Attention demands of spoken word planning: a review

Abstract

Attention and language are among the most intensively researched abilities in the cognitive neurosciences, but the relation between these abilities has largely been neglected. There is increasing evidence, however, that linguistic processes, such as those underlying the planning of words, cannot proceed without paying some form of attention. Here, we review evidence that word planning requires some but not full attention. The evidence comes from chronometric studies of word planning in picture naming and word reading under divided attention conditions. It is generally assumed that the central attention demands of a process are indexed by the extent that the process delays the performance of a concurrent unrelated task. The studies measured the speed and accuracy of linguistic and non-linguistic responding as well as eye gaze durations reflecting the allocation of attention. First, empirical evidence indicates that in several task situations, processes up to and including phonological encoding in word planning delay, or are delayed by, the performance of concurrent unrelated non-linguistic tasks. These findings suggest that word planning requires central attention. Second, empirical evidence indicates that conflicts in word planning may be resolved while concurrently performing an unrelated non-linguistic task, making a task decision, or making a go/no-go decision. These findings suggest that word planning does not require full central attention. We outline a computationally implemented theory of attention and word planning, and describe at various points the outcomes of computer simulations that demonstrate the utility of the theory in accounting for the key findings. Finally, we indicate how attention deficits may contribute to impaired language performance, such as in individuals with specific language impairment.

Executive control in spoken noun-phrase production: Contributions of updating, inhibiting, and shifting

“…Moreover, in order to successfully complete an intended utterance, a speaker may need to allocate working memory capacity to the planning stages, monitor whether the internal or actually produced speech matches the intended utterance, and ignore environmental distractors (Roelofs, 2003(Roelofs, , 2004Roelofs & Piai, 2011). All these processes require some form of executive control, which refers to the higher level processes that regulate our perceptions, thoughts, and actions (e.g., Baddeley, 1996;Barkley, 2012;Gilbert & Burgess, 2008;Logan, 1985;D.…”

Working memory capacity and dual-task interference in picture naming

“…The utility of the active scheduling account of dual-task performance was demonstrated in computer simulations with the WEAVER++ model of word planning (e.g., Levelt et al, 1999;Roelofs, 1992Roelofs, , 2003 extended by assumptions about active scheduling from Kieras (1997a, 1997b). We refer to Piai et al (2011), Roelofs (2007, 2008a, and Roelofs and Piai (2011) for reports on these simulations.…”

Processes of incremental message planning during conversation

“…However, concurrent articulation and message preparation poses a coordination problem for the production system, since it requires continuously distributing resources between message-level and sentence-level processes (Bock, 1982;Levelt, 1989;see Martin et al, 2010, for a review). As compared to the already resource-demanding process of single-object naming (Roelofs & Piai, 2011), the preparation of multiword utterances further increases processing requirements. In complex cognitive systems in general, distributing resources between two tasks has consequences for both processing speed and accuracy (V. S. Ferreira & Pashler, 2002;Pashler, 1994).…”