Forty Years After Hearing Lips and Seeing Voices: the McGurk Effect Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since its discovery 40 years ago, the McGurk illusion has been usually cited as a prototypical paradigmatic case of multisensory binding in humans, and has been extensively used in speech perception studies as a proxy measure for audiovisual integration mechanisms. Despite the well-established practice of using the McGurk illusion as a tool for studying the mechanisms underlying audiovisual speech integration, the magnitude of the illusion varies enormously across studies. Furthermore, the processing of McGurk stimuli differs from congruent audiovisual processing at both phenomenological and neural levels. This questions the suitability of this illusion as a tool to quantify the necessary and sufficient conditions under which audiovisual integration occurs in natural conditions. In this paper, we review some of the practical and theoretical issues related to the use of the McGurk illusion as an experimental paradigm. We believe that, without a richer understanding of the mechanisms involved in the processing of the McGurk effect, experimenters should be really cautious when generalizing data generated by McGurk stimuli to matching audiovisual speech events.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".