Table 1.
McGurk stimuli and expected fusions.
Table 2.
Summary statistics for all tasks.
Fig 1.
Mean by-participant McGurk fusion rate in ascending order.
Shaded region represents two standard errors from each participant’s mean fusion rate. N = 175.
Fig 2.
Distribution of VAS responses for a representative gradient (A) and categorical (B) listener.
VAS = visual analogue scale.
Fig 3.
Scatterplot and correlations (r values; *** p < .001; * p < .05) showing the relationship between MGS and each of the predictor variables: Lipreading, lipreading place of articulation (POA), perceptual gradiency (visual analogue scale task; VAS), attentional control (flanker), processing speed (lexical decision task; LDT), working memory capacity (operation span; Ospan).
Line represents regression line of best fit. Raw VAS scores are shown here whereas centered and scaled scores are shown in Table 2 for ease of interpretation. Note that one participant had a particularly low lipreading POA score and also had a relatively low MGS fusion rate (top row, middle panel). To ensure that this participant’s data were not driving the observed correlation between fusion rate and POA score, we performed an exploratory analysis computing this correlation without that single participant. Results were very similar to those reported in the text (r = 0.27; p < .001).
Table 3.
Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) for each of the mixed effects models compared.
AIC and BIC values shown here are relative to the intercept-only model. Therefore, negative numbers indicate that a model is better fit for the data than the intercept-only model.