McGurk responses are processed 70-80 ms slower than matching audiovisual targets

Evidence

3.3 Response Time The results are consistent with the previous findings (Nahorna et al. 2012 ) in which response times were larger for McGurk targets, independently on context. In both experiments and in all contexts, the processing of “ba” responses was indeed quicker compared to McGurk responses. Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA on target and context type in Exp. A displays an effect of target [70 ms quicker response for “ba” targets, F(1, 20) = 14.25, p < 0.005] and no effect of context or any interaction effect. A three-way repeated-measures ANOVA on condition type , attention and target in Exp. B displays once again an effect of target [80 ms quicker response for “ba” targets, F(1, 20) = 4.47, p < 0.05] and no other significant effect of other factors, alone or in interaction. — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5174

Categorization

• QUESTION: Why would an illusory McGurk percept be processed slower? Likely tied to the extra neural processing needed to resolve conflicting audio-visual cues, worth chasing in later chapters.
• DEFINE: Establishes “McGurk targets” as audiovisual stimuli producing the illusory fusion percept, contrasted with matching “ba” targets.