McGurk effect

The McGurk effect is a perceptual phenomenon that demonstrates an interaction between hearing and
vision in speech perception. The illusion occurs when the auditory component of one sound is paired with
the visual component of another sound, leading to the perception of a third sound.[1] The visual
information a person gets from seeing a person speak changes the way they hear the sound.[2] People who
are used to watching dubbed movies may be among people who are not susceptible to the McGurk effect
because they have, to some extent, learned to ignore the information they are getting from the mouths of
the "speakers".[3] If a person is getting poor quality auditory information but good quality visual
information, they may be more likely to experience the McGurk effect.[4] Integration abilities for audio
and visual information may also influence whether a person will experience the effect. People who are
better at sensory integration have been shown to be more susceptible to the effect.[2] Many people are
affected differently by the McGurk effect based on many factors, including brain damage and other
disorders.

Background
It was first described in 1976 in a paper by Harry McGurk and John MacDonald titled "Hearing Lips and
Seeing Voices".[5] This effect was discovered by accident when McGurk and his research assistant,
MacDonald, asked a technician to dub a video with a different phoneme from the one spoken while
conducting a study on how infants perceive language at different developmental stages. When the video
was played back, both researchers heard a third phoneme rather than the one spoken or mouthed in the
video.[6]
This effect may be experienced when a video of one phoneme's production is dubbed with a soundrecording of a different phoneme being spoken. Often, the perceived phoneme is a third, intermediate
phoneme. As an example, the syllable /ba-ba/ is spoken over the lip movements of /ga-ga/, and the
perception is of /da-da/. McGurk and MacDonald originally believed that this resulted from the common
phonetic and visual properties of /b/ and /g/.[7] Two types of illusion in response to incongruent
audiovisual stimuli have been observed: fusions ('ba' auditory and 'ga' visual produce 'da') and
combinations ('ga' auditory and 'ba' visual produce 'bga').[8] This is the brain's effort to provide the
consciousness with its best guess about the incoming information.[9] The information coming from the
eyes and ears is contradictory, and in this instance, the eyes (visual information) have had a greater effect
on the brain and thus the fusion and combination responses have been created.[9]
Vision is the primary sense for humans,[2] but speech perception is multimodal, which means that it

involves information from more than one sensory modality, in particular, audition and vision. The
McGurk effect arises during phonetic processing because the integration of audio and visual information
happens early in speech perception.[7] The McGurk effect is very robust; that is, knowledge about it seems
to have little effect on one's perception of it. This is different from certain optical illusions, which break
down once one 'sees through' them. Some people, including those that have been researching the
phenomenon for more than twenty years, experience the effect even when they are aware that it is taking
place.[8][10] With the exception of people who can identify most of what is being said from speech-reading
alone, most people are quite limited in their ability to identify speech from visual-only signals.[2] A more
extensive phenomenon is the ability of visual speech to increase the intelligibility of heard speech in a
noisy environment.[2] Visible speech can also alter the perception of perfectly audible speech sounds when
the visual speech stimuli are mismatched with the auditory speech.[2] Normally, speech perception is
thought to be an auditory process,[2] however, our use of information is immediate, automatic, and, to a
large degree, unconscious[10] and therefore, despite what is widely accepted as true, speech is not only
something we hear.[10] Speech is perceived by all of the senses working together (seeing, touching, and
listening to a face move).[10] The brain is often unaware of the separate sensory contributions of what it
perceives.[10] Therefore, when it comes to recognizing speech the brain cannot differentiate whether it is
seeing or hearing the incoming information.[10]
It has also been examined in relation to witness testimony. Wareham and Wright's 2005 study showed
that inconsistent visual information can change the perception of spoken utterances, suggesting that the
McGurk effect may have many influences in everyday perception. Not limited to syllables, the effect can
occur in whole words[7][11] and have an effect on daily interactions that people are unaware of. Research
into this area can provide information on not only theoretical questions, but also it can provide
therapeutic and diagnostic relevance for those with disorders relating to audio and visual integration of
speech cues.[12]

Internal factors
Damage
Both hemispheres of the brain make a contribution to the McGurk effect.[13] They work together to
integrate speech information that is received through the auditory and visual senses. A McGurk response
is more likely to occur in right-handed individuals for whom the face has privileged access to the right
hemisphere and words to the left hemisphere.[13] In people that have had callosotomies done, the McGurk
effect is still present but significantly slower.[13] In people with lesions to the left hemisphere of the brain,

visual features often play a critical role in speech and language therapy.[12] People with lesions in the left
hemisphere of the brain show a greater McGurk effect than normal controls.[12] Visual information
strongly influences speech perception in these people.[12] There is a lack of susceptibility to the McGurk
illusion if left hemisphere damage resulted in a deficit to visual segmental speech perception.[14] In people
with right hemisphere damage, impairment on both visual-only and audio-visual integration tasks is
exhibited, although they are still able to integrate the information to produce a McGurk effect.[14]
Integration only appears if visual stimuli is used to improve performance when the auditory signal is
impoverished but audible.[14] Therefore, there is a McGurk effect exhibited in people with damage to the
right hemisphere of the brain but the effect is not as strong as a normal group.

Disorders
Dyslexia
Dyslexic individuals exhibit a smaller McGurk effect than normal readers of the same chronological age,
but they showed the same effect as reading-level age-matched readers.[15] Dyslexics particularly differed
for combination responses, not fusion responses.[15] The smaller McGurk effect may be due to the
difficulties dyslexics have in perceiving and producing consonant clusters.[15]
Specific language impairment
Children with specific language impairment show a significantly lower McGurk effect than the average
child.[16] They use less visual information in speech perception, or have a reduced attention to articulatory
gestures, but have no trouble perceiving auditory-only cues.[16]
Autism spectrum disorders
Children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) showed a significantly reduced McGurk effect than
children without.[17] However, if the stimulus was nonhuman (for example bouncing a tennis ball to the
sound of a bouncing beach ball) then they scored similarly to children without ASD.[17] Younger children
with ASD show a very reduced McGurk effect, however, this diminishes with age. As the individuals grow
up, the effect they show becomes closer to those that did not have ASD.[18] It has been suggested that the
weakened McGurk effect seen in people with ASD is due to deficits in identifying both the auditory and
visual components of speech rather than in the integration of said components.[19]
Language-learning disabilities

Adults with language-learning disabilities exhibit a much smaller McGurk effect than other adults.[20]
These people are not as influenced by visual input as most people.[20] Therefore, people with poor
language skills will produce a smaller McGurk effect. A reason for the smaller effect in this population is
that there may be uncoupled activity between anterior and posterior regions of the brain, or left and right
hemispheres.[20]
Alzheimers disease
In patients with Alzheimer's disease (AD), there is a smaller McGurk effect exhibited than in normals.[21]
Often a reduced size of the corpus callosum produces a hemisphere disconnection process.[21] Less
influence on visual stimulus is seen in patients with AD, which is a reason for the lowered McGurk effect.
[21]

Schizophrenia
The McGurk effect is not as pronounced in schizophrenic individuals as in normal individuals. However, it
is not significantly different in adults.[22] Schizophrenia slows down the development of audiovisual
integration and does not allow it to reach its developmental peak. However, no degradation is observed.
[22]

Schizophrenics are more likely to rely on auditory cues than visual cues in speech perception.[22]

Aphasia
People with aphasia show impaired perception of speech in all conditions (visual-only, auditory-only, and
audio-visual), and therefore exhibited a small McGurk effect.[23] The greatest difficulty for aphasics is in
the visual-only condition showing that they use more auditory stimuli in speech perception.[23]

External factors
Cross-dubbing
Discrepancy in vowel category significantly reduced the magnitude of the McGurk effect for fusion
responses.[24] Auditory /a/ tokens dubbed onto visual /i/ articulations were more compatible than the
reverse.[24] This could be because /a/ has a wide range of articulatory configurations whereas /i/ is more
limited,[24] which makes it much easier for subjects to detect discrepancies in the stimuli.[24] /i/ vowel
contexts produce the strongest effect, while /a/ produces a moderate effect, and /u/ has almost no effect.
[25]

Mouth visibility

The McGurk effect is stronger when the right side of the mouth is visible.[26] People tend to get more
visual information from the right side of a speaker's mouth than the left or even the whole mouth.[26] This
relates to the hemispheric attention factors discussed in the brain hemispheres section above.

Visual distractors
The McGurk effect is weaker when there is a visual distractor present that the listener is attending to.[27]
Visual attention modulates audiovisual speech perception.[27] Another form of distraction is movement of
the speaker. A stronger McGurk effect is elicited if the speaker's face/head is motionless, rather than
moving.[28]

Syllable structure
A strong McGurk effect can be seen for click-vowel syllables compared to weak effects for isolated clicks.
[29]

This shows that the McGurk effect can happen in a non-speech environment.[29] Phonological

significance is not a necessary condition for a McGurk effect to occur, however, it does increase the
strength of the effect.[29]

Gender
Females show a stronger McGurk effect than males. Women show significantly greater visual influence on
auditory speech than men did for brief visual stimuli, but no difference is apparent for full stimuli.[28]
Another aspect regarding gender is the issue of male faces and voices as stimuli in comparison to female
faces and voices as stimuli. Although, there is no difference in the strength of the McGurk effect for either
situation.[30] If a male face is dubbed with a female voice, or vice versa, there is still no difference in
strength of the McGurk effect.[30] Knowing that the voice you hear is different from the face you see
even if different genders doesnt eliminate the McGurk effect.[10]

Familiarity
Subjects who are familiar with the faces of the speakers are less susceptible to the McGurk effect than
those who are unfamiliar with the faces of the speakers.[2][25] On the other hand, there was no difference
regarding voice familiarity.[25]

Expectation
Semantic congruency had a significant impact on the McGurk illusion.[31] The effect is experienced more
often and rated as clearer in the semantically congruent condition relative to the incongruent condition.

[31]

When a person was expecting a certain visual or auditory appearance based on the semantic

information leading up to it, the McGurk effect was greatly increased.[31]

Self influence
The McGurk effect can be observed when the listener is also the speaker or articulator.[32] While looking
at oneself in the mirror and articulating visual stimuli while listening to another auditory stimulus, a
strong McGurk effect can be observed.[32] In the other condition, where the listener speaks auditory
stimuli softly while watching another person articulate the conflicting visual gestures, a McGurk effect can
still be seen, although it is weaker.[32]

Temporal synchrony
Temporal synchrony is not necessary for the McGurk effect to be present.[33] Subjects are still strongly
influenced by auditory stimuli even when it lagged the visual stimuli by 180 milliseconds (point at which
McGurk effect begins to weaken).[33] There was less tolerance for the lack of synchrony if the auditory
stimuli preceded the visual stimuli.[33] In order to produce a significant weakening of the McGurk effect,
the auditory stimuli had to precede the visual stimuli by 60 milliseconds, or lag by 240 milliseconds.[2]

Physical task diversion

The McGurk effect was greatly reduced when attention was diverted to a tactile task (touching something).
[34]

Touch is a sensory perception like vision and audition, therefore increasing attention to touch

decreases the attention to auditory and visual senses.

Gaze
The eyes do not need to fixate in order to integrate audio and visual information in speech perception.[35]
There was no difference in the McGurk effect when the listener was focusing anywhere on the speaker's
face.[35] The effect does not appear if the listener focuses beyond the speaker's face.[2] In order for the
McGurk effect to become insignificant, the listeners gaze must deviate from the speaker's mouth by at
least 60 degrees.[35]

Other languages
People of all languages rely to some extent on visual information in speech perception, but the intensity of
the McGurk effect can change between languages. Dutch,[36] English, Spanish, German and Italian
language listeners experience a robust McGurk effect, while it is weaker for Japanese and Chinese

listeners.[37] Most research on the McGurk effect between languages has been conducted between English
and Japanese. There is a smaller McGurk effect in Japanese listeners than in English listeners.[36][38][39]
[40][41][42]

The cultural practice of face avoidance in Japanese people may have an effect on the McGurk

effect, as well as tone and syllabic structures of the language.[36] This could also be why Chinese listeners
are less susceptible to visual cues, and similar to Japanese, produce a smaller effect than English listeners.
[36]

Studies have also shown that Japanese listeners do not show a developmental increase in visual

influence after the age of six, as English children do.[38][39] Japanese listeners are more able to identify an
incompatibility between the visual and auditory stimulus than English listeners are.[36][39] This result
could be in relation to the fact that in Japanese, consonant clusters do not exist.[36][40] In noisy
environments where speech is unintelligible, however, people of all languages resort to using visual
stimuli and are then equally subject to the McGurk effect.[36][40] The McGurk effect works with speech
perceivers of every language for which it has been tested.[10]

Hearing impairment
Experiments have been conducted involving hearing impaired individuals as well as individuals that have
had cochlear implants. These individuals tend to weigh visual information from speech more heavily than
auditory information.[43] In comparison to normal hearing individuals, this is not different unless there is
more than one syllable, such as a word.[43] Regarding the McGurk experiment, responses from cochlear
implanted users produced the same responses as normal hearing individuals when an auditory bilabial
stimulus is dubbed onto a visual velar stimulus.[43] However, when an auditory dental stimulus is dubbed
onto a visual bilabial stimulus, the responses are quite different. The McGurk effect is still present in
individuals with impaired hearing or using cochlear implants, although it is quite different in some
aspects.

Infants
By measuring an infant's attention to certain audiovisual stimuli, a response that is consistent with the
McGurk effect can be recorded.[2][10][44][45][46] From just minutes to a couple of days old, infants can
imitate adult facial movements, and within weeks of birth, infants can recognize lip movements and
speech sounds.[47] At this point, the integration of audio and visual information can happen, but not at a
proficient level.[47] The first evidence of the McGurk effect can be seen at four months of age,[44][45]
however, more evidence is found for 5 month olds.[2][10][46][48] Through the process of habituating an
infant to a certain stimulus and then changing the stimulus (or part of it, such as ba-voiced/va-visual to
da-voiced/va-visual), a response that simulates the McGurk effect becomes apparent.[10][46] The strength

of the McGurk effect displays a developmental pattern that increases throughout childhood and extends
into adulthood.[45][46]

See also
Duplex perception
Ideasthesia
Lip reading
Motor theory of speech perception
Multisensory integration
Speech perception
Viseme

References
1. ^ Nath, A. R.; Beauchamp, M. S. (Jan 2012). "A neural basis for interindividual differences in the
McGurk effect, a multisensory speech illusion". Neuroimage 59 (1): 781787.
doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.024. PMC 3196040. PMID 21787869.
2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Calvert, Gemma.; Spence, Charles; Stein, Barry E. (2004). The handbook of
multisensory processes. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-03321-3. OCLC 54677752.
3. ^ Boersma, Paul (2011). "A constraint-based explanation of the McGurk effect" (PDF). Retrieved 19
October 2013.
4. ^ Massaro, DW.; Cohen, MM. (Aug 2000). "Tests of auditory-visual integration efficiency within the
framework of the fuzzy logical model of perception.". Journal of Acoustical Society of America 108
(2): 784789. doi:10.1121/1.429611. PMID 10955645.
5. ^ McGurk H., MacDonald J. (1976). "Hearing lips and seeing voices.". Nature 264 (5588): 7468.
doi:10.1038/264746a0. PMID 1012311.
6. ^ "Haskins Laboratories">"The McGurk Effect: Hearing lips and seeing voices". Retrieved 2
October 2011.
7. ^ a b c Barutchu, Ayla; Crewther, Kiely, Murphy (2008). "When /b/ill with /g/ill becomes /d/ill:
Evidence for a lexical effect in audiovisual speech perception". European Journal of Cognitive
Psychology 20 (1): 111. doi:10.1080/09541440601125623.
8. ^ a b Colin, C., Radeau, M., Deltenre, P. (2011). Top-down and bottom-up modulation of audiovisual
integration in speech. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17(4), 541560
9. ^ a b OShea, M. (2005). The Brain: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press
10. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Rosenblum, L. D. (2010). See what I'm saying: The extraordinary powers of
our five senses. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company Inc.

11. ^ Gentilucci, M., Cattaneo, L. (2005). Automatic audiovisual integration in speech perception.
Experimental Brain Research, 167(1), 6675
12. ^ a b c d Schmid, G., Thielmann, A., Ziegler, W. (2009). The influence of visual and auditory
information on the perception of speech and non-speech oral movements in patients with left
hemisphere lesions. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 23(3), 208221
13. ^ a b c Baynes, K., Fummell, M., Fowler, C. (1994). Hemispheric contributions to the integration of
visual and auditory information in speech perception. Perception and Psychophysics, 55(6), 633
641
14. ^ a b c Nicholson, K., Baum, S., Cuddy, L., Munhall, K. (2002). A case of impaired auditory and
visual speech prosody perception after right hemisphere damage. Neurocase, 8, 314322
15. ^ a b c Bastien-Toniazzo, M., Stroumza, A., Cav, C. (2009). Audio-visual perception and integration
in developmental dyslexia: An exploratory study using the McGurk effect. Current Psychology
Letters, 25 (3), 214
16. ^ a b Norrix, L., Plante, E., Vance, R., Boliek, C. (2007). Auditory-visual integration for speech by
children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 50, 16391651
17. ^ a b Mongillo, E., Irwin, J., Whalen, D., Klaiman, C. (2008). Audiovisual processing in children
with and without autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 38,
13491358
18. ^ Taylor, N., Isaac, C., Milne, E. (2010). A comparison of the development of audiovisual integration
in children with autism spectrum disorders and typically developing children. Journal of Autism
and Developmental Disorders, 40, 14031411
19. ^ Williams, J. H. G., Massarob, D. W., Peela, N. J., Bosselerb, A., Suddendorfc, T. (2004). Visual
auditory integration during speech imitation in autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25,
559575. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0891422204000757
20. ^ a b c Norrix, L., Plante, E., Vance, R. (2006). Auditory-visual speech integration by adults with
and without language-learning disabilities. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39, 2236
21. ^ a b c Delbeuck, X., Collette, F., Van der Linden, M. (2007). Is Alzheimers disease a disconnection
syndrome? Evidence from a crossmodal audio-visual illusory experiment. Neuropsychologia, 45,
33153323
22. ^ a b c Pearl, D., Yodashkin-Porat, D., Nachum, K., Valevski, A., Aizenberg, D., Sigler, M., Weizman,
A., Kikinzon, L. (2009). Differences in audiovisual integration, as measured by McGurk
phenomenon, among adult and adolescent patients with schizophrenia and age-matched healthy
control groups. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 50, 186192
23. ^ a b Youse, K., Cienkowski, K., Coelho, C. (2004). Auditory-visual speech perception in an adult

with aphasia. Brain Injury, 18(8), 825834

24. ^ a b c d Green, K. P., Gerdeman, A. (1995). Cross-modal discrepancies in coarticulation and the
integration of speech information: The McGurk effect with mismatched vowels. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(6), 14091426
25. ^ a b c Walker, S., Bruce, V., O'Malley, C. (1995). Facial identity and facial speech processing:
Familiar faces and voices in the McGurk effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(8), 11241133
26. ^ a b Nicholls, M., Searle, D., Bradshaw, J. (2004). Read my lips: Asymmetries in the visual
expression and perception of speech revealed through the McGurk effect. Psychological Science,
15(2), 138141
27. ^ a b Tiippana, K., Andersen, T. S., Sams, M. (2004). Visual attention modulates audiovisual speech
perception. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(3), 457472
28. ^ a b Irwin, J. R., Whalen, D. H., Fowler, C. A. (2006). A sex difference in visual influence on heard
speech. Perception and Psychophysics, 68(4), 582592
29. ^ a b c Brancazio, L., Best, C. T., Fowler, C. A. (2006). Visual influences on perception of speech and
nonspeech vocal-tract events. Language and Speech, 49(1), 2153
30. ^ a b Green, K., Kuhl, P., Meltzoff, A., Stevens, E. (1991). Integrating speech information across
talkers, gender, and sensory modality: Female faces and male voices in the McGurk effect.
Perception and Psychophysics, 50(6), 524536
31. ^ a b c Windmann, S. (2004). Effects of sentence context and expectation on the McGurk illusion.
Journal of Memory and Language, 50(1), 212230
32. ^ a b c Sams, M., Mottonen, R., Sihvonen, T. (2005). Seeing and hearing others and oneself talk.
Cognitive Brain Research, 23(1), 429435
33. ^ a b c Munhall, K., Gribble, P., Sacco, L., Ward, M. (1996). Temporal constraints on the McGurk
effect. Perception and Psychophysics, 58(3), 351362
34. ^ Alsius, A., Navarra, J., Soto-Faraco, S. (2007). Attention to touch weakens audiovisual speech
integration. Experimental Brain Research, 183(1), 399404. doi:10.1007/s00221-007-1110-1
35. ^ a b c Par, M., Richler, C., Hove, M., Munhall, K. (2003). Gaze behavior in audiovisual speech
perception: The influence on ocular fixations on the McGurk effect. Perception and Psychophysics,
65(4), 533567
36. ^ a b c d e f g Sekiyama, K. (1997). Cultural and linguistic factors in audiovisual speech processing:
The McGurk effect in Chinese subjects. Perception and Psychophysics 59(1), 7380
37. ^ Bavo, R., Ciorba, A., Prosser, S., Martini, A. (2009). The McGurk phenomenon in Italian listeners.
Acta Otorhinolaryngologica Italica, 29(4), 203208
38. ^ a b Hisanaga, S., Sekiyama, K., Igasaki, T., Murayama, N. (2009). Audiovisual speech perception

in Japanese and English: Inter-language differences examined by event-related potentials.

Retrieved from http://www.isca-speech.org/archive_open/avsp09/papers/av09_038.pdf
39. ^ a b c Sekiyama, K., Burnham, D. (2008). Impact of language on development of auditory-visual
speech perception. Developmental Science 11(2), 306320
40. ^ a b c Sekiyama, K., Tohkura, Y. (1991). McGurk effect in non-English listeners: Few visual effects
for Japanese subjects hearing Japanese syllables of high auditory intelligibility. Journal of
Acoustical Society of America, 90(4, Pt 1), 17971805
41. ^ Wu, J. (2009). Speech perception and the McGurk effect: A cross cultural study using eventrelated potentials. Dissertation
42. ^ Gelder, B., Bertelson, P., Vroomen, J., Chin Chen, H. (1995). Inter-language differences in the
McGurk effect for Dutch and Cantonese listeners. Retrieved from http://www.iscaspeech.org/archive/eurospeech_1995/e95_1699.html
43. ^ a b c Rouger, J., Fraysse, B., Deguine, O., Barone, P. (2008). McGurk effects in cochlearimplanted deaf subjects. Brain Research, 1188, 8799
44. ^ a b Bristow, D., Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Mattout, J., Soares, C., Gliga, T., Baillet, S., Mangin, J. F.
(2009). Hearing faces: How the infant brain matches the face it sees with the speech it hears.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(5), 905921
45. ^ a b c Burnham, D., Dodd, B. (2004). Auditory-Visual Speech Integration by Prelinguistic Infants:
Perception of an Emergent Consonant in the McGurk Effect. Developmental Psychobiology, 45(4),
204220
46. ^ a b c d Rosenblum, L. D., Schmuckler, M. A., Johnson, J. A. (1997). The McGurk effect in infants.
Perception & Psychophysics, 59(3), 347357
47. ^ a b Woodhouse, L., Hickson, L., Dodd, B. (2009). Review of visual speech perception by hearing
and hearing-impaired people: Clinical implications. International Journal of Language &
Communication Disorders, 44 (3), 253270.
48. ^ Kushnerenko, E., Teinonen, T., Volein, A., Csibra, G. (2008). Electrophysiological evidence of
illusory audiovisual speech percept in human infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 105(32), 1144211445

Bibliography
McGurk, H., MacDonald, J. (1976), "Hearing lips and seeing voices," Nature, Vol 264(5588),
pp. 746748
Wright, Daniel and Wareham, Gary (2005); "Mixing sound and vision: The interaction of auditory
and visual information for earwitnesses of a crime scene," Legal and Criminological Psychology,
Vol 10(1), pp. 103108.

External links
A constraint-based explanation of the McGurk effect a write up of the McGurk effect by Paul
Boersma of University of Amsterdam. PDF available from academic webpage of author.
Try The McGurk Effect! Horizon: Is Seeing Believing? BBC Two
McGurk Effect (with explanation)