Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 59, Issue 3, pp 347–357 | Cite as

The McGurk effect in infants

  • Lawrence D. Rosenblum
  • Mark A. Schmuckler
  • Jennifer A. Johnson


In the McGurk effect, perceptual identification of auditory speech syllables is influenced by simultaneous presentation of discrepant visible speech syllables. This effect has been found in subjects of different ages and with various native language backgrounds. But no McGurk tests have been conducted with prelinguistic infants. In the present series of experiments, 5-month-old English-exposed infants were tested for the McGurk effect. Infants were first gaze-habituated to an audiovisual /va/. Two different dishabituation stimuli were then presented: audio /ba/-visual /va/ (perceived by adults as /va/), and audio /da/-visual /va/ (perceived by adults as /da/). The infants showed generalization from the audiovisual /va/ to the audio /ba/-visual /va/ stimulus but not to the audio /da/-visual /va/ stimulus. Follow-up experiments revealed that these generalization differences were not due to a general preference for the audio /da/-visual /va/ stimulus or to the auditory similarity of /ba/ to /va/ relative to /da/. These results suggest that the infants were visually influenced in the same way as Englishspeaking adults are visually influenced.


Test Stimulus Speech Perception Video Monitor Visual Speech Visual Fixation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aronson, E., &Rosenbloom, S. (1971). Space perception in early infancy: Perception within a common auditory-visual space.Science,172, 1161–1163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Aslin, R. N. (1987). Perceptual development.Annual Review of Psychology,39, 435–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Best, C., McRoberts, G. W., &Sithole, N. M. (1988). Examination of perceptual organization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 345–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boliek, C., Green, K., Fohr, K., & Obrzut, J. (1996).Auditory-visual perception of speech in children with learning disabilities: The McGurk effect. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  5. Demany, L., McKenzie, B., &Vurpillot, E. (1977). Rhythm perception in early infancy. In J. Oates & S. Sheldon (Eds.),Cognitive development in infancy (pp. 105–109). Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  6. Desjardins, R. N., & Werker, J. F. (1995, June–July).4-month-old infants notice both auditory and visual components of speech. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Diehl, R. L., &Kluender, K. R. (1989). On the objects of speech perception.Ecological Psychology,1, 121–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dodd, B. (1979). Lipreading in infants: Attention to speech presented in and out of synchrony.Cognitive Psychology,11, 478–484.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Eilers, R. E., &Minifie, F. D. (1975). Fricative discrimination in early infancy.Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,18, 158–167.Google Scholar
  10. Eilers, R. E., Wilson, W. R., &Moore, J. M. (1977). Developmental changes in speech discrimination in three-, six-, and twelve-monthold infants.Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,20, 766–780.Google Scholar
  11. Eimas, P. D., &Tartter, V. C. (1979). On the development of speech perception: Mechanisms and analogies. In H. W. Reese & L. P. Lipsitt (Eds.),Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 13, pp. 50–76). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fodor, J. A. (1983).Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  13. Fowler, C. A., &Dekle, D. J. (1991). Listening with eye and hand: Cross-modal contributions to speech perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 816–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fowler, C. A., &Rosenblum, L. D. (1991). Perception of the phonetic gesture. In I. G. Mattingly & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.),Modularity and the motor theory (pp. 33–50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Gibson, J. J. (1979).The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.Google Scholar
  16. Green, K. P., Kuhl, P. K., Meltzoff, A. N., &Stevens, E. B. (1991). Integrating speech information across talkers, gender, and sensory modality: Female faces and male voices in the McGurk effect.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 524–536.Google Scholar
  17. Horowitz, F. D. (1975). Infant attention and discrimination: Methodological and substantive issues.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,5, 1–15.Google Scholar
  18. Horowitz, F. D., Paden, L., Bhana, K., &Self, P. (1972). An infantcontrol procedure for studying infant visual fixations.Developmental Psychology,7, 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klatt, D. H. (1980). Software for a cascade/parallel formant synthesizer.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,67, 971–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhl, P. K. (1979). The perception of speech in early infancy. In N. J. Lass (Ed.),Speech and language: Advances in basic research and practice (pp. 1–47). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kuhl, P. K. (1987). Perception of speech and sound in early infancy. In P. Salapatek & L. Cohen (Eds.),Handbook of infant perception: Vol. 2. From perception to cognition (pp. 275–382). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Kuhl, P. K., &Meltzoff, A. N. (1982). The bimodal development of speech in infancy.Science,218, 1138–1141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kuhl, P. K., &Meltzoff, A. N. (1984). The intermodal representation of speech in infants.Infant Behavior & Development,7, 361–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhl, P. K., &Meltzoff, A. N. (1988). Speech as an intermodal object of perception. In A. Yonas (Ed.),Perceptual development in infancy: The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 235–266). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., Lacerda, F., Stevens, K. N., &Lindblom, B. (1992). Linguistic experience alters phonetic perception in infants by 6 months of age.Science,255, 606–608.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuhl, P. K., Williams, K. A., &Meltzoff, A. N. (1991). Cross-modal speech perception in adults and infants using nonspeech auditory stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 829–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Legerstee, M. (1990). Infants use multimodal information to imitate speech sounds.Infant Behavior & Development,13, 343–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Levitt, A., Jusczyk, P. W., Murray, J., &Carden, G. (1988). Context-effects in two-month-old infants’ perception of labiodental/interdental fricative contrasts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liberman, A. M., &Mattingly, I. G. (1985). The motor theory of speech perception revised.Cognition,21, 1–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. MacKain, K., Studdert-Kennedy, M., Spieker, S., &Stern, D. (1983). Infant intermodal speech perception is a left hemisphere function.Science,219, 1347–1349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Massaro, D. W. (1984). Children’s perception of visual and auditory speech.Child Development,55, 1777–1788.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Massaro, D. W. (1987).Speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Massaro, D. W., &Cohen, M. M. (1990). Perception of synthesized audible and visible speech.Psychological Science,1, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Massaro, D. W., Cohen, M. M., Gesi, A., Heredia, R., &Tsuzaki, M. (1993). Bimodal speech perception: An examination across languages.Journal of Phonetics,21, 445–478.Google Scholar
  35. Massaro, D. W., Thompson, L. A., Barron, B., &Laren, E. (1986). Developmental changes in visual and auditory contributions to speech perception.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,41, 93–113.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. McGrath, M., &Summerfield, Q. (1985). Intermodal timing relations and audio-visual speech recognition by normal-hearing adults.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,77, 678–685.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. McGurk, H., &MacDonald, J. W. (1976). Hearing lips and seeing voices.Nature,264, 746–748.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Meltzoff, A. N., &Kuhl, P. K. (1994). Faces and speech: Intermodal processing of biologically relevant signals in infants and adults. In D. J. Lewkowitz & R. Lickliter (Eds.),The development of intersensory perception: Comparative perspectives (pp. 335–369). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  39. Mills, A. E. (1987). The development of phonology in the blind child. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.),Hearing by eye: The psychology of lip-reading (pp. 145–162). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Mills, A. E., &Theim, R. (1980). Auditory visual fusions and illusions in speech perception.Linguistische Berichte,6, 85–106.Google Scholar
  41. Pickens, J., Field, T., Nawrocki, T., Martinez, A., Soutollo, D., &Gonzalez, J. (1994). Full-term and preterm infants’ perception of face-voice synchrony.Infant Behavior & Development,17, 447–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reisberg, D., McLean, J., &Goldfield, A. (1987). Easy to hear but hard to understand: A lipreading advantage with intact auditory stimuli. In B. Dodd & R. Campbell (Eds.),Hearing by eye: The psychology of lip-reading (pp. 97–114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Repp, B. H., Manuel, S. Y., Liberman, A. M., & Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1983, November).Exploring the /ldMcGurk Effect.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Psychonomic Society, San Diego.Google Scholar
  44. Rosenblum, L. D., Johnson, J. A.J. A., & Saldaña, H. M. (in press). Point-light facial displays enhance comprehension of speech in noise.Journal of Speech & Hearing Research.Google Scholar
  45. Rosenblum, L. D., &Saldaña, H. M. (1992). Discrimination tests of visually influenced syllables.Perception & Psychophysics,52, 461–473.Google Scholar
  46. Rosenblum, L. D., &Saldaña, H. M. (1996). An audiovisual test of kinematic primitives for visual speech perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 318–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Saldaña, H. M., &Rosenblum, L. D. (1993). Visual influences on auditory pluck and bow judgments.Perception & Psychophysics,54, 406–416.Google Scholar
  48. Saldaña, H. M., &Rosenblum, L. D. (1994). Selective adaptation in speech perception using a compelling audiovisual adaptor.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,95, 3658–3661.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sekiyama, K., &Tokhura, Y. (1991). McGurk effect in non-English listeners: Few visual effects for Japanese subjects hearing Japanese syllables of high auditory intelligibility.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,90, 1797–1805.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Sekiyama, K., &Tokhura, Y. (1993). Inter-language differences in the influence of visual cues in speech perception.Journal of Phonetics,21, 427–444.Google Scholar
  51. Shaw, R., Turvey, M. T., &Mace, W. (1982). Ecological psychology: The consequence of a commitment to realism. In W. Weimer & D. Palmero (Eds.),Cognition and the symbolic processes (Vol. 2, pp. 3–51). Hove, U.K.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  52. Snyder, R. T., &Pope, P. (1970). New norms for and an item analysis of the Wepman Test at the first grade, six-year-level.Perceptual & Motor Skills,31, 1007–1010.Google Scholar
  53. Spelke, E. S., &Cortelyou, A. (1980). Perceptual aspects of social knowing: Looking and listening in infancy. In M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.),Infant social cognition (pp. 58–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  54. Spelke, E. S., &Owsley, C. (1979). Intermodal exploration and knowledge in infancy.Infant Behavior & Development,2, 13–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sumby, W. H., &Pollack, I. (1954). Visual contribution to speech intelligibility in noise.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,26, 212–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Summerfield, Q., MacLeod, P., McGrath, M., &Brooke, N. M. (1989).Lips, teeth, and the benefits of lipreading. InA. W. Young &H. D. Ellis (Eds.),Handbook of research on face processing (pp. 223–233). New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  57. Walker, A. S. (1982). Intermodal perception of expression behaviors by human infants.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,33, 514–535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Walton, G. E., &Bower, T. G. R. (1993). Amodal representation of speech in infants.Infant Behavior & Development,16, 233–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Werker, J. (1989). Becoming a native listener.American Scientist,77, 54–59.Google Scholar
  60. Werker, J., &Tees, R. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life.Infant Behavior & Development,7, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence D. Rosenblum
    • 1
  • Mark A. Schmuckler
    • 2
  • Jennifer A. Johnson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CaliforniaRiverside
  2. 2.University of TorontoScarboroughCanada

Personalised recommendations