These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
122 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 1603649)
1. Audiovisual integration in perception of real words. Dekle DJ; Fowler CA; Funnell MG Percept Psychophys; 1992 Apr; 51(4):355-62. PubMed ID: 1603649 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Do you see what you are hearing? Cross-modal effects of speech sounds on lipreading. Baart M; Vroomen J Neurosci Lett; 2010 Mar; 471(2):100-3. PubMed ID: 20080146 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Listening with eye and hand: cross-modal contributions to speech perception. Fowler CA; Dekle DJ J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1991 Aug; 17(3):816-28. PubMed ID: 1834793 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Temporal constraints on the McGurk effect. Munhall KG; Gribble P; Sacco L; Ward M Percept Psychophys; 1996 Apr; 58(3):351-62. PubMed ID: 8935896 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. McGurk effect in non-English listeners: few visual effects for Japanese subjects hearing Japanese syllables of high auditory intelligibility. Sekiyama K; Tohkura Y J Acoust Soc Am; 1991 Oct; 90(4 Pt 1):1797-805. PubMed ID: 1960275 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. An audiovisual test of kinematic primitives for visual speech perception. Rosenblum LD; Saldaña HM J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 1996 Apr; 22(2):318-31. PubMed ID: 8934846 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Hemispheric contributions to the integration of visual and auditory information in speech perception. Baynes K; Funnell MG; Fowler CA Percept Psychophys; 1994 Jun; 55(6):633-41. PubMed ID: 8058451 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. A sex difference in visual influence on heard speech. Irwin JR; Whalen DH; Fowler CA Percept Psychophys; 2006 May; 68(4):582-92. PubMed ID: 16933423 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Recalibration of phonetic categories by lipread speech versus lexical information. van Linden S; Vroomen J J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform; 2007 Dec; 33(6):1483-94. PubMed ID: 18085958 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Cultural and linguistic factors in audiovisual speech processing: the McGurk effect in Chinese subjects. Sekiyama K Percept Psychophys; 1997 Jan; 59(1):73-80. PubMed ID: 9038409 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. What accounts for individual differences in susceptibility to the McGurk effect? Brown VA; Hedayati M; Zanger A; Mayn S; Ray L; Dillman-Hasso N; Strand JF PLoS One; 2018; 13(11):e0207160. PubMed ID: 30418995 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Visual influences on perception of speech and nonspeech vocal-tract events. Brancazio L; Best CT; Fowler CA Lang Speech; 2006; 49(Pt 1):21-53. PubMed ID: 16922061 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Perception of intersensory synchrony in audiovisual speech: not that special. Vroomen J; Stekelenburg JJ Cognition; 2011 Jan; 118(1):75-83. PubMed ID: 21035795 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. The influence of selective attention to auditory and visual speech on the integration of audiovisual speech information. Buchan JN; Munhall KG Perception; 2011; 40(10):1164-82. PubMed ID: 22308887 [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]