Self-talk: research challenges and opportunities

Abstract

In this review, we discuss major measurement and methodological challenges to studying self-talk. We review the assessment of self-talk frequency, studying self-talk in its natural context, personal pronoun usage within self-talk, experiential sampling methods, and the experimental manipulation of self-talk. We highlight new possible research opportunities and discuss recent advances such as brain imaging studies of self-talk, the use of self-talk by robots, and measurement of self-talk in aphasic patients.

Inner speech in the daily lives of people with aphasia

“…Note, too, that the current samples presented with relatively little anosognosia, which likely reflects that the majority of the sample had intact self-monitoring as it related to monitoring of their own language impairments. The self-report methods used here were chosen to increase ecological validity and ability to measure contents of inner speech ( Brinthaupt and Morin, 2023 ), while acknowledging the potential for inaccuracy. To mitigate potential biases known to occur during subjective reporting, such as the desire to please the experimenter [i.e., good-subject effect ( Nichols and Maner, 2008 )] experimenter JA reiterated the need for an accurate representation of what happens in daily life and encouraged honest reporting of the participant’s experience in that moment.…”

“…There were several purposes to the Introductory session: (1) screening for inclusion and collecting more information about aphasia characteristics, (2) characterizing insight into language impairment, (3) introducing the participant to “inner speech” and its definitions, and (4) practicing the technology/methods used in the study. The motivation for the multiple purposes of the Introductory session was due to both Morin and Hurlburt’s inner speech research emphasizing the need to create a shared understanding of what inner speech is and is not ( Hurlburt and Akhter, 2006 ; Heavey et al, 2019 ; Racy et al, 2020 ; Hurlburt et al, 2021 ; Brinthaupt and Morin, 2023 ); for the purposes of more comprehensively documenting each person’s demographic and neuropsychological characteristics; and because of our prior research using virtual testing in aphasia emphasized that troubleshooting technology and methodology together leads to better outcomes and low attrition ( Doub et al, 2021 ; Stark et al, 2023 ). Note that Hurlburt’s descriptive experience sampling methodology was not employed in its entirety in this study, as that methodology is highly iterative and involves interviews after each day, with many instances of discussing what inner speech is and is not after each sampling period.…”

“…While experimental control can be ideal, it can also directly impact the nature and content of the inner speech (e.g., priming, requiring non-spontaneous uses). On the other hand, self-report methods are easy to use, yet are also more prone to inter-individual variability [for more detailed reviews of reliability and validity issues with self-talk measures, see Brinthaupt and Morin (2023) and Van Raalte et al (2019) ]. To summarize: assessing inner speech in situ – as it happens – is inherently difficult yet comes with many benefits.…”