ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025
Variations in unisensory speech perception explain interindividual differences in McGurk illusion susceptibility.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A deep neural network model of audiovisual speech recognition reports the McGurk effect.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2026Article
- A Deep Neural Network Model of Audiovisual Speech Recognition Reports the McGurk Effect.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Face-to-face communication relies on integrating acoustic speech signals with corresponding facial articulations. Audiovisual integration abilities or deficits in typical and atypical populations are often assessed through their susceptibility to the McGurk illusion (i.e., their McGurk illusion rates). According to theories of normative Bayesian causal inference, observers integrate a visual /ga/ viseme and an auditory /ba/ phoneme weighted by their relative phonemic reliabilities into an illusory "da" percept. Consequently, McGurk illusion rates should be strongly influenced by observers' categorical perception of the corresponding facial articulatory movements and the acoustic signals. Across three experiments we investigated the extent to which variability in the McGurk illusion rate across participants or stimuli (i.e., speakers) can be explained by the corresponding variations in the categorical perception of the unisensory auditory and visual components. Additionally, we investigated whether the McGurk illusion susceptibility is a stable trait across different testing sessions (i.e., days) and tasks. Consistent with the principles of Bayesian Causal Inference, our results demonstrate that observers' tendency to (mis)perceive the auditory /ba/ and the visual /ga/ stimuli as "da" in unisensory contexts strongly predicts their McGurk illusion rates across both speakers and participants. Likewise, the stability in the McGurk illusion across sessions and tasks arises closely aligned with the corresponding stability of the unisensory auditory and visual categorical perception. Collectively, these findings highlight the importance of accounting for variations in unisensory performance and variability of materials (e.g., speakers) when using audiovisual illusions to assess audiovisual integration capability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40274722What 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.