Towards a New Model of Verbal Monitoring

Abstract

As all human activities, verbal communication is fraught with errors. It is estimated that humans produce around 16,000 words per day, but the word that is selected for production is not always correct and neither is the articulation always flawless. However, to facilitate communication, it is important to limit the number of errors. This is accomplished via the verbal monitoring mechanism. A body of research over the last century has uncovered a number of properties of the mechanisms at work during verbal monitoring. Over a dozen routes for verbal monitoring have been postulated. However, to date a complete account of verbal monitoring does not exist. In the current paper we first outline the properties of verbal monitoring that have been empirically demonstrated. This is followed by a discussion of current verbal monitoring models: the perceptual loop theory, conflict monitoring, the hierarchical state feedback control model, and the forward model theory. Each of these models is evaluated given empirical findings and theoretical considerations. We then outline lacunae of current theories, which we address with a proposal for a new model of verbal monitoring for production and perception, based on conflict monitoring models. Additionally, this novel model suggests a mechanism of how a detected error leads to a correction. The error resolution mechanism proposed in our new model is then tested in a computational model. Finally, we outline the advances and predictions of the model.

Structural Disconnection of the Posterior Medial Frontal Cortex Reduces Speech Error Monitoring

“…These findings are consistent with the notion that error monitoring critically relies on structural connectivity between task-specific cortical regions and domain-general control regions, including the pMFC. These results align with production-based models of speech error monitoring (Gauvin & Hartsuiker, 2020; e.g., Nozari et al, 2011). In clinical settings, damage to fiber tracts that connect to the pMFC may predict reduced error monitoring.…”

A Comprehension- or a Production-Based Monitor? Response to Roelofs (2020)

“…Let me end by pointing out that having multiple mechanisms for monitoring production does not preclude a common framework for integrating the contribution of those mechanisms. We have recently argued that a more general notion of conflict (not limited to that used by Nozari et al, 2011, in production-based monitoring) provides a viable framework for such discussions (Nozari & Hepner, 2019a, b; see also Gauvin & Hartsuiker, 2020). Specifically, we have shown that regardless of the specific mechanism, all models of monitoring use variables and comparisons that can be quantified by the notion of conflict (as capturing information about the difference between the activation of two representations), and critically, all such models are aligned in their predictions that higher conflict is associated with a higher probability of errors (Pinet & Nozari, under review).…”

Structural disconnection of the posterior medial frontal cortex reduces speech error monitoring

“…Speech processing broadly encompasses various different stages, spanning from lexical access, to the motoric act of speech, and to the perception and comprehension of the produced speech ( Dell and O’Seaghdha, 1992 , Levelt, 1983 , Levelt et al, 1999 ). Correspondingly, there are a variety of models of speech error monitoring that differ by which speech processing stages are emphasized (for in-depth reviews see Gauvin and Hartsuiker, 2020 , Nozari, 2020 , Postma, 2000 ). It is important to acknowledge that the mechanisms described across speech error monitoring models are not all mutually exclusive: researchers have proposed that there may be distinct error monitoring mechanisms at different stages of speech processing ( Postma, 2000 ).…”