modulation. Behaviorally, research has shown that even our seemingly unimodal experiences are continuously influenced by crossmodal input, and that the senses have a surprising degree of parity and flexibility across multiple perceptual tasks. As we have argued, research on multisensory speech has provided seminal neurophysiological, behavioral, and phenomenological demonstrations of these principles.
Arguably, as this research has grown, it has continued to support claims made in the first version of this chapter. There is now more evidence that multisensory speech perception is ubiquitous and (largely) automatic. This ubiquity is demonstrated in the new research showing that tactile and kinesthetic speech information can be used, and can readily integrate, with heard speech. Next, the majority of the new research continues to reveal a function for which the streams are integrated at the earliest stages of the speech function. Much of this research comes from neurophysiological research showing that auditory brainstem and even cochlear functioning is modulated by visual speech information. Finally, evidence continues to accumulate for the salience of a supramodal form of information. This evidence now includes findings that, like auditory speech, visual speech can act to influence an alignment response, and can modulate motor‐cortex activity for that purpose. Other support shows that the speech and talker experience gained through one modality can be shared with another modality, suggesting a mechanism sensitive to the supramodal articulatory dimensions of the stimulus: the supramodal learning hypothesis.
There is also recent evidence that can be interpreted as unsupportive of a supramodal approach. Because the supramodal approach claims that “integration” is a consequence of the informational form across modalities, evidence should show that the function is early, impenetrable, and complete. As stated, however, there are findings that have been interpreted as showing that integration can be delayed until after some lexical analysis is conducted on unimodal input (e.g. Ostrand et al., 2016). There is also evidence interpreted as showing that integration is not impenetrable but is susceptible to outside influences including lexical status and attention (e.g. Brancazio, 2004; Alsius et al., 2005). Finally, there is evidence that has been interpreted to demonstrate that integration is not complete. For example, when subjects are asked to shadow a McGurk‐effect stimulus (e.g. responding ada when presented audio /aba/ and visual /aga/), their ada shadowed response will show articulatory remnants of the individual audio (/aba/) and video (/aga/) components (Gentilucci & Cattaneo, 2005).
In principle, all of these findings are inconsistent with a supramodal account. While we have provided alternative interpretations of these findings both in the current paper and elsewhere (e.g. Rosenblum, 2019), it is clear that more research is needed to test the viability of the supramodal account.
REFERENCES
1 Alsius, A., Navarra, J., Campbell, R., & Soto‐Faraco, S. (2005). Audiovisual integration of speech falters under high attention demands. Current Biology, 15(9), 839–843.
2 Alsius, A., Navarra, J., & Soto‐Faraco, S. (2007). Attention to touch weakens audiovisual speech integration. Experimental Brain Research, 183(3), 399–404.
3 Alsius, A., Paré, M., & Munhall, K. G. (2017). Forty years after Hearing lips and seeing voices: The McGurk effect revisited. Multisensory Research, 31(1–2), 111–144.
4 Altieri, N., Pisoni, D. B., & Townsend, J. T. (2011). Some behavioral and neurobiological constraints on theories of audiovisual speech integration: A review and suggestions for new directions. Seeing and Perceiving, 24(6), 513–539.
5 Andersen, T. S., Tiippana, K., Laarni, J., et al. (2009). The role of visual spatial attention in audiovisual speech perception. Speech Communication, 29, 184–193.
6 Arnal, L. H., Morillon, B., Kell, C. A., & Giraud, A. L. (2009). Dual neural routing of visual facilitation in speech processing. Journal of Neuroscience, 29(43), 13445–13453.
7 Arnold, P., & Hill, F. (2001). Bisensory augmentation: A speechreading advantage when speech is clearly audible and intact. British Journal of Psychology, 92(2), 339–355.
8 Auer, E. T., Bernstein, L. E., Sungkarat, W., & Singh, M. (2007). Vibrotactile activation of the auditory cortices in deaf versus hearing adults. Neuroreport, 18(7), 645–648.
9 Barker, J. P., & Berthommier, F. (1999). Evidence of correlation between acoustic and visual features of speech. In J. J. Ohala, Y. Hasegawa, M. Ohala, et al. (Eds), Proceedings of the XIVth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (pp. 5–9). Berkeley: University of California.
10 Barutchu, A., Crewther, S. G., Kiely, P., et al. (2008). When/b/ill with/g/ill becomes/d/ill: Evidence for a lexical effect in audiovisual speech perception. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(1), 1–11.
11 Baum, S., Martin, R. C., Hamilton, A. C., & Beauchamp, M. S. (2012). Multisensory speech perception without the left superior temporal sulcus. Neuroimage, 62(3), 1825–1832.
12 Baum, S. H., & Beauchamp, M. S. (2014). Greater BOLD variability in older compared with younger adults during audiovisual speech perception. PLOS One, 9(10), 1–10.
13 Beauchamp, M. S., Nath, A. R., & Pasalar, S. (2010). fMRI‐guided transcranial magnetic stimulation reveals that the superior temporal sulcus is a cortical locus of the McGurk effect. Journal of Neuroscience, 30(7), 2414–2417.
14 Bernstein, L. E., Auer, E. T., Jr., Eberhardt, S. P., & Jiang, J. (2013). Auditory perceptual learning for speech perception can be enhanced by audiovisual training. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 7, 1–16.
15 Bernstein, L. E., Auer, E. T., Jr., & Moore, J. K. (2004). Convergence or association? In G. A. Calvert, C. Spence, & B. E. Stein (Eds), Handbook of multisensory processes (pp. 203–220). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16 Bernstein, L. E., Auer, E. T., Jr., & Takayanagi, S. (2004). Auditory speech detection in noise enhanced by lipreading. Speech Communication, 44(1–4), 5–18.
17 Bernstein, L. E., Eberhardt, S. P., & Auer, E. T. (2014). Audiovisual spoken word training can promote or impede auditory‐only perceptual learning: Prelingually deafened adults with late‐acquired cochlear implants versus normal hearing adults. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–20.
18 Bernstein, L. E., Jiang, J., Pantazis, D., et al. (2011). Visual phonetic processing localized using speech and nonspeech face gestures in video and point‐light displays. Human Brain Mapping, 32(10), 1660–1676.
19 Bertelson, P., & de Gelder, B. (2004). The psychology of multi‐sensory perception. In C. Spence & J. Driver (Eds), Crossmodal space and crossmodal attention (pp. 141–177). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20 Bertelson, P., Vroomen, J., Wiegeraad, G., & de Gelder, B. (1994). Exploring the relation between McGurk interference and ventriloquism. In Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Spoken Language Processing (pp. 559–562). Yokohama: Acoustical Society of Japan.
21 Besle, J., Fort, A., Delpuech, C., & Giard, M. H. (2004). Bimodal speech: Early suppressive visual effects in human auditory cortex. European Journal of Neuroscience, 20(8), 2225–2234.
22 Besle, J., Fischer, C., Bidet‐Caulet, A., et al. (2008). Visual activation and audiovisual interactions in the auditory cortex during speech perception: Intracranial recordings in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 24, 14301–14310.
23 Bishop, C. W., & Miller, L. M. (2011). Speech cues contribute to audiovisual spatial integration. PLOS One, 6(8), e24016.
24 Borrie, S. A., McAuliffe, M. J., Liss, J. M., et al. (2013). The role of linguistic and indexical information in improved recognition of dysarthric speech. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(1), 474–482.
25 Brancazio, L. (2004). Lexical influences in audiovisual speech perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30(3), 445–463.
26 Brancazio, L., Best, C. T., & Fowler, C. A. (2006). Visual influences on perception of speech and nonspeech vocal‐tract events. Language and Speech, 49(1), 21–53.
27 Brancazio, L., & Miller, J. L. (2005). Use