Why the FLMP should not be applied to McGurk data …or how to better compare models in the Bayesian framework

AVSP 2003 - International Conference on Audio-Visual Speech Processing

Volumn , Issue , 2003, Pages 19-24

  Schwartz, J L ^a  

^a CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

SPEECH PROCESSING;

BAYESIAN APPROACHES; BAYESIAN FRAMEWORKS; CONDITION; FUZZY LOGICAL; LOGICAL MODELS; OPTIMAL REGIONS; RANDOM DATA;

BAYESIAN NETWORKS;

EID: 85133618424     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Braida, L.D. (1991). Crossmodal integration in the identification of consonant segments. Quaterly J. Experimental Psychology, 43A, 647-677.
2. Braida, L.D., Sekiyama, K., & Dix, K. (1998). Integration of audiovisually compatible and incompatible consonants in identification experiments. Proc AVSP98.
3. Breeuwer, M., & Plomp, R. (1986). Speechreading supplemented with auditorily presented speech parameters. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 79, 481-499.
4. Campbell, H.W. (1974). Phoneme recognition by ear and by eye: a distinctive feature analysis. Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit te Nijmegen.
5. Cathiard, M.A., Schwartz, J.L., & Abry, C. (2001). Asking a naive question to the McGurk effect: why does audio [b] give more [d] percepts with visual [g] than with visual [d] ? Proc. AVSP'2001, 138-142.
6. Cohen, M.M., & Massaro, D.W. (1995). Perceiving visual and auditory information n consonant-vowel and vowel syllabes. In C. Sorin et al. (eds.) Levels in Speech Communication (pp. 25-38). Elsevier B.V.
7. Cutting, J.E. et al. (1992). Selectivity, scope, and simplicity of models: A lesson from fitting judgements of perceived depth. J. Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 364-381.
8. Girin, L. (2003). Pure audio McGurk effect. Proc. AVSP03.
9. Grant, K.W., Walden, B.E., & Seitz, P.F. (1998). Auditory-visual speech recognition by hearing-impaired subjects: Consonant recognition, sentence recognition and auditory-visual integration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 103, 2677-2690.
10. Jaynes E.T.; Probability theory - The logic of science. Cambridge University Press (in press). http://bayes.wustl.edu (1995).
11. Massaro, D.W. (1987). Speech perception by ear and eye: a paradigm for psychological inquiry. London: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Massaro, D.W. (1989). Multiple book review of speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 741-794.
13. Massaro, D.W. (1998). Perceiving Talking Faces. Cambridge: MIT Press.
14. Massaro, D.W., & Cohen, M.M. (1976). The contribution of fundamental frequency and voice onset time to the/zi/-/si/distinction. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 60, 704-717.
15. Massaro, D.W., & Cohen, M.M. (1990). Perception of synthesized audible and visible speech. Psychological Science, 1, 55-63.
16. Massaro, D.W., & Cohen, M.M. (1993). Perceiving asynchronous bimodal speech in consonant-vowel and vowel syllables. Speech Comm., 13, 127-134.
17. Massaro, D.W., & Cohen, M.M. (1993). The Paradigm and the Fuzzy Logical Model of Perception are alive and well. JEP, 122, 115-124.
18. Massaro, D.W., & Cohen, M.M. (1995). Modeling the perception of bimodal speech. Proc. XIIIth ICPhS, 3, 106-113.
19. 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.
20. Massaro, D.W., Cohen, M.M., Gesi, A., Heredia, R., & Tsuzaki, M. (1993). Bimodal speech perception: An examination across languages. J Phon, 21, 445-478.
21. Massaro, D.W., & Egan, P.B. (1996). Perceiving affect from the voice and face. Psych Bull Rev, 3, 215-221.
22. Massaro, D.W., & Friedman, D. (1990). Models of integration given multiple sources of information. Psychological Review, 97, 225-252.
23. Massaro, D.W., & Warner, D.S. (1977). Dividing attention between auditory and visual perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 21, 569-574.
24. McClelland, J.L., & Elman, J.L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cog. Psych., 18, 1-86.
25. McGurk, H., & MacDonald, J. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices. Nature, 264, 746-748.
26. Myung, I. J., & Pitt, M. A. (1997). Applying Occam's razor in modeling cognition: A Bayesian approach. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 79-95.
27. Petajan, E.D. (1984). Automatic lipreading to enhance speech recognition. Doc. Thesis, Univ. of Illinois.
28. Robert-Ribes, J., Schwartz, J.L., & Escudier, P. (1995). A comparison of models for fusion of the auditory and visual sensors in speech perception. Artificial Intelligence Review, 9, 323-346.
29. Schwartz, J.L., Berthommier, F., & Savariaux, C. (2002). Audio-visual scene analysis: Evidence for a “very-early” integration process in audiovisual speech perception. Proc. ICSLP'2002, 1937-1940.
30. Sekiyama, K., & Tokhura, Y. (1993). Inter-language differences in the influence of visual cues in speech perception. J. Phonetics, 21, 427-444.
31. Tiippana, K., Sams, M., & Andersen, T.S. (2001). Visual attention influences audiovisual speech perception. Proc. AVSP'2001, 167-171.
32. Vroomen, J., & de Gelder, B. (2000). Crossmodal integration: a good fit is no criterion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 37-38.