Fig 1.
Screenshots of the stimuli used in (A.) Study 1 and (B.) Study 2. The lower panel (C.) shows a schema of the trial and required responses. Participants were presented with videos showing PLDs of hurdling, tap dancing, or drumming. Subsequently, they were asked to judge, in a dual forced choice setting, whether the audiovisual presentation was synchronous or not. In case of a negative decision, participants had to furthermore judge whether sound was leading video or vice versa.
Fig 2.
Auditory stimulus features, Study 1 and 2.
Left panel shows the event density measured in the videos showing hurdling (H), tap dancing (H) (Study 1) and in the four sub-conditions of the drumming videos implementing combinations of high and low event density (D-, D+) and high and low rhythmicity (R+, R-) (Study 2). Each dot represents one recording. Right panel shows a measure of rhythmicity for the same set of recordings, operationalized as the variability of each recording’s amplitude envelope. Amplitude variation is shown as the coefficient of variation, i.e. the standard deviation of amplitude normalized by mean amplitude.
Fig 3.
Main effects of audiovisual (a)synchrony ratings, Study 1.
Displayed are the mean percentages of trials perceived as synchronous, aggregated for the factors asynchrony size, asynchrony type, and action type. Error bars show standard deviations. Statistically significant differences (p < .001) are marked with asterisks.
Fig 4.
Mean percentages of trials perceived as synchronous, Study 1.
Asynchronies (in ms) are displayed on the x-axis, with negative values indicating that the auditory channel preceded the visual channel (audio-first) and positive values indicating that the visual channel preceded the auditory channel (visual-first). Error bars show standard error of the mean. The upper panel shows all scores, fanned out for the level combinations of the factors asynchrony size, asynchrony type, and action type. The lower panel illustrates the significant action x asynchrony size x asynchrony type interaction.
Fig 5.
Main effects of the audiovisual (a)synchrony ratings, Study 2.
Mean percentages of trials perceived as synchronous, aggregated for the factors asynchrony size, asynchrony type, Event density (D- standing for low, D+ for high density) and Rhythmicity (R- and R+ for low and high rhythmicity, respectively). Error bars represent the standard deviation. Significant differences are marked with asterisks.
Fig 6.
Mean percentages of trials perceived as synchronous, Study 2.
On the left hand side, all scores are fanned out for the level combinations of the factors asynchrony size, asynchrony type, Event density and Rhythmicity. The right hand side chart illustrates the significant Event Density x Rhythmicity interaction.