Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (2)
Document Type
- Article (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (2)
Keywords
- conomics (1)
- open science (1)
- political science (1)
- replication (1)
- reproduction (1)
- research transparency (1)
Institute
Speech is perceived with both the ears and the eyes. Adding congruent visual speech improves the perception of a faint auditory speech stimulus, whereas adding incongruent visual speech can alter the perception of the utterance. The latter phenomenon is the case of the McGurk illusion, where an auditory stimulus such as e.g. "ba" dubbed onto a visual stimulus such as "ga" produces the illusion of hearing "da". Bayesian models of multisensory perception suggest that both the enhancement and the illusion case can be described as a two-step process of binding (informed by prior knowledge) and fusion (informed by the information reliability of each sensory cue). However, there is to date no study which has accounted for how they each contribute to audiovisual speech perception. In this study, we expose subjects to both congruent and incongruent audiovisual speech, manipulating the binding and the fusion stages simultaneously. This is done by varying both temporal offset (binding) and auditory and visual signal-to-noise ratio (fusion). We fit two Bayesian models to the behavioural data and show that they can both account for the enhancement effect in congruent audiovisual speech, as well as the McGurk illusion. This modelling approach allows us to disentangle the effects of binding and fusion on behavioural responses. Moreover, we find that these models have greater predictive power than a forced fusion model. This study provides a systematic and quantitative approach to measuring audiovisual integration in the perception of the McGurk illusion as well as congruent audiovisual speech, which we hope will inform future work on audiovisual speech perception.
This study pushes our understanding of research reliability by reproducing and replicating claims from 110 papers in leading economic and political science journals. The analysis involves computational reproducibility checks and robustness assessments. It reveals several patterns. First, we uncover a high rate of fully computationally reproducible results (over 85%). Second, excluding minor issues like missing packages or broken pathways, we uncover coding errors for about 25% of studies, with some studies containing multiple errors. Third, we test the robustness of the results to 5,511 re-analyses. We find a robustness reproducibility of about 70%. Robustness reproducibility rates are relatively higher for re-analyses that introduce new data and lower for re-analyses that change the sample or the definition of the dependent variable. Fourth, 52% of re-analysis effect size estimates are smaller than the original published estimates and the average statistical significance of a re-analysis is 77% of the original. Lastly, we rely on six teams of researchers working independently to answer eight additional research questions on the determinants of robustness reproducibility. Most teams find a negative relationship between replicators' experience and reproducibility, while finding no relationship between reproducibility and the provision of intermediate or even raw data combined with the necessary cleaning codes.