Selective attention modulates fusion only for low-coherence video sentence contexts.

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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

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 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: 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; High-coherence stimuli bind pre-attentively while low-coherence ones need attention. (+5 more)

Related

• Audiovisual speech fusion is not an automatic process but context-modulated. (similarity 0.95)
• Voluntary attention modulates how audiovisual contexts affect subsequent fusion (similarity 0.95)
• Exposure to low-coherence audiovisual contexts reduces subsequent multisensory fusion (similarity 0.94)
• Audiovisual context coherence strengthens perceptual binding of speech syllables (similarity 0.94)
• Audiovisual fusion is context-modulated, not automatic, and scales with audio-video coherence (similarity 0.93)
• High-coherence stimuli bind pre-attentively while low-coherence ones need attention. (similarity 0.91)
• Temporal audiovisual coherence strength determines visual weighting in fusion. (similarity 0.91)
• Top-down instructional attention modulates audiovisual speech perception in unimpaired listeners (similarity 0.89)
• Attention modulates audiovisual binding only for low-coherence stimuli, not salient ones (similarity 0.88)
• Brief audiovisual context can sharply weaken the McGurk fusion effect. (similarity 0.88)
• Syllables have stronger audiovisual coherence than sentences, predicting greater binding. (similarity 0.87)
• Temporal coherence of audiovisual signals predicts how strongly vision captures auditory perception. (similarity 0.86)
• Brief incoherent audiovisual contexts reduce the McGurk effect by decreasing visual weight. (similarity 0.84)
• A coherence index computed before fusion decides whether audiovisual inputs bind (similarity 0.84)
• Syllable speech binds audio and video more strongly than sentences do (similarity 0.84)

Broader Connections

• Audiovisual fusion is context-modulated, not automatic, and scales with audio-video coherence #corroborates (0.88) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5177
• Attention modulates audiovisual binding only for low-coherence stimuli, not salient ones #corroborates (0.85)
• Audiovisual speech fusion is not an automatic process but context-modulated. #corroborates (0.80) — Dijk, Pim van, Physiology, Psychoacoustics and…, 5137
• Temporal audiovisual coherence strength determines visual weighting in fusion. #qualifies (0.75)
• Audiovisual context coherence strengthens perceptual binding of speech syllables #qualifies (0.72)