Brief audiovisual context can sharply weaken the McGurk fusion effect.

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. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5177 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Audiovisual speech fusion is not an automatic process but context-modulated. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5137; Brief incoherent audiovisual contexts reduce the McGurk effect by decreasing visual weight. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5137; Exposure to low-coherence audiovisual contexts reduces subsequent multisensory fusion (+3 more)

Related

• Exposure to low-coherence audiovisual contexts reduces subsequent multisensory fusion (similarity 0.94)
• Brief incoherent audiovisual contexts reduce the McGurk effect by decreasing visual weight. (similarity 0.93)
• Audiovisual speech fusion is not an automatic process but context-modulated. (similarity 0.91)
• Binding the visual stream to the less-coherent auditory source shrinks later McGurk fusion (similarity 0.90)
• Audiovisual fusion is context-modulated, not automatic, and scales with audio-video coherence (similarity 0.90)
• Brief prior exposure to mismatched audio-visual speech reduces later visual weight in fusion. (similarity 0.89)
• Selective attention modulates fusion only for low-coherence video sentence contexts. (similarity 0.88)
• Temporal audiovisual coherence strength determines visual weighting in fusion. (similarity 0.88)
• Voluntary attention modulates how audiovisual contexts affect subsequent fusion (similarity 0.87)
• Audiovisual context coherence strengthens perceptual binding of speech syllables (similarity 0.86)
• Seconds of mismatched audiovisual context weaken the McGurk visual bias. (similarity 0.86)
• Fused McGurk percepts take longer to process than matching audiovisual syllables (similarity 0.85)
• Syllable speech binds audio and video more strongly than sentences do (similarity 0.84)
• Stronger temporal audiovisual coherence increases visual weight in binding (similarity 0.83)
• Temporal coherence of audiovisual signals predicts how strongly vision captures auditory perception. (similarity 0.82)

Broader Connections

• Exposure to low-coherence audiovisual contexts reduces subsequent multisensory fusion #corroborates (0.85)
• Audiovisual fusion is context-modulated, not automatic, and scales with audio-video coherence #expands (0.82) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5177
• Temporal audiovisual coherence strength determines visual weighting in fusion. #expands (0.75)
• Dynamic auditory cues can override even strong conflicting visual evidence #corroborates (0.72)