MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3014707637 · doi:10.3758/s13414-020-02042-x

Audio-visual integration in noise: Influence of auditory and visual stimulus degradation on eye movements and perception of the McGurk effect

2020· article· en· W3014707637 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jemaine E. Stacey, Christina J. Howard, Suvobrata Mitra, Paula C. Stacey

Bibliographic record

VenueAttention Perception & Psychophysics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersTrent UniversityNottingham Trent University
KeywordsPsychologyStimulus (psychology)AudiologyPerceptionSpeech perceptionCochlear implantNoise (video)Context (archaeology)Visual perceptionCognitive psychologyComputer scienceMedicineNeuroscienceComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seeing a talker's face can aid audiovisual (AV) integration when speech is presented in noise. However, few studies have simultaneously manipulated auditory and visual degradation. We aimed to establish how degrading the auditory and visual signal affected AV integration. Where people look on the face in this context is also of interest; Buchan, Paré and Munhall (Brain Research, 1242, 162-171, 2008) found fixations on the mouth increased in the presence of auditory noise whilst Wilson, Alsius, Paré and Munhall (Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59(4), 601-615, 2016) found mouth fixations decreased with decreasing visual resolution. In Condition 1, participants listened to clear speech, and in Condition 2, participants listened to vocoded speech designed to simulate the information provided by a cochlear implant. Speech was presented in three levels of auditory noise and three levels of visual blurring. Adding noise to the auditory signal increased McGurk responses, while blurring the visual signal decreased McGurk responses. Participants fixated the mouth more on trials when the McGurk effect was perceived. Adding auditory noise led to people fixating the mouth more, while visual degradation led to people fixating the mouth less. Combined, the results suggest that modality preference and where people look during AV integration of incongruent syllables varies according to the quality of information available.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.943

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAttention Perception & PsychophysicsSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207