The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn’t fly: Related beply to Baars et al. (1975)

Hartsuiker, Robert J.; Corley, Martin; Martensen, Heike

doi:10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.006

Cited by 69 publications

(126 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

105

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of lexical information on phoneme processing appears to be modulated by the degree of attention to lexical information ( [52][53][54] and similar effects have been found on speech production [55] and reading [56]). Norris et al [4] argued that to account for this attentional modulation, interactive models would have to turn off feedback, thereby making them autonomous.…”

Section: Attentional Modulation Of Lexical Effectsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Are there interactive processes in speech perception?

McClelland

Mirman

Holt

2006

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

231

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lexical information facilitates speech perception, especially when sounds are ambiguous or degraded. The interactive approach to understanding this effect posits that this facilitation is accomplished through bi-directional flow of information, allowing lexical knowledge to influence pre-lexical processes. Alternative autonomous theories posit feed-forward processing with lexical influence restricted to post-perceptual decision processes. We review evidence supporting the prediction of interactive models that lexical influences can affect pre-lexical mechanisms, triggering compensation, adaptation and retuning of phonological processes generally taken to be pre-lexical. We argue that these and other findings point to interactive processing as a fundamental principle for perception of speech and other modalities.

show abstract

Section: Attentional Modulation Of Lexical Effectsmentioning

confidence: 92%

Are there interactive processes in speech perception?

McClelland

Mirman

Holt

2006

Trends in Cognitive Sciences

231

191

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous research has shown that speakers are more likely to produce errors resulting in new words than pseudowords, indicating that lexicality is a filter used to intercept errors during speech production (Baars, Motley, & MacKay, 1975;Hartsuiker, Corley & Martensen, 2005;Nooteboom, 2005). Returning to our task, the following three predictions can be made: 1) Impaired language processing of any sort (including monitoring) would be apparent through slower response times and/or higher error rates; 2) Impaired self-monitoring for accuracy would be indexed by an overall increased error-rate; 3) Impaired selfmonitoring for lexicality would result in a modulation of errors as a function of their lexical status.…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Internal modeling of upcoming speech: A causal role of the right posterior cerebellum in non-motor aspects of language production

Runnqvist

Bonnard

Gauvin

et al. 2016

Cortex

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some language processing theories propose that, just as for other somatic actions, self-monitoring of language production is achieved through internal modeling. The cerebellum is the proposed center of such internal modeling in motor control, and the right cerebellum has been linked to an increasing number of language functions, including predictive processing during comprehension.Relating these findings, we tested whether the right posterior cerebellum has a causal role for self-monitoring of speech errors. Participants received 1Hz repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation during 15 minutes to lobules Crus I and II in the right hemisphere, and, in counterbalanced orders, to the contralateral area in the left cerebellar hemisphere (control) in order to induce a temporary inactivation of one of these zones. Immediately afterwards, they engaged in a speech production task priming the production of speech errors.Language production was impaired after right compared to left hemisphere stimulation, a finding that provides evidence for a causal role of the cerebellum during language production. We interpreted this role in terms of internal modeling of upcoming speech through a verbal working memory process used to prevent errors.

show abstract

“…It is not clear exactly what elements of speech are monitored, when this monitoring occurs, and how production reacts to such monitoring. Furthermore, although the inner monitor has been proposed to be sensitive to all sorts of possible errors, it seems that speakers do not always monitor all of these dimensions, and many theories propose that the editor can be more or less sensitive depending on attentional state (e.g., Oomen & Postma, 2002;Postma, 1997) or strategic factors (Baars et al, 1975;Hartsuiker, Corley, & Martensen, 2005). Together, this makes it very difficult to generate specific predictions or to evaluate post hoc explanations, since the monitor is potentially, but not necessarily, sensitive to everything that can be comprehended.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is worth noting, however, that an inner monitor is only required to explain the mixed error effect (and the lexical bias effect) in models of speech production that prohibit feedback (e.g., Levelt et al, 1999). In theories that allow feedback from phonological levels to lexical levels (e.g., Dell, 1986;Dell & Reich, 1981;Rapp & Goldrick, 2000) these effects can be explained without relying on an inner monitor (see Humphreys, 2002, for evidence that the lexical bias effect is better explained by feedback than by monitoring, but see Hartsuiker et al, 2005, for evidence of strategic effects on lexical bias). Thus, a critical assumption of the monitor-based explanation of the mixed error effect (and of monitor-based explanations of error detection in general) is that the monitor is less able to detect erroneous outcomes that are more similar to the intended utterance than outcomes that are less similar.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Halting in single word production: A test of the perceptual loop theory of speech monitoring☆

Slevc

Ferreira

2006

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perceptual loop theory of speech monitoring (Levelt, 1983) claims that inner and overt speech are monitored by the comprehension system, which detects errors by comparing the comprehension of formulated utterances to originally intended utterances. To test the perceptual loop monitor, speakers named pictures and sometimes attempted to halt speech in response to auditory (Experiments 1 and 3) or visual (Experiments 2, 4, and 5) words that differed from the picture name. These stop-signal words were varied in terms of their semantic or phonological similarity to the intended word. The ability to halt word production was sensitive to phonological similarity and, in Experiment 5, to emotional valence, but not to semantic similarity. These results suggest that the perceptual loop detects errors by making comparisons at a level where phonological knowledge is represented. These data also imply that dialogue, back channeling, and other areas where speech production is affected by simultaneous comprehension may operate based on phonological comparisons. Halting in Single Word Production: A Test of the Perceptual Loop Theory of Speech MonitoringOne of the more striking features of language production is its efficiency and accuracy. Levelt (1989) estimates that we produce about 150 words per minute, but make only one lexical error per 1,000 words. This is especially impressive considering the complexities of word production. When speakers produce words, they start with an idea they wish to communicate, then must retrieve both lexical and phonological information, and finally program a set of motor movements that can then be comprehended by listeners. Despite these complexities, speech production seems relatively effortless and error-free.One reason that errors are relatively infrequent may be that speakers comprehend their own speech to inspect it for errors, thereby allowing them to inhibit and repair erroneous utterances and speak relatively fluently. It is not unusual for speakers to stop and correct themselves when they make an error, sometimes even before the error is externally apparent. This idea has been formalized as the speech monitor.A number of findings in the speech-error record have been used as evidence for an inner speech monitor, such as the fact that phonological speech errors are more likely to result in real words than nonwords (the lexical bias effect). Baars, Motley and MacKay (1975) provided experimental evidence of this effect by using a procedure to elicit Spoonerisms (exchanges of Please address correspondence to: L. Robert Slevc, Department of Psychology 0109, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0109, slevc@psy.ucsd.edu Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that d...

show abstract

The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn’t fly: Related beply to Baars et al. (1975)

Cited by 69 publications

References 41 publications

Are there interactive processes in speech perception?

Are there interactive processes in speech perception?

Internal modeling of upcoming speech: A causal role of the right posterior cerebellum in non-motor aspects of language production

Halting in single word production: A test of the perceptual loop theory of speech monitoring☆

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About