Audiovisual speech fusion is not an automatic process but context-modulated.

Evidence

Audiovisual fusion has long been considered as an automatic fusion process (e.g. Massaro 1987 ). However Exp. A. confirms that the contextual stimulus may modulate fusion as in our previous experiments (Nahorna et al. 2012 ; Ganesh et al. 2013 ; Nahorna et al. 2015 ) and extends the concept to the case of competing sources. This supports the AVSSA hypothesis, in which a first speech scene analysis process would group together the adequate audiovisual pieces of information and estimate the degree of audiovisual coherence. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5137

Categorization

• XREF: Challenges Massaro’s classic automatic-fusion view of audiovisual speech perception — a useful contrast with the earlier chapter framework in this reader’s library. — connects to: Exposure to low-coherence audiovisual contexts reduces subsequent multisensory fusion; Voluntary attention modulates how audiovisual contexts affect subsequent fusion — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5137; Selective attention modulates fusion only for low-coherence video sentence contexts. (+7 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5137

Broader Connections

• Audiovisual fusion is context-modulated, not automatic, and scales with audio-video coherence #corroborates (1.00) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5177
• Audiovisual context coherence strengthens perceptual binding of speech syllables #expands (0.85)
• Brief audiovisual context can sharply weaken the McGurk fusion effect. #exemplifies (0.80)
• Scene analysis principles apply to cross-modal audiovisual speech mixtures. #expands (0.70)
• Visual cues override directional sound cues in film dialog perception #qualifies (0.70)