Talk:McGurk effect

You can't articulate a phoneme!

As a linguist, this sort of thing drives me crazy. A phoneme is something that you perceive. It's an abstract categorical distinction. It's not a physical entity, and therefore you can't articulate it, either auditorially or visually. The thing you articulate is called a phone! Argh!

• Guess this is better, then--84.24.117.181 (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but just as well as you can't articulate a phoneme, you also can't perceive a phone (without considerable effort). The McGurk effect deals with perception, and it would be inaccurate to talk about "perceiving an intermediate phone". I am inclined to believe that phoneme is the most apt term here. EldKatt (Talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

How many people DON'T experience the McGurk Effect?

I don't experience the McGurk Effect. I always hear [ba] and see "ga," even the first time I saw it. This is a question I ask all of my linguistics professors, and one that never seems to have an answer. Are there any studies or figures that can be cited here that show how many people are affected, either by percent or something else? I'm curious about the size of the minority I'm apparently a member of. The members of the Ohio State University linguistics department that I've talked to say that they've never even met anybody who didn't experience it, besides me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.48.176 (talk) 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My guess is that people on the autistic spectrum do not experience the McGurk effect. Someone oughta check that out. 81.174.157.213 (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you're like those who can't smell asparagus in urine, only a much smaller minority. Either way, I find this article fascinating. From the Asparagus article. -- Chupon (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"a 2010 study[39] found variations in both production of odorous urine and the ability to detect the odour, but that these were not tightly related. It is believed most people produce the odorous compounds after eating asparagus, but only about 22% of the population have the autosomal genes required to smell them.[40][41][42]

In 2010, the company 23andMe published a genome-wide association study on whether participants have "ever noticed a peculiar odor when you pee after eating asparagus?" [43] This study pinpointed a single-nucleotide polymorphism(SNP) in a cluster of olfactory genes associated with the ability to detect the odor. While this SNP did not explain all of the difference in detection between people, it provides support for the theory that there are genetic differences in olfactory receptors that lead people to be unable to smell these odorous compounds."

Psychology 101 Review

you added a lot of information and it was helpful! you did a really good job on explaining. RRLukasek (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You had much information about the McGurk effect editing the page with care. You really hit it out of the bal park letting us now about this effect--Matthew Townsend 23:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towny24 (talk • contribs)

Student Editing Project

My primary goal in editing this article is to include more references and expand the coverage base to other areas of the phenomenon. I would like to reorganize the article and try to include a section on the effect in different languages as well as try to address the issue of why some people do not experience the effect. Expanding this article by much may prove to be an arduous task as almost all of the basics on the phenomena have already been covered so if there are any more suggestions or ideas, they would be greatly appreciated.
Mdeeh (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC )

Thanks for taking on this work. I have recently added a lot of material to the Harry McGurk article, which may be of interest. I see there are several examples of the effect on YouTube, some of which do and some of which don't cause the effect in me. Vernon White ^{. . . Talk} 19:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a hint before someone officially does a GA review: references should come after the punctuation at the end of a clause or sentence, and they should be arranged so that they come in order, for example, "^[4][27][28]" not "^[27][4][28]". Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a guideline or policy that specifies the sequence of references? I ask because I've seen that issue come up at WT:FAC and be dismissed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Hey there, I think there is a great picture that really sums up the McGurk effect, but I have no idea how to go about getting it on here. If someone wants to take this on here is the information: It is in an article titled Audio-visual perception and integration in developmental dyslexia: An exploratory study using the McGurk effect. It is in a journal called Current Psychology Letters, Volume 25, Issue 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdeeh (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

copyright issues

The first thing I notice on looking over this article is that the second sentence of the lead is copied directly from the cited source. You can't do that. There are two legitimate ways to use a source: (1) Put the information in your own words -- not just by tweaking the wording, but by saying it in your own words from top to bottom. (2) State it in exactly the words used by the source, but put it in quotation marks to indicate that it is a direct quote. The second strategy should be used only sparingly. You need to go over this article and make sure that any direct copying from a source is explicitly indicated, and that everything not explicitly quoted is in your own words. Looie496 (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)