Table 1.

Studies, contrasts, foci, and categorized comparisons included in the ALE analysis

						Conflicting AV speech			Validating AV speech
Study #	Reference	N	Subjects' language	AV stimulus	Task	Contrast	# of foci	Source	Contrast	# of foci	Source
1	Balk et al., [2010]	14	Finnish	Vowels	Target Detection	Async > Sync	1	Author Email	Sync > Async	6	Author Email
2	Benoit et al., [2010]	15	English	McGurk Syllables	Congruency Discrimination	Incong > Cong	40	Table 2	None	0	None
3	Bishop and Miller, [2009]	25	English	VCV + babble	Speech Identification	None	0	None	Sync > Async	22	Table 1
4	Fairhall and Macaluso, [2009]	12	Italian	Story	Selective Attention Target Detection	None	0	None	Cong > Incong	6	Table 1
5	Jones and Callan, [2003]	12	English	McGurk VCV	Consonant Discrimination	Incong > Cong	3	Results text	Non‐McG > McG	1	Results text
6	Lee and Noppeney, [ 2003]	37	German	Short sentences	a) Passive viewing/listening (fMRI); b) Synchrony judgments	a) Async > Sync b) Non‐Fus > Fus	22	a) Table S1 b) Table 2	None	0	None
7a	Macaluso et al., [ 2010]	8	English	Nouns	Target Detection	None	0	None	Sync > Async	8	Table 1
8	Miller and D'Esposito, [2005]	11	English	VCV	Synchrony Judgments	a) Async > Sync b) Non‐Fus > Fus	15	Table 1	Fus > Non‐Fus	2	Table 1
9	Murase et al., [2008]	28	Japanese	Vowels	Vowel Discrimination	Incong > Cong	3	Figure 4 (caption)	None	0	None
10b	Nath et al., [2011]	17	English	McGurk Syllables	Target Detection	McG > Non‐McG	3	Table 2	Non‐McG > McG	7	Table 2
11	Noesselt et al., [ 2005]	11	German	Sentences	Synchrony Judgments	a) Async > Sync b) Non‐Fus > Fus	42	a) Table 2 b) Table 1, 3	a) Sync > Async b) Fus > Non‐Fus	12	a) Table 2 b) Table 1, 3
12	Ojanen et al., [ 2012]	10	Finnish	Vowels	Stimulus Change Detection	Incong > Cong	4	Table 1	None	0	None
13	Olson et al., [2002]	10	English	McGurk Words	Passive viewing/listening Button press end of block	McG > Non‐McG	2	Table 1	None	0	None
14c	Pekkola et al., [ 2010]	10	Finnish	Vowels	Stimulus change Detection	Incong > Cong	2	Table 3	None	0	None
15	Skipper et al., [ 2008]	13	English	McGurk Syllables	Passive viewing/listening	Incong > Cong	30	Table 3	Cong > Incong	57	Table 4
16	Stevenson et al., [ 2007]	8	English	Monosyllabic Nouns	Semantic Categorization	None	0	None	Sync > Async	8	Table 2
17	Szycik et al., [2009]	12	German	Disyllabic Words	Target Detection	None	0	None	Cong > Incong	1	Table 2
18	Szycik et al., [2008]	8	German	Disyllabic Nouns	Target Detection	Incong > Cong	9	Table 1	None	0	None
19d	Szycik et al., [2008]	7	German	McGurk Syllables	Syllable Discrimination	a) Incong > Cong b) McG > Non‐McG	23	a) Table 2 b) Table 2, 3	None	0	None
20	van Atteveldt et al., [ 2012]	13	Dutch	Phonemese	Congruency Discrimination	Incong > Cong	7	Table 4	None	0	None
21	van Atteveldt et al., [ 2009a]	16	Dutch	Phonemese	Target Detection	Incong > Cong	4	Table 1	None	0	None
22	Wiersinga‐Post et al., [2010]	14	Dutch	McGurk VCV	Syllable Discrimination	None	0	None	Non‐McG > McG	7	Table 1
	Total	311				20	210		13	137

“a” and “b” designate separate contrast types from the same study and distinct group of subjects. Note that the references for the studies included in the ALE analysis are provided as a Supporting Information section.

Async, asynchronous; Cong, congruent; Fus, fusion percept; Incong, incongruent; McG, McGurk percept; Non‐McG, non‐McGurk percept; Non‐Fus, non‐fusion percept; Sync, synchronous; VCV, vowel–consonant–vowel token.

^aPET study.

^bSubjects were children.

^cOnly foci from controls were included.

^dWhile two of the included foci were from contrasts with n = 12, n = 7 was used for all foci for simplicity.

^ePhoneme speech sounds were paired with visual text of letters (only two studies #20, #21).