English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The arguments on which Choe, Welch, Gilford, and Juola have based their thesis that the various manifestations of ventriloquism are postperceptual effects are critically examined. The application of detection theory to the results of a discrepancy detection experiment, which they claimed allowed them to separate sensory interaction from response bias, is found invalid. It is further argued that an interpretation of ventriloquism exclusively in terms of response processes cannot account (1) for the compelling quality of the effect, and (2) for the occurrence of aftereffects. © 1976 Psychonomic Society, Inc.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Ventriloquism, sensory interaction, and response bias: Remarks on the paper by Choe, Welch, Gilford, and Juola