The Ventriloquist Effect is not Consistently Affected by Stimulus Realism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite more than 60 years of research, it has remained uncertain if and how realism affects the ventriloquist effect. Here, a sound localization experiment was run using spatially disparate audio-visual stimuli. The visual stimuli were presented using virtual reality, allowing for easy manipulation of the degree of realism of the stimuli. Starting from stimuli commonly used in ventriloquist experiments, i.e., a light flash and noise burst, a new factor was added or changed in each condition to investigate the effect of movement and realism without confounding the effects of an increased temporal correlation of the audio-visual stimuli. First, a distractor task was introduced to ensure that participants fixated their eye gaze during the experiment. Next, movement was added to the visual stimuli while maintaining a similar temporal correlation between the stimuli. Finally, by changing the stimuli from the flash and noise stimuli to the visuals of a bouncing ball that made a matching impact sound, the effect of realism was assessed. No evidence for an effect of realism and movement of the stimuli was found, suggesting that, in simple scenarios, the ventriloquist effect might not be affected by stimulus realism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".