Monitoring in language perception: The effect of misspellings of words in highly constrained sentences

Vissers, Constance; Chwilla, Dorothee J.; Kolk, Herman

doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2006.05.012

Cited by 132 publications

(153 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

128

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This positivity has a similar scalp distribution to the P600, which has previously been associated with syntactic repair or reanalysis (Friederici, 1995(Friederici, , 2002Friederici, Hahne, and Mecklinger, 1996;Gunter, Stowe, and Mulder, 1997), and more recently with the resolution of conflict between what has been encountered and what would be predicted based on previous experience (Kolk, Chwilla, van Herten, and Oor, 2003;Chwilla, 2005, 2006;Vissers, Chwilla, and Kolk, 2006; see also Kuperberg, 2007, for an alternative conflict-based mechanism). Since repetitions in the present experiment tend to introduce syntactically illegal sequences (e.g., my my in I've just burnt my my tongue), the antecedent conditions are also compatible with a P600 interpretation.…”

Section: Listeners Are Sensitive To Disfluent Repetitionssupporting

confidence: 55%

Not all disfluencies are are equal: The effects of disfluent repetitions on language comprehension

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Disfluencies can affect language comprehension, but to date, most studies have focused on disfluent pauses such as er. We investigated whether disfluent repetitions in speech have discernible effects on listeners during language comprehension, and whether repetitions affect the linguistic processing of subsequent words in speech in ways which have been previously observed with er s. We used eventrelated potentials (ERPs) to measure participants' neural responses to disfluent repetitions of words relative to acoustically identical words in fluent contexts, as well as to unpredictable and predictable words that occurred immediately postdisfluency and in fluent utterances. We additionally measured participants' recognition memories for the predictable and unpredictable words. Repetitions elicited an early onsetting relative positivity (100-400ms post-stimulus), clearly demonstrating listeners' sensitivity to the presence of disfluent repetitions. Unpredictable words elicited an N400 effect. Importantly, there was no evidence that this effect, thought to reflect the difficulty of semantically integrating unpredictable compared to predictable words, differed quantitatively between fluent and disfluent utterances. Furthermore there was no evidence that the memorability of words was affected by the presence of a preceding repetition. These findings contrast with previous research which demonstrated an N400 attenuation of, and an increase in memorability for, words that were preceded by an er. * Revised ManuscriptHowever, in a later (600-900ms) time window, unpredictable words following a repetition elicited a relative positivity. Reanalysis of previous data confirmed the presence of a similar effect following an er. The effect may reflect difficulties in resuming linguistic processing following any disruption to speech.

show abstract

Section: Listeners Are Sensitive To Disfluent Repetitionssupporting

confidence: 55%

Not all disfluencies are are equal: The effects of disfluent repetitions on language comprehension

2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The cloze probability of a certain word is the percentage of individuals that complete a sentence with that particular word. Vissers et al (2006) found a P600 effect to misspelled words when the expected critical word in its correct spelling had a high cloze probability. Misspellings of critical words with a low cloze probability did not elicit a P600 effect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 95%

“…We hypothesized that this could still have triggered a strong conflict between competing representations of the expected and observed word. An indication in this direction was that Vissers et al (2006) found correctly spelled critical words in the low cloze probability condition to elicit a biphasic N400-P600 pattern. In a direct comparison between correct and misspelled words, a P600 response to misspellings might thus have been subtracted out.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Whether or not the hemodynamic response of a certain region is affected by the strength of a representational conflict could be informative with respect to its role in the processing of a conflict and/or subsequent reanalysis processes. Vissers et al (2006) manipulated conflict strength by varying the cloze probability of a misspelled word. In one condition they embedded orthographically incorrect but phonologically correct words (i.e., pseudohomophones) in sentences with a high cloze probability for the critical word (see example 5).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The monitoring theory of language perception proposes that competing representations that are caused by strong expectancy violations can trigger a conflict which elicits reprocessing of the input to check for possible processing errors. This monitoring process is thought to be reflected by the P600 component in the EEG. The present study further investigated this monitoring process by comparing syntactic and spelling violations in an EEG and an fMRI experiment. To assess the effect of conflict strength, misspellings were embedded in sentences that were weakly or strongly predictive of a critical word. In support of the monitoring theory, syntactic and spelling violations elicited similarly distributed P600 effects. Furthermore, the P600 effect was larger to misspellings in the strongly compared to the weakly predictive sentences. The fMRI results showed that both syntactic and spelling violations increased activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (lIFG), while only the misspellings activated additional areas. Conflict strength did not affect the hemodynamic response to spelling violations. These results extend the idea that the lIFG is involved in implementing cognitive control in the presence of representational conflicts in general to the processing of errors in language perception. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. General introduction"Mistakes are a fact of life. It is the response to error that counts" (Nikki Giovanni). This quote nicely illustrates that we are bound to make mistakes but that we can also use the thereby obtained information to adjust our behaviour. To learn from our mistakes, however, we must be able to detect them. The detection of errors and the adjustments in behaviour require cognitive control. Cognitive control processes manage and guide other cognitive processes according to internal goals. One aspect of cognitive control is monitoring, which deals with the detection and repair of errors. Errors occur when there is a mismatch between what we intend or expect and what we do or observe. When such a mismatch is detected, compensatory adjustments are triggered in the processing pathways that are involved, leading to a repair.Mistakes, of course, occur in various domains, and here we are interested in the language domain. In this field, the main focus has been on error monitoring in language production. For language production, researchers have been interested in speech errors and their repairs (for a review see Levelt, 1983). However, in language perception error monitoring takes place as well. For example, sometimes we mishear what another person is saying and ask for a clarification: "Did I understand you correctly…?". Another type of perceptual language errors are mistakes that are made while reading a text. Kaufman and Obler (1995) call these 'slips of the eye', and showed that normal adult readers make various kinds of these errors. For instance, sometimes words are inserted, omitted or exchanged, the parsing of a word or sentence can be erroneous (e.g., reading posts as...

show abstract

“…Previous research demonstrates that listeners can predict the semantics (Altmann & Kamide, 1999;Kamide, Altmann, & Haywood, 2003), syntax (Staub & Clifton, 2006;Van Berkum, Brown, Zwisterlood, Koojiman, & Hagoort, 2005), and phonology (DeLong, Urbach, & Kutas, 2005;Vissers, Chwilla, & Kolk, 2006) of the speaker's utterance. For example, listeners can use a verb's semantics to predict the meaning of the speaker's forthcoming utterance (e.g., looking toward an edible object more when the speaker says eat than when the speaker says move; Altmann & Kamide, 1999).…”

Section: Predicting the Speaker's Turnmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coordinating Utterances During Turn-Taking: The Role of Prediction, Response Preparation, and Articulation

Corps

Gambi

Pickering

2017

Discourse Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During conversation, interlocutors rapidly switch between speaker and listener roles and take turns at talk. How do they achieve such fine coordination? Most research has concentrated on the role of prediction, but listeners must also prepare a response in advance (assuming they wish to respond) and articulate this response at the appropriate moment. Such mechanisms may overlap with the processes of comprehending the speaker's incoming turn and predicting its end. However, little is known about the stages of response preparation and production. We discuss three questions pertaining to such stages: (1) Do listeners prepare their own response in advance?, (2) Can listeners buffer their prepared response?, and (3) Does buffering lead to interference with concurrent comprehension? We argue that fine coordination requires more than just an accurate prediction of the interlocutor's incoming turn: Listeners must also simultaneously prepare their own response.

show abstract

Monitoring in language perception: The effect of misspellings of words in highly constrained sentences

Cited by 132 publications

References 33 publications

Not all disfluencies are are equal: The effects of disfluent repetitions on language comprehension

Not all disfluencies are are equal: The effects of disfluent repetitions on language comprehension

Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations

Coordinating Utterances During Turn-Taking: The Role of Prediction, Response Preparation, and Articulation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About