NIH HHS R15 DC018114NIDCD NIH HHS R15-DC018114
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many natural events generate both visual and auditory signals, and humans are remarkably adept at integrating information from those sources. However, individuals appear to differ markedly in their ability or propensity to combine what they hear with what they see. Individual differences in audiovisual integration have been established using a range of materials, including speech stimuli (seeing and hearing a talker) and simpler audiovisual stimuli (seeing flashes of light combined with tones). Although there are multiple tasks in the literature that are referred to as "measures of audiovisual integration," the tasks themselves differ widely with respect to both the type of stimuli used (speech versus non-speech) and the nature of the tasks themselves (e.g., some tasks use conflicting auditory and visual stimuli whereas others use congruent stimuli). It is not clear whether these varied tasks are actually measuring the same underlying construct: audiovisual integration. This study tested the relationships among four commonly-used measures of audiovisual integration, two of which use speech stimuli (susceptibility to the McGurk effect and a measure of audiovisual benefit), and two of which use non-speech stimuli (the sound-induced flash illusion and audiovisual integration capacity). We replicated previous work showing large individual differences in each measure but found no significant correlations among any of the measures. These results suggest that tasks that are commonly referred to as measures of audiovisual integration may be tapping into different parts of the same process or different constructs entirely.

Indexed as

Auditory PerceptionSpeech PerceptionAcoustic StimulationHumansPhotic StimulationVisual PerceptionAudiovisual integrationConvergent validityIndividual differences

Identifiers

PMID35610409
PMCPMC10699539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.