Multisensory integration of musical emotion perception in singing

We investigated how visual and auditory information contributes to emotion communication during singing. Classically trained singers applied two different facial expressions (expressive/suppressed) to pieces from their song and opera repertoire. Recordings of the singers were evaluated by laypersons or experts, presented to them in three different modes: auditory, visual, and audio–visual. A manipulation check confirmed that the singers succeeded in manipulating the face while keeping the sound highly expressive. Analyses focused on whether the visual difference or the auditory concordance between the two versions determined perception of the audio–visual stimuli. When evaluating expressive intensity or emotional content a clear effect of visual dominance showed. Experts made more use of the visual cues than laypersons. Consistency measures between uni-modal and multimodal presentations did not explain the visual dominance. The evaluation of seriousness was applied as a control. The uni-modal stimuli were rated as expected, but multisensory evaluations converged without visual dominance. Our study demonstrates that long-term knowledge and task context affect multisensory integration. Even though singers’ orofacial movements are dominated by sound production, their facial expressions can communicate emotions composed into the music, and observes do not rely on audio information instead. Studies such as ours are important to understand multisensory integration in applied settings.

Rethinking the Mechanisms Underlying the McGurk Illusion

The McGurk illusion occurs when listeners hear an illusory percept (i.e., “da”), resulting from mismatched pairings of audiovisual (AV) speech stimuli (i.e., auditory/ba/paired with visual/ga/). Hearing a third percept—distinct from both the auditory and visual input—has been used as evidence of AV fusion. We examined whether the McGurk illusion is instead driven by visual dominance, whereby the third percept, e.g., “da,” represents a default percept for visemes with an ambiguous place of articulation (POA), like/ga/. Participants watched videos of a talker uttering various consonant vowels (CVs) with (AV) and without (V-only) audios of/ba/. Individuals transcribed the CV they saw (V-only) or heard (AV). In the V-only condition, individuals predominantly saw “da”/“ta” when viewing CVs with indiscernible POAs. Likewise, in the AV condition, upon perceiving an illusion, they predominantly heard “da”/“ta” for CVs with indiscernible POAs. The illusion was stronger in individuals who exhibited weak/ba/auditory encoding (examined using a control auditory-only task). In Experiment2, we attempted to replicate these findings using stimuli recorded from a different talker. The V-only results were not replicated, but again individuals predominately heard “da”/“ta”/“tha” as an illusory percept for various AV combinations, and the illusion was stronger in individuals who exhibited weak/ba/auditory encoding. These results demonstrate that when visual CVs with indiscernible POAs are paired with a weakly encoded auditory/ba/, listeners default to hearing “da”/“ta”/“tha”—thus, tempering the AV fusion account, and favoring a default mechanism triggered when both AV stimuli are ambiguous.

Stimulus Onset Modulates Auditory and Visual Dominance

Investigations of multisensory integration have demonstrated that, under certain conditions, one modality is more likely to dominate the other. While the direction of this relationship typically favors the visual modality, the effect can be reversed to show auditory dominance under some conditions. The experiments presented here use an oddball detection paradigm with variable stimulus timings to test the hypothesis that a stimulus that is presented earlier will be processed first and therefore contribute to sensory dominance. Additionally, we compared two measures of sensory dominance (slowdown scores and error rate) to determine whether the type of measure used can affect which modality appears to dominate. When stimuli were presented asynchronously, analysis of slowdown scores and error rates yielded the same result; for both the 1- and 3-button versions of the task, participants were more likely to show auditory dominance when the auditory stimulus preceded the visual stimulus, whereas evidence for visual dominance was observed as the auditory stimulus was delayed. In contrast, for the simultaneous condition, slowdown scores indicated auditory dominance, whereas error rates indicated visual dominance. Overall, these results provide empirical support for the hypothesis that the modality that engages processing first is more likely to show dominance, and suggest that more explicit measures of sensory dominance may favor the visual modality.

Listen to your heart: Examining modality dominance using cross-modal oddball tasks

The current study used cross-modal oddball tasks to examine cardiac and behavioral responses to changing auditory and visual information. When instructed to press the same button for auditory and visual oddballs, auditory dominance was found with cross-modal presentation slowing down visual response times more than auditory response times (Experiment 1). When instructed to make separate responses to auditory and visual oddballs, visual dominance was found with cross-modal presentation decreasing auditory discrimination. Participants also made more visual-based than auditory-based errors on cross-modal trials (Experiment 2). Experiment 3 increased task demands while requiring a single button press and found evidence of auditory dominance, suggesting that it is unlikely that increased task demands can account for the reversal in Experiment 2. Examination of cardiac responses that were time-locked with stimulus onset showed cross-modal facilitation effects, with auditory and visual discrimination occurring earlier in the course of processing in the cross-modal condition than in the unimodal conditions. The current findings showing that response demand manipulations reversed modality dominance and that time-locked cardiac responses show cross-modal facilitation, not interference, suggest that auditory and visual dominance effects may both be occurring later in the course of processing, not from disrupted encoding.

A kívüllét neve

Medeia by Sándor Weöres is one of the poet’s epic mythological poems of the 1950s, connecting and contrasting fragments of Medea’s disparate mythic narratives written by Euripides, Apollonius Rhodius and Ovid. The textual and narrative discontinuity and the mixture of epic, lyric and dramatic discourses in a widened context of Medea’s mythologems allow to read the poem as a simultaneous experiment to interchange the dramatic functions of the characters, dissolving and establishing the borders of their identity, and, paradoxically, to metaphorise the closure, the marginalization and the isolation of the Self. Medeia is constituted by a double time structure: besides the homogeneous time of the dream and the non-existence connecting to the inseparability of the poem’s speakers and to the visual dominance, there is the time structure of the unified centre of the unidentified first person singular, and the remembrance of the voices resulted in diverse histories. The three dominant types of the speakers’ narratives are the magic powers of the enchantress penetrated by the voices of the victims, that of the orphic Medea calling into question the function and effect of poetry and song, and the various mythologems of dragons.