Speech and non-speech measures of audiovisual integration are not correlated

被引:6
作者
Wilbiks, Jonathan M. P. [1 ]
Brown, Violet A. [2 ]
Strand, Julia F. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ New Brunswick, Dept Psychol, St John, NB, Canada
[2] Washington Univ, Dept Psychol & Brain Sci, St Louis, MO 63110 USA
[3] Carleton Coll, Dept Psychol, Northfield, MN 55057 USA
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会; 美国国家卫生研究院; 美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Audiovisual integration; Individual differences; Convergent validity; INDIVIDUAL-DIFFERENCES; HEARING-LIPS; SUSCEPTIBILITY; RECOGNITION; PERCEPTION; BINDING; ATTENTION; SIGNALS; POWER;
D O I
10.3758/s13414-022-02517-z
中图分类号
B84 [心理学];
学科分类号
04 ; 0402 ;
摘要
Many natural events generate both visual and auditory signals, and humans are remarkably adept at integrating information from those sources. However, individuals appear to differ markedly in their ability or propensity to combine what they hear with what they see. Individual differences in audiovisual integration have been established using a range of materials, including speech stimuli (seeing and hearing a talker) and simpler audiovisual stimuli (seeing flashes of light combined with tones). Although there are multiple tasks in the literature that are referred to as "measures of audiovisual integration," the tasks themselves differ widely with respect to both the type of stimuli used (speech versus non-speech) and the nature of the tasks themselves (e.g., some tasks use conflicting auditory and visual stimuli whereas others use congruent stimuli). It is not clear whether these varied tasks are actually measuring the same underlying construct: audiovisual integration. This study tested the relationships among four commonly-used measures of audiovisual integration, two of which use speech stimuli (susceptibility to the McGurk effect and a measure of audiovisual benefit), and two of which use non-speech stimuli (the sound-induced flash illusion and audiovisual integration capacity). We replicated previous work showing large individual differences in each measure but found no significant correlations among any of the measures. These results suggest that tasks that are commonly referred to as measures of audiovisual integration may be tapping into different parts of the same process or different constructs entirely.
引用
收藏
页码:1809 / 1819
页数:11
相关论文
共 61 条
[1]   Forty Years After Hearing Lips and Seeing Voices: the McGurk Effect Revisited [J].
Alsius, Agnes ;
Pare, Martin ;
Munhall, Kevin G. .
MULTISENSORY RESEARCH, 2018, 31 (1-2) :111-144
[2]   Sample-Size Planning for More Accurate Statistical Power: A Method Adjusting Sample Effect Sizes for Publication Bias and Uncertainty [J].
Anderson, Samantha F. ;
Kelley, Ken ;
Maxwell, Scott E. .
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE, 2017, 28 (11) :1547-1562
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2015, PACKAGE PSYCHOMETRIC
[4]  
AUGUST DA, 1985, CANCER-AM CANCER SOC, V55, P1490, DOI 10.1002/1097-0142(19850401)55:7<1490::AID-CNCR2820550712>3.0.CO
[5]  
2-N
[6]   Variability and stability in the McGurk effect: contributions of participants, stimuli, time, and response type [J].
Basu Mallick, Debshila ;
Magnotti, John F. ;
Beauchamp, Michael S. .
PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2015, 22 (05) :1299-1307
[7]   fMRI-Guided Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reveals That the Superior Temporal Sulcus Is a Cortical Locus of the McGurk Effect [J].
Beauchamp, Michael S. ;
Nath, Audrey R. ;
Pasalar, Siavash .
JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE, 2010, 30 (07) :2414-2417
[8]   Integration of auditory and visual information about objects in superior temporal sulcus [J].
Beauchamp, MS ;
Lee, KE ;
Argall, BD ;
Martin, A .
NEURON, 2004, 41 (05) :809-823
[9]   "Paying" attention to audiovisual speech: Do incongruent stimuli incur greater costs? [J].
Brown, Violet A. ;
Strand, Julia F. .
ATTENTION PERCEPTION & PSYCHOPHYSICS, 2019, 81 (06) :1743-1756
[10]   What accounts for individual differences in susceptibility to the McGurk effect? [J].
Brown, Violet A. ;
Hedayati, Maryam ;
Zanger, Annie ;
Mayn, Sasha ;
Ray, Lucia ;
Dillman-Hasso, Naseem ;
Strand, Julia F. .
PLOS ONE, 2018, 13 (11)