Temporal window of integration in auditory-visual speech perception.

By V. van Wassenhove, K. W. Grant, David Poeppel. 2007

635 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Assessing the Role of the ‘Unity Assumption’ on Multisensory Integration: A Review (2017, background): “Specifically, this window is wider in the condition where the visual leading auditory stimulus than vice versa (Massaro and Cohen, 1993; Munhall et al., 1996; Jones and Jarick, 2006; van Wassenhove et al., 2007; Soto-Faraco and Alsius, 2009)8.”
The Curious Incident of Attention in Multisensory Integration: Bottom-up vs. Top-down (2016, neutral): “…have predominantly focused on determining stimulus-driven effects, such as their relative timing or location (Noesselt et al., 2010; Stein and Stanford, 2008; van Wassenhove et al., 2007) or their relative intensity (Holmes, 2009; Rach, Diederich and Colonius, 2010) on multisensory processing.”
Multisensory integration of speech signals: the relationship between space and time (2006, neutral): “Listeners are also sensitive to temporal asynchronies, although they tolerate much larger temporal discrepancies than those tolerated with nonspeech signals (Dixon and Spitz 1980; Massaro et al. 1996; Munhall et al. 1996; van Wassenhove et al. 2006).”
Multisensory temporal integration: Task and stimulus dependencies (2013, neutral): “…TBW has been measured using a variety of different tasks, stimulus types, and statistical criteria (Dixon and Spitz 1980; Miller and D’Esposito 2005; Zampini et al. 2005; Conrey and Pisoni 2006; Vatakis and Spence 2006; van Atteveldt et al. 2007; van Wassenhove et al. 2007; Stevenson et al. 2010).”
Developmental changes in the multisensory temporal binding window persist into adolescence (2012, methodology): “…by Soto-Faraco and Alsius (2009) showed discrepancies in the size of the temporal windows measured on asynchrony detection and speech identification tasks performed using the same stimuli, suggesting that task plays an important role in delimiting the window (but see van Wassenhove et al., 2007).”
The Audio-Visual Temporal Binding Window Narrows In Early Childhood (2013, background): “This comparison suggests that the ITCW continues to decrease in that the adult ITCW for audiovisual speech is around 60–200 ms (Grant et al., 2004; Navarra et al., 2005; van Wassenhove et al., 2007).”
Perception of intersensory synchrony: A tutorial review (2010, neutral): “On the basis of these findings, some have concluded that speech is special (van Wassenhove et al., 2007; Vatakis, Ghazanfar, & Spence, 2008) or that, when stimulus complexity increases, sensitivity for temporal order deteriorates (Vatakis & Spence, 2006).”
Music expertise shapes audiovisual temporal integration windows for speech, sinewave speech, and music (2014, background): “…and piano music stimuli at 13 audiovisual stimulus onset asynchronies (±360, ±300 ±240, ±180, ±120, ±60, and 0 ms) (Dixon and Spitz, 1980; Alais and Burr, 2003; Grant et al., 2004; Zampini et al., 2005; Vatakis and Spence, 2006a,b, 2007, 2008a,b; van Wassenhove et al., 2007; Love et al., 2013).”
How prior expectations shape multisensory perception (2016, background): “Most prominently, classical multisensory perceptual illusions such as spatial ventriloquism or the McGurk–MacDonald effect have been shown to break down, when auditory and visual signals are brought into large spatial and/or temporal conflicts (Roach et al., 2006; Wassenhove et al., 2007).”
The temporal binding window for audiovisual speech: Children are like little adults (2016, background): “Findings of reduced or atypical fusion patterns have also been reported previously (e.g., van Wassenhove et al., 2007; excluded fusion < 40%).”