Disentangling unisensory from fusion effects in the attentional modulation of McGurk effects: a Bayesian modeling study suggests that fusion is attention-dependent

Auditory-Visual Speech Processing 2010, AVSP 2010

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages

  Schwartz, Jean Luc ^a   Tiippana, Kaisa ^b   Andersen, Tobias ^c  

^a UNIV GRENOBLE ALPES   (France)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

^c TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF DENMARK   (Denmark)

Author keywords

attention; FLMP; McGurk effect; modeling

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; SPEECH PROCESSING;

ATTENTION; BAYESIAN MODELLING; FUSION MECHANISM; FUZZY LOGICAL; FUZZY LOGICAL MODEL OF PERCEPTION; LOGICAL MODELS; MCGURK EFFECT; MODELING; MODELLING STUDIES; VISUAL ATTENTION;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS;

EID: 84865064805     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (18)

1. McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746-748.
2. Massaro, D.W. (1998). Perceiving Talking Faces. Cambridge: MIT Press.
3. Tiippana, K., Andersen, T.S., & Sams, M., (2004). Visual attention modulates audiovisual speech perception. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16, 457-472.
4. Schwartz, J.L. (2006). Bayesian model selection: The 0/0 problem in the Fuzzy-Logical Model of Perception. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 120, 1795-1798.
5. Schwartz, J.L. (2010). A reanalysis of McGurk data suggests that audiovisual fusion in speech perception is subject-dependent. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 127, 1584-1594.
6. Schwarzer, G., & Massaro, D.W. (2001). Modeling face identificaton processing in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 79, 139-161.
7. Pitt, M.A., & Myung, I.J. (2002). When a good fit can be bad. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 421-425.
8. Massaro, D.W., Cohen, M. M., Campbell, C.S., & Rodriguez, T. (2001). Bayes factor of model selection validates FLMP. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 1-17.
9. Pitt, M.A., Kim, W., & Myung, I.J. (2003). Flexibility versus generalizablity in model selection. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 29-44.
10. Jaynes, E. T. 1995. Probability Theory: The logic of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Kass, R.E., & Raftery, A.E. (1995). Bayes factor. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773-795.
12. Alsius, A., Navarra, J., Campbell, R., & Soto-Faraco, S. (2005). Audiovisual integration of speech falters under high attention demands. Curr Biol., 15, 839-843.
13. Andersen, T. S., Tiippana, K., Lampinen, J., & Sams, M., 2001. Modeling of audiovisual speech perception in noise. Proceedings of the International Conference on Auditory-Visual Speech Processing (AVSP 2001), pages 172-176.
14. Andersen, T. S., Tiippana, K., & Sams, M., 2002. Using the fuzzy logical model of perception in measuring integration of audiovisual speech in humans. Proceedings of NeuroFuzzy2002.
15. Tuomainen, J, Andersen, T.S., Tiippana, K, & Sams, M. (2005). Audio-visual speech perception is special. Cognition, 96, B13-B22.
16. Sekiyama. K., & Burnham, D. (2004). Issues in the development of auditory-visual speech perception: Adults, infants and children. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, edited by Soon Hyob Kim & Dae Hee Yuon (Seoul, Sunjin Printing, Korea), pp 1137-40.
17. Sekiyama, K., & Tokhura, Y. (1991). McGurk effect in non-English listeners: Few visual effects for Japanese subjects hearing Japanese syllables of high auditory intelligibility. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 90, 1797-1825.
18. Massaro, D.W., Cohen, M.M., Gesi, A., Heredia, R., & Tsuzaki, M. (1993). Bimodal speech perception: An examination across languages. J. Phonetics, 21, 445-478.