↓ Skip to main content

The noisy encoding of disparity model of the McGurk effect

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
The noisy encoding of disparity model of the McGurk effect
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, September 2014
DOI 10.3758/s13423-014-0722-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

John F. Magnotti, Michael S. Beauchamp

Abstract

In the McGurk effect, incongruent auditory and visual syllables are perceived as a third, completely different syllable. This striking illusion has become a popular assay of multisensory integration for individuals and clinical populations. However, there is enormous variability in how often the illusion is evoked by different stimuli and how often the illusion is perceived by different individuals. Most studies of the McGurk effect have used only one stimulus, making it impossible to separate stimulus and individual differences. We created a probabilistic model to separately estimate stimulus and individual differences in behavioral data from 165 individuals viewing up to 14 different McGurk stimuli. The noisy encoding of disparity (NED) model characterizes stimuli by their audiovisual disparity and characterizes individuals by how noisily they encode the stimulus disparity and by their disparity threshold for perceiving the illusion. The model accurately described perception of the McGurk effect in our sample, suggesting that differences between individuals are stable across stimulus differences. The most important benefit of the NED model is that it provides a method to compare multisensory integration across individuals and groups without the confound of stimulus differences. An added benefit is the ability to predict frequency of the McGurk effect for stimuli never before seen by an individual.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 4%
Germany 2 4%
United States 2 4%
Japan 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 40 83%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 35%
Researcher 12 25%
Unspecified 6 13%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Bachelor 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 40%
Unspecified 10 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 13%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Linguistics 2 4%
Other 7 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2014.
All research outputs
#7,808,587
of 12,445,189 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#949
of 1,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,550
of 210,740 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#35
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,445,189 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,552 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,740 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.