Monitoring of language selection errors in switching: Not all about conflict

The role of the left posterior temporal cortex in speech monitoring

Speech monitoring abilities vary among individuals with stroke-induced aphasia, with brain lesion location as a potential factor. Left posterior temporal cortex (pLTC) regions are thought to be central to lexical access. We tested whether pLTC lesions affect the medial frontal action monitoring system, as indexed by the Error-Related Negativity (ERN), which has been implicated in inner speech monitoring. Electroencephalography was recorded during picture naming in 11 individuals with pLTC lesions (4 from each of two institutions included in EEG analyses), 7 with lesions sparing the pLTC (6 included), and 20 matched controls (14 included). Individuals with pLTC lesions were slower and less accurate than other groups. Individuals with lesions sparing the pLTC showed the expected ERN; individuals with pLTC lesions did not. Therefore, the medial frontal monitoring mechanism may be compromised when regions central to lexical access are damaged, indicating that pLTC-medial frontal interactions may support inner speech monitoring.

Domain-general cognitive control processes in bilingual switching: Evidence from midfrontal theta oscillations

Language control in bilingual speakers is thought to be implicated in effectively switching between languages, inhibiting the non-intended language, and continuously monitoring what to say and what has been said. It has been a matter of controversy concerning whether language control operates in a comparable manner to cognitive control processes in non-linguistic domains (domain-general) or if it is exclusive to language processing (domain-specific). As midfrontal theta oscillations have been considered as an index of cognitive control, examining whether a midfrontal theta effect is evident in tasks requiring bilingual control could bring new insights to the ongoing debate. To this end, we reanalysed the EEG data from two previous bilingual production studies where Dutch-English bilinguals named pictures based on colour cues. Specifically, we focused on three fundamental control processes in bilingual production: switching between languages, inhibition of the nontarget language, and monitoring of speech errors. Theta power increase was observed in switch trials compared to repeat trials, with a midfrontal scalp distribution. However, no theta power difference was observed in switch trials following a shorter sequence of same-language trials compared to a longer sequence, suggesting a missing modulation of inhibitory control. Similarly, increased midfrontal theta power was observed when participants failed to switch to the intended language compared to correct responses. Altogether, these findings tentatively support the involvement of domain-general cognitive control mechanisms in bilingual switching.

Disentangling task-selection failures from task-execution failures in task switching: an assessment of different paradigms

Differentiating errors on the basis of the distinct cognitive mechanisms that may have generated them has provided neuropsychologists with useful diagnostic tools. For example, perseverative errors arising from the inability of the patient to set a new criterion for responding are considered one of the hallmarks of cognitive inflexibility. Similarly, in the task-switching paradigm it is possible to distinguish between task-confusion errors, produced by a failure in task selection, and response-confusion errors, arising when the correct task is selected, but the wrong response is given. Nonetheless, only a few studies so far have exploited the existence of different kinds of errors in multitasking situations to inform theories of cognitive flexibility. In the present study, we set out to use a variety of methodologies employed so far in the literature for disentangling errors due to task-selection failure from errors due to task-execution failure. In three experiments, we assessed the capacity of each method to produce error categories that can be mapped as clearly as possible to the cognitive mechanism(s) underlying them using multinomial processing tree modelling. Subsequently, the distinction between task- and response-confusion errors was used to test their differential impact on inhibitory mechanisms in task switching as measured by N-2 repetition costs. Our results are encouraging regarding the possibility of correctly detecting response- and task-selection failures, thus allowing us to assess their differential impact on N-2 repetition costs.

Harnessing intra-varietal variation for agro-morphological and nutritional traits in a popular rice landrace for sustainable food security in tropical islands

Introduction

Rice crop meets the calorie and nutritional requirements of a larger segment of the global population. Here, we report the occurrence of intra-varietal variation in a popular rice landrace C14-8 traditionally grown under the geographical isolation of the Andaman Islands.

Methods

Based on grain husk color, four groups were formed, wherein the extent of intra-varietal variation was studied by employing 22 agro-morphological and biochemical traits.

Results

Among the traits studied, flavonoid and anthocyanin contents and grain yield exhibited a wider spectrum of variability due to more coefficients of variation (>25%). The first five principal components (PCs) of principal components analysis explained a significant proportion of the variation (91%) and the first two PCs explained 63.3% of the total variation, with PC1 and PC2 explaining 35.44 and 27.91%, respectively. A total of 50 highly variable SSR (HvSSR) markers spanning over 12 chromosomes produced 314 alleles, which ranged from 1 to 15 alleles per marker, with an average of 6.28. Of the 314 alleles, 64 alleles were found to be rare among the C14-8 selections. While 62% of HvSSR markers exhibited polymorphism among the C14-8 population, chromosomes 2, 7, 9, and 11 harbored the most polymorphic loci. The group clustering of the selections through HvSSR markers conformed to the grouping based on grain husk coloration.

Discussion

Our studies on the existence and pertinence of intra-varietal variations are expected to be of significance in the realms of evolutionary biology and sustainable food and nutritional security under the changing climate.

Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects - A Meta-Analysis

Two seemingly counterintuitive phenomena - asymmetrical language switch costs and the reversed language dominance effect - prove to be particularly controversial in the literature on language control. Asymmetrical language switch costs refer to the larger costs for switching into the dominant language compared to switching into the less dominant language, both relative to staying in either one language. The reversed language dominance effect refers to longer reaction times when in the more dominant of the two languages in situations that require frequent language switching (i.e., mixed-language blocks). The asymmetrical language switch costs are commonly taken as an index for processes of transient, reactive inhibitory language control, whereas the reversed language dominance effect is taken as an index for sustained, proactive inhibitory language control. In the present meta-analysis, we set out to establish the empirical evidence for these two phenomena using a Bayesian linear mixed effects modelling approach. Despite the observation of both phenomena in some studies, our results suggest that overall, there is little evidence for the generality and robustness of these two effects, and this holds true even when conditions - such as language proficiency and preparation time manipulations - were included as moderators of these phenomena. We conclude that asymmetrical switch costs and the reversed language dominance effect are important for theory development, but their utility for theory testing is limited due to their lack of robustness and the absence of confirmed moderatory variables.

Self-Monitoring in Speaking: In Defense of a Comprehension-Based Account

Speakers occasionally make speech errors, which may be detected and corrected. According to the comprehension-based account proposed by Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer (1999) and Roelofs (2004), speakers detect errors by using their speech comprehension system for the monitoring of overt as well as inner speech. According to the production-based account of Nozari, Dell, and Schwartz (2011), speakers may use their comprehension system for external monitoring but error detection in internal monitoring is based on the amount of conflict within the speech production system, assessed by the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Here, I address three main arguments of Nozari et al. and Nozari and Novick (2017) against a comprehension-based account of internal monitoring, which concern cross-talk interference between inner and overt speech, a double dissociation between comprehension and self-monitoring ability in patients with aphasia, and a domain-general error-related negativity in the ACC that is allegedly independent of conscious awareness. I argue that none of the arguments are conclusive, and conclude that comprehension-based monitoring remains a viable account of self-monitoring in speaking.

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

Roelofs (2020) has put forth a rebuttal of the criticisms raised against comprehension-based monitoring and has also raised a number of objections against production-based monitors. In this response, I clarify that the model defended by Roelofs is not a comprehension-based monitor, but belongs to a class of monitoring models which I refer to as production-perception models. I review comprehension-based and production-perception models, highlight the strength of each, and point out the differences between them. I then discuss the limitations of both for monitoring production at higher levels, which has been the motivation for production-based monitors. Next, I address the specific criticisms raised by Roelofs (2020) in light of the current evidence. I end by presenting several lines of arguments that preclude a single monitoring mechanism as meeting all the demands of monitoring in a task as complex as communication. A more fruitful avenue is perhaps to focus on what theories are compatible with the nature of representations at specific levels of the production system and with specific aims of monitoring in language production.

Pre-output Language Monitoring in Sign Production

A domain-general monitoring mechanism is proposed to be involved in overt speech monitoring. This mechanism is reflected in a medial frontal component, the error negativity (Ne), present in both errors and correct trials (Ne-like wave) but larger in errors than correct trials. In overt speech production, this negativity starts to rise before speech onset and is therefore associated with inner speech monitoring. Here, we investigate whether the same monitoring mechanism is involved in sign language production. Twenty deaf signers (American Sign Language [ASL] dominant) and 16 hearing signers (English dominant) participated in a picture-word interference paradigm in ASL. As in previous studies, ASL naming latencies were measured using the keyboard release time. EEG results revealed a medial frontal negativity peaking within 15 msec after keyboard release in the deaf signers. This negativity was larger in errors than correct trials, as previously observed in spoken language production. No clear negativity was present in the hearing signers. In addition, the slope of the Ne was correlated with ASL proficiency (measured by the ASL Sentence Repetition Task) across signers. Our results indicate that a similar medial frontal mechanism is engaged in preoutput language monitoring in sign and spoken language production. These results suggest that the monitoring mechanism reflected by the Ne/Ne-like wave is independent of output modality (i.e., spoken or signed) and likely monitors prearticulatory representations of language. Differences between groups may be linked to several factors including differences in language proficiency or more variable lexical access to motor programming latencies for hearing than deaf signers.