Talk:McGurk effect

You can't articulate a phoneme!

As a linguist, this sort of thing drives me crazy. A phoneme is something that you perceive. It's an abstract categorical distinction. It's not a physical entity, and therefore you can't articulate it, either auditorially or visually. The thing you articulate is called a phone! Argh! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.128.74 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

• Guess this is better, then--84.24.117.181 (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but just as well as you can't articulate a phoneme, you also can't perceive a phone (without considerable effort). The McGurk effect deals with perception, and it would be inaccurate to talk about "perceiving an intermediate phone". I am inclined to believe that phoneme is the most apt term here. EldKatt (Talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How many people DON'T experience the McGurk Effect?

I don't experience the McGurk Effect. I always hear [ba] and see "ga," even the first time I saw it. This is a question I ask all of my linguistics professors, and one that never seems to have an answer. Are there any studies or figures that can be cited here that show how many people are affected, either by percent or something else? I'm curious about the size of the minority I'm apparently a member of. The members of the Ohio State University linguistics department that I've talked to say that they've never even met anybody who didn't experience it, besides me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.48.176 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that people on the autistic spectrum do not experience the McGurk effect. Someone oughta check that out. 81.174.157.213 (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're like those who can't smell asparagus in urine, only a much smaller minority. Either way, I find this article fascinating. From the Asparagus article. -- Chupon (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"a 2010 study[39] found variations in both production of odorous urine and the ability to detect the odour, but that these were not tightly related. It is believed most people produce the odorous compounds after eating asparagus, but only about 22% of the population have the autosomal genes required to smell them.[40][41][42]

In 2010, the company 23andMe published a genome-wide association study on whether participants have "ever noticed a peculiar odor when you pee after eating asparagus?" [43] This study pinpointed a single-nucleotide polymorphism(SNP) in a cluster of olfactory genes associated with the ability to detect the odor. While this SNP did not explain all of the difference in detection between people, it provides support for the theory that there are genetic differences in olfactory receptors that lead people to be unable to smell these odorous compounds."

Psychology 101 Review

you added a lot of information and it was helpful! you did a really good job on explaining. RRLukasek (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You had much information about the McGurk effect editing the page with care. You really hit it out of the bal park letting us now about this effect--Matthew Townsend 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towny24 (talk • contribs)

Student Editing Project

My primary goal in editing this article is to include more references and expand the coverage base to other areas of the phenomenon. I would like to reorganize the article and try to include a section on the effect in different languages as well as try to address the issue of why some people do not experience the effect. Expanding this article by much may prove to be an arduous task as almost all of the basics on the phenomena have already been covered so if there are any more suggestions or ideas, they would be greatly appreciated.
Mdeeh (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC )

Thanks for taking on this work. I have recently added a lot of material to the Harry McGurk article, which may be of interest. I see there are several examples of the effect on YouTube, some of which do and some of which don't cause the effect in me. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a hint before someone officially does a GA review: references should come after the punctuation at the end of a clause or sentence, and they should be arranged so that they come in order, for example, "^[4][27][28]" not "^[27][4][28]". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a guideline or policy that specifies the sequence of references? I ask because I've seen that issue come up at WT:FAC and be dismissed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, so I just corrected it. I also tidied those references, which is what I would have done if this weren't a project article – I would however, have gone further and corrected the others – but I somehow feel like that that would be misleading. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The lead could do with thrashing out a bit, and I can't understand from " It is a compelling illusion in which humans perceive mismatched audiovisual speech as a completely different syllable[1]. Visual information provided by lipreading changes the way sound is heard[2]." what's actually going on. I find leads have a particular problem if you understand the topic really well, somewhere in the summarising it gets harder for the layperson to understand. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Hey there, I think there is a great picture that really sums up the McGurk effect, but I have no idea how to go about getting it on here. If someone wants to take this on here is the information: It is in an article titled Audio-visual perception and integration in developmental dyslexia: An exploratory study using the McGurk effect. It is in a journal called Current Psychology Letters, Volume 25, Issue 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdeeh (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Mdeeh,
I'm pretty sure that anything published in a journal is copyrighted and won't be acceptable for publication on a wiki page. Paula Marentette (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

copyright issues

The first thing I notice on looking over this article is that the second sentence of the lead is copied directly from the cited source. You can't do that. There are two legitimate ways to use a source: (1) Put the information in your own words -- not just by tweaking the wording, but by saying it in your own words from top to bottom. (2) State it in exactly the words used by the source, but put it in quotation marks to indicate that it is a direct quote. The second strategy should be used only sparingly. You need to go over this article and make sure that any direct copying from a source is explicitly indicated, and that everything not explicitly quoted is in your own words. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:McGurk effect/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 21:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is not very good throughout.

   • The lead is too small for the size of the article and lacks enough specificity. Sentences like "People that are better at this have shown to be more susceptible" are particularly bad in this article. Better at what? Susceptible to what? Verb and noun agreements need to be explicit, especially in the lead.
   • Frankly, this article looks like it was written for a college psychology class. Section headings like "Why is it important?" make it more at home in a class essay. I'm trying not to be too harsh here, but I'd like to see prose that is written more friendly for a general audience. There should be more wikilinking of jargon (and general explanations of the most important terms). Be aware of the audience: a general encyclopedia reader, not a pyschology professor or student.
   • The article is divided up into far too many subsections, giving it a choppy appearance and making it an awkward read. Combine the smaller subsections together into larger prose paragraphs.
   • As a person heavily embedded in deaf and hard-of-hearing culture, I'm offended by the use of the term "hearing impaired" and "hearing impairement". Use the terms "deaf" and "hard-of-hearing".
   • The article suffers from citation overkill at many points. It's no use to a general reader to have more than two citations on a single sentence, because it's not clear which reference goes with which fact. Use citation bundling if all the refs are important. Otherwise, just use the one or two main ones to support the basic facts of the sentence.
   • The lead contains a naked quotation. Even with a citation, this is completely inappropriate without context and who is being quoted. This issue was even mentioned in the talk page, so it is even stranger why it wasn't addressed before now. The quote is not particularly unique, so it stands out as unnecessary. Why quote something that can be easily paraphrased or written in original language by editors here?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   No problems here. All sources appear reliable, although an external link to rutgers.edu is dead, so I can't check it.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is certainly broad in its discussion, but it's choppy nature, containing a multitude of subsections, make it an un-focused read. My recommendation is to rewrite it so that it has just a few major sections, like: "Discovery of the effect", "Neurological research of the effect", "Cognitive factors", for example. Somewhere within those basic sections, you could add the information about infants, deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals, and research in other languages.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems evident here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article has expanded by 3 times the size in the last month, but appears to be stable now.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   No images in article to review. However, with such a well-studied phenomenon, I would expect there to be images available from press releases of the research teams which could illustrate this. Media are not a requirement for GA, however for something like this, I would expect the inclusion of images and sound, or even a video, if such things are available. A good faith effort should be put into finding them for the future.

7. Overall: This article is a start on the subject, but it has a way to go before meeting GA status. The editors of this article should take some time to rework this article and renominate in the future.

   Pass/Fail:

I agree that the article needs to be more connected with fewer separate sections. I have made some changes to that effect. In the interim, I have also set a limiter on the Table of Contents in order to reduce the size so that the article doesn't get lost beneath it. Paula Marentette (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you know...

that on the "Did You Know" page, the link states "you hear something different than what is being said" when it should say "you hear something different FROM what is being said". Jeez Louise!!! 71.201.40.29 (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)gimelgort

Request for elaboration

Under the hearing impaired section it says: "The McGurk effect is still present in individuals with impaired hearing or using cochlear implants, although it is quite different in some aspects." Can someone with access to the source material elaborate on this? 208.251.180.35 (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• McGurkEffect.ogv

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Alberta—Augustana Campus supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at St. Charles Community College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by Primefac (talk) on 16:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Could someone add short explanations to the videos, please?

It would be nice if next to the two videos would be a short explanation what phoneme was visually shown and what phoneme was sounded out and which phoneme was expected to be perceived by the watcher under the McGurk effect. You could possibly hide them under some kind of spoiler tags. Thank you! 2003:CA:A700:7772:5CC:D519:9BB7:A226 (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleting it since it has no explanation, the audio in the two videos is in fact different and it sounds like the same phonemes without image 149.154.203.132 (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)