Temporal constraints on the McGurk effect

By K. Munhall, P. Gribble, L. Sacco, M. Ward. 1996

How researchers see this paper

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

Citations in the corpus

Assessing the Role of the ‘Unity Assumption’ on Multisensory Integration: A Review (2017, background): “In one of the above studies, Munhall et al. (1996) also presented the visual and auditory consonant that could lead to the McGurk effect being sandwiched between either matched or mismatched vowels.”
Perception of intersensory synchrony: A tutorial review (2010, unknown): “As an example, Munhall, Gribble, Sacco, and Ward (1996) demonstrated that exact temporal coincidence between the auditory and visual parts of audio– visual speech stimuli is not a very strict constraint on the McGurk effect.”
Causality and cross-modal integration. (2009, background): “However, beyond 180 ms, the worse the lip–speech synchronization, the weaker the effect (Munhall et al., 1996; Soto-Faraco & Alsius, 2009).”
How prior expectations shape multisensory perception (2016, background): “…integration (Bonath et al., 2014; Cappe et al., 2012; Hein et al., 2007; Körding et al., 2007; Laurienti et al., 2004; Lee and Noppeney, 2014, 2011; Lewis and Noppeney, 2010; Magnotti et al., 2013; Munhall et al., 1996; Stevenson et al., 2012; Wassenhove et al., 2007; Zilber et al., 2014).”
Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language (2015, background): “It is interesting to compare the tolerable degree of lag in cross-modal matching as in the McGurk effect: an auditory signal following a visual one by up to 180ms will still seem to be synchronized (Munhall et al., 1996).”
The temporal binding window for audiovisual speech: Children are like little adults (2016, background): “8 abilities mature over a protracted developmental timeline (e.g., Grant, van Wassenhove, & Poeppel, 2004; Hillock-Dunn & Wallace, 2012; Hillock et al., 2011; Lewkowicz, 1996; Lewkowicz, 2010; Lewkowicz & Flom, 2013; Munhall et al., 1996; van Wassenhove et al., 2007).”
Binding and unbinding the auditory and visual streams in the McGurk effect. (2012, background): “…the vocalic content is conflicting between the auditory and the visual streams in addition to the consonant content (Munhall et al., 1996); (2) in case of incoherence in the time-varying aspects of speech inside the dubbed auditory and visual material (Munhall et al., 1996; Tanaka et al., 2009).”
Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review (2012, background): “For example, seeing a person talking makes understanding easier, as compared with only hearing the person talking (Campbell, Dodd, & Burnham, 1998; Munhall, Gribble, Sacco, & Ward, 1996).”
Causal Inference in Multisensory Perception (2007, background): “presentation of the visual and the auditory stimulus is large [8–10].”
Multisensory integration of speech signals: the relationship between space and time (2006, unknown): “Moreover, several other studies have also shown that the McGurk eVect is resistant to delays of up to 240 ms (Massaro 1987; SummerWeld 1992; Massaro et al. 1993, 1996; Munhall et al. 1996).”
The Natural Statistics of Audiovisual Speech (2009, background): “Similarly, the McGurk illusion is robust with vision leading audition by up to 240 milliseconds [32,70].”
Effects of separating auditory and visual sources on audiovisual integration of speech (1997, methodology): “These include individual differences in subjects’ perceptions of the effect and individual differences in stimulus effectiveness in evoking the effect (Munhall et al., 1996), influences of familiarity of the faces used as stimuli (Walker, Bruce & O’Malley, 1995), cross linguistic differences (Massar”