The dual origin of semantic errors in access deficit: activation vs. inhibition deficit

A critical review of the behavioural, neuroimaging, and electrophysiological studies of co-activation of representations during word production

“…While facilitation has been viewed as a critical (Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2009) or even the only real effect of co-activation of semantically related representations during the semantic-lexical activation phase (Mahon et al, 2007;Navarrete et al, 2014), others have viewed it as a strategic effect that is not consistently found (Belke, 2017;Belke et al, 2017). Collectively, the evidence suggests that while the facilitation often observed in the first cycle of the blocked cyclic naming task may be strategic in origin, facilitation observed in other cases is unlikely to be strategic (e.g., Nozari, 2019;Wei & Schnur, 2019), and is instead a reflection of the core dynamics of spreading activation in the system (see also Abdel Rahman & Melinger, 2009). We return to this critical point when discussing the theoretical perspectives on the neural data.…”

A comprehension- or a production-based monitor? Response to Roelofs (2019)

“…Rapid, repetitive repairs in individuals with aphasia, including both conduite d'approche for phonological errors, and semantic errors (Nozari, 2019) which continue past the production of the correct target, are other examples. Recently, in a single-word typing-to-dictation task, we asked participants whether they made an error/repair.…”

“…These data suggest that conscious awareness is not a prerequisite for detecting a response as an error or for initiating a repair. On the other hand, participants have been reported to repair a higher proportion of their errors under more error-prone situations (Levelt, 1983;Nozari et al, 2019), and when accuracy is emphasized (Postma & Kolk, 1992).…”

“…Collectively, these findings have led to proposals of an implicit monitoring/repair process which can be augmented by attention (Nooteboom & Quené, 2017;Nozari et al, 2019), but the data are incompatible with a monitoring mechanism that is fundamentally dependent on a conscious, deliberate mechanism for its operation.…”

“…The latter, also discussed in Levelt (1983) as appropriateness repairs and alike, require deliberation, attention to common ground, history of the conversation, and various factors related to the interlocutor (age, social situation, cognitive status, etc.). This aspect of monitoring, and the subsequent repairs, is certainly far from subconscious and "automatic" (e.g., Trude & Nozari, 2017), as has been argued for other aspects of monitoring such as quick detection and replacement of errors with repairs (Nooteboom & Quené, 2017;Nozari et al, 2019), providing yet another reason for why a multi-component monitoring system is the right direction for arriving at a comprehensive model of monitoring in language production.…”