<strong>Proceedings</strong>, FONETIK <strong>2009</strong>, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm UniversityFor Exp. 4, the result of Chi-square tests of theeffects of subject-specific variables on the influenceof vision are listed in Table 3.Table 3. Effects of general variables (use of headphones,habituated to dubbing, discomfort fromdubbing, sex and age) on ”influence of vision”.n Swedes n TurksPhone use 25 of 83 0.02 12 of 68 0.11Habituated 7 of 81 0.7 53 of 68 0.054Discomfort 50 of 76 0.4 33 of 63 0.93Female 11 of 84 0.9 39 of 69 0.045Age 84 0.24 69Use of headphones had the effect of reducingthe influence of vision among both Swedes(significantly) and Turks (not significantly).Habituation to dubbed speech had no noticeableeffect among the few Swedes (7 of 81,9% habituated), but it increased(!) the influenceof vision to an almost significant extent amongTurks (53 of 68, 78% habituated).Discomfort felt from dubbed speech had nosignificant effect on the influence of vision.Such discomfort was reported by 66% of theSwedes and also by 52% of the Turks.Among Turks, females were significantlymore susceptible to vision than males, whilethere was no noticeable sex difference amongSwedes.DiscussionThe present series of web experiments disclosedan asymmetry in the influence of visionon the auditory perception of roundedness: Absenceof lip rounding in the visible face had astronger effect on audition than visible presenceof lip rounding. This is probably due to the factthat lip rounding (protrusion) is equally absentthroughout the whole visible stimulus whenthere is no rounded vowel. When there is arounded vowel, there is a dynamic roundinggesture, which is most clearly present only inthe middle of the stimulus. Allowing for someasynchrony, such a visible gesture is also compatiblewith the presence of a diphthong such as[eø], which was the most common responsegiven by Turks to auditory [e] dubbed on visual[y]. The reason for the absence of this asymmetryin the previous experiment (Traunmüllerand Öhrström, 2007). can be seen in the higherdemand of visual attention. In this previous experiment,the subjects had to identify randomizedstimuli, some of which were presentedonly visually. This is likely to have increasedthe influence of visual presence of roundedness.The present experiments had the aim of investigatingthe effects of1) a male/female face/voice incongruence,2) the perceiver’s knowledge about the stimuli,3) sex of perceiver,4) age of the perceiver,5) discomfort from dubbed speech,6) noticed/unnoticed incongruence,7) listening via loudspeaker or headphones,8) language and foreignness,9) habituation to dubbed speech.1) The observation that a drastic incongruencebetween face and voice did not cause asignificant reduction of the influence of visionagrees with previous findings (Green et al.,1991). It confirms that auditory-visual integrationoccurs after extraction of the linguisticallyinformative quality in each modality, i.e. afterdemodulation of voice and face (Traunmüllerand Öhrström, 2007b).2) Since the verbal information about thedubbing of the stimuli was given in cases inwhich the stimuli were anyway likely to be perceivedas dubbed, the negative results obtainedhere are still compatible with the presence of asmall effect of cognitive factors on perception,such as observed by Johnson et al. (1999).3) The results obtained with Turks confirmthat women are more susceptible to visual information.However, the results also suggestthat this difference is likely to show itself onlywhen there is an increased demand of attention.This was the case in the experiments byTraunmüller and Öhrström (2007) and it is alsothe case when listening to a foreign language,an unfamiliar dialect or a foreigner’s speech,which holds for the Turkish version of Exp. 4.The present results do not suggest that a sexdifference will emerge equally clearly whenTurks listen to Turkish samples of speech.4) The absence of a consistent age effectwithin the range of 10-65 years agrees withprevious investigations.5) The absence of an effect of discomfortfrom dubbed speech on influence of vision suggeststhat the experience of discomfort arises asan after-effect of speech perception.6) Among subjects who indicated a stimulusas dubbed, the influence of vision was reduced.This was expected, but it is in contrastwith the fact that there was no significant reductionwhen there was an obvious discrepancyin sex. It appears that only the discrepancy in170
<strong>Proceedings</strong>, FONETIK <strong>2009</strong>, Dept. of Linguistics, Stockholm Universitythe linguistically informative quality is relevant Green K. P., Kuhl P. K., Meltzoff A. N., andhere, and that an additional discrepancy betweenvoice and face can even make it more formatin across talkers, gender, and sensoryStevens E. B. (1991) Integrating speech in-difficult to notice the relevant discrepancy. This modality: Female faces and male voices inappears to have happened with the auditory e ♀ the McGurk effect. Perception and Psychophys50, 524–536.dubbed on the visual y ♂ (see Table 1).7) The difference between subjects listeningvia headphones and those listening via foreign language effect in the McGurk ef-Hayashi T., and Sekiyama K. (1998) Native-loudspeaker is easily understood: The audibility fect: a test with Chinese and Japanese.of the voice is likely to be increased when using AVSP’98, Terrigal, Australia.headphones, mainly because of a better signalto-noiseratio.Irwin, J. R., Whalen, D. H., and Fowler, C. A.http://www.isca-speech.org/archive/avsp98/8) The greater influence of vision among (2006) A sex difference in visual influenceTurks as compared with Swedes most likely on heard speech. Perception and Psychophysics,68, 582–592.reflects a “foreign language effect” (Hayashiand Sekiyama, 1998; Chen and Hazan, 2007). Johnson K., Strand A.E., and D’Imperio, M.To Turkish listeners, syllables such as /ɡyːɡ/ (1999) Auditory-visual integration of talkerand /ɡiːɡ/ sound as foreign since long vowels gender in vowel perception. Journal of Phonetics27, 359–384.occur only in open syllables and a final /ɡ/never in Turkish. Minor differences in vowel Jordan, T.R. (2000) Effects of distance on visualand audiovisual speech recognition. Lan-quality are also involved. A greater influence ofvision might perhaps also result from a higher guage and Speech 43, 107–124.functional load of the roundedness distinction, McGurk H., and MacDonald J. (1976) Hearingbut this load is not likely to be higher in Turkishthan in Swedish.748.lips and seeing voices. Nature 264, 746–9) The results show that habituation to Munhall, K.G., Gribble, P., Sacco, L., Ward, M.dubbed speech has no deteriorating effect on (1996) Temporal constraints on the McGurknormal auditory-visual integration in the case of effect. Perception and Psychophysics 58,roundedness. The counter-intuitive result showingTurkish habituated subjects to be influenced Sams, M., Manninen, P., Surakka, V., Helin, P.351–362.more often by vision remains to be explained. It and Kättö, R. (1998) McGurk effect in inshould be taken with caution since only 15 of Finnish syllables, isolated words, and wordsthe 68 Turkish subjects were not habituated to in sentences: Effects of word meaning anddubbing.sentence context. Speech Communication26, 75–87.AcknowledgementsShigeno, S. (2002) Influence of vowel contexton the audio-visual perception of voicedI am grateful to Mehmet Aktürk (Centre for Researchon Bilingualism at Stockholm Universi-Research 42, 155–167.stop consonants. Japanese Psychologicalty) for the translation and the recruitment of Sekiyama K., Tohkura Y. (1993) Inter-languageTurkish subjects. His service was financed differences in the influence of visual cues inwithin the frame of the EU-project CONTACT speech perception. Journal of Phonetics 21,(NEST, proj. 50101).427–444.Sekiyama, K., and Burnham, D. (2004) IssuesReferencesin the development of auditory-visualspeech perception: adults, infants, andBurnham, D., and Dodd, B. (2004) Auditoryvisualspeech integration by prelinguistic in-children, In INTERSPEECH-2004, 1137–1140.fants: Perception of an emergent consonantTraunmüller H., and Öhrström, N. (2007) Audiovisualperception of openness and lipin the McGurk effect. Developmental Psychobiology45, 204–220.rounding in front vowels. Journal of Phonetics35, 244–258.Chen, Y., and Hazan, V. (2007) Language effectson the degree of visual influence inTraunmüller H., and Öhrström, N. (2007b) Theaudiovisual speech perception. Proc. of the16 th auditory and the visual percept evoked byInternational Congress of Phoneticthe same audiovisual stimuli. In AVSP-Sciences, 2177–2180.2007, paper L4-1.171
- Page 1 and 2:
Department of LinguisticsProceeding
- Page 3 and 4:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 5 and 6:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 7 and 8:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 9 and 10:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 11 and 12:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 13 and 14:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 15 and 16:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 17 and 18:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 19 and 20:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 21 and 22:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 23 and 24:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 25 and 26:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 27 and 28:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 29 and 30:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 31 and 32:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 33 and 34:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 35 and 36:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 37 and 38:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 39 and 40:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 41 and 42:
Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 43 and 44:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 45 and 46:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 47 and 48:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 49 and 50:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 51 and 52:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 53 and 54:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 55 and 56:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 57 and 58:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 59 and 60:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 61 and 62:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 63 and 64:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 65 and 66:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 67 and 68:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 69 and 70:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 71 and 72:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 73 and 74:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 75 and 76:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 77 and 78:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 79 and 80:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 81 and 82:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 83 and 84:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 85 and 86:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 87 and 88:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 89 and 90:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 91 and 92:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 93 and 94:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 95 and 96:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 97 and 98:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 99 and 100:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 101 and 102:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 103 and 104:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 105 and 106:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 107 and 108:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 109 and 110:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 111 and 112:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 113 and 114:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 115 and 116:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 117 and 118:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 119 and 120: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 121 and 122: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 123 and 124: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 125 and 126: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 127 and 128: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 129 and 130: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 131 and 132: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 133 and 134: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 135 and 136: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 137 and 138: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 139 and 140: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 141 and 142: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 143 and 144: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 145 and 146: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 147 and 148: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 149 and 150: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 151 and 152: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 153 and 154: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 155 and 156: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 157 and 158: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 159 and 160: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 161 and 162: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 163 and 164: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 165 and 166: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 167 and 168: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 169: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 173 and 174: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 175 and 176: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 177 and 178: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 179 and 180: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 181 and 182: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 183 and 184: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 185 and 186: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 187 and 188: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 189 and 190: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 191 and 192: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 193 and 194: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 195 and 196: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 197 and 198: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 199 and 200: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 201 and 202: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 203 and 204: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 205 and 206: Proceedings, FOETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 207 and 208: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 209 and 210: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 211 and 212: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 213 and 214: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 215 and 216: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 217 and 218: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 219 and 220: Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 221 and 222:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 223 and 224:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 225 and 226:
Proceedings, FONETIK 2009, Dept. of
- Page 227:
Department of LinguisticsPhonetics