Visual-tactile integration in speech perception: Evidence for modality neutral speech primitives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Audio-visual [McGurk and MacDonald (1976). Nature 264, 746-748] and audio-tactile [Gick and Derrick (2009). Nature 462(7272), 502-504] speech stimuli enhance speech perception over audio stimuli alone. In addition, multimodal speech stimuli form an asymmetric window of integration that is consistent with the relative speeds of the various signals [Munhall, Gribble, Sacco, and Ward (1996). Percept. Psychophys. 58(3), 351-362; Gick, Ikegami, and Derrick (2010). J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 128(5), EL342-EL346]. In this experiment, participants were presented video of faces producing /pa/ and /ba/ syllables, both alone and with air puffs occurring synchronously and at different timings up to 300 ms before and after the stop release. Perceivers were asked to identify the syllable they perceived, and were more likely to respond that they perceived /pa/ when air puffs were present, with asymmetrical preference for puffs following the video signal-consistent with the relative speeds of visual and air puff signals. The results demonstrate that visual-tactile integration of speech perception occurs much as it does with audio-visual and audio-tactile stimuli. This finding contributes to the understanding of multimodal speech perception, lending support to the idea that speech is not perceived as an audio signal that is supplemented by information from other modes, but rather that primitives of speech perception are, in principle, modality neutral.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".