Self-Monitoring in Speech Production: Comprehending the Conflict Between Conflict- and Comprehension-Based Accounts

Semantic Context Effects in Picture and Sound Naming: Evidence from Event-related Potentials and Pupillometric Data

When a picture is repeatedly named in the context of semantically related pictures (homogeneous context), responses are slower than when the picture is repeatedly named in the context of unrelated pictures (heterogeneous context). This semantic interference effect in blocked-cyclic naming plays an important role in devising theories of word production. Wöhner, Mädebach, and Jescheniak [Wöhner, S., Mädebach, A., & Jescheniak, J. D. Naming pictures and sounds: Stimulus type affects semantic context effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 47, 716-730, 2021] have shown that the effect is substantially larger when participants name environmental sounds than when they name pictures. We investigated possible reasons for this difference, using EEG and pupillometry. The behavioral data replicated Wöhner and colleagues. ERPs were more positive in the homogeneous compared with the heterogeneous context over central electrode locations between 140-180 msec and 250-350 msec for picture naming and between 250 and 350 msec for sound naming, presumably reflecting semantic interference during semantic and lexical processing. The later component was of similar size for pictures and sounds. ERPs were more negative in the homogeneous compared with the heterogeneous context over frontal electrode locations between 400 and 600 msec only for sounds. The pupillometric data showed a stronger pupil dilation in the homogeneous compared with the heterogeneous context only for sounds. The amplitudes of the late ERP negativity and pupil dilation predicted naming latencies for sounds in the homogeneous context. The latency of the effects indicates that the difference in semantic interference between picture and sound naming arises at later, presumably postlexical processing stages closer to articulation. We suggest that the processing of the auditory stimuli interferes with phonological response preparation and self-monitoring, leading to enhanced semantic interference.

Predictive language processing: integrating comprehension and production, and what atypical populations can tell us

Predictive processing, a crucial aspect of human cognition, is also relevant for language comprehension. In everyday situations, we exploit various sources of information to anticipate and therefore facilitate processing of upcoming linguistic input. In the literature, there are a variety of models that aim at accounting for such ability. One group of models propose a strict relationship between prediction and language production mechanisms. In this review, we first introduce very briefly the concept of predictive processing during language comprehension. Secondly, we focus on models that attribute a prominent role to language production and sensorimotor processing in language prediction ("prediction-by-production" models). Contextually, we provide a summary of studies that investigated the role of speech production and auditory perception on language comprehension/prediction tasks in healthy, typical participants. Then, we provide an overview of the limited existing literature on specific atypical/clinical populations that may represent suitable testing ground for such models-i.e., populations with impaired speech production and auditory perception mechanisms. Ultimately, we suggest a more widely and in-depth testing of prediction-by-production accounts, and the involvement of atypical populations both for model testing and as targets for possible novel speech/language treatment approaches.

Inner speech and the body error theory

Inner speech is commonly understood as the conscious experience of a voice within the mind. One recurrent theme in the scientific literature is that the phenomenon involves a representation of overt speech, for example, a representation of phonetic properties that result from a copy of speech instructions that were ultimately suppressed. I propose a larger picture that involves some embodied objects and their misperception. I call it "the Body Error Theory," or BET for short. BET is a form of illusionism, but the particular version I favor is a cross-modal illusion. Newly described here, my hypothesis is that the experience of inner speech arises from a mix of interoception and audition. Specifically, there is the detection of slight but well-confirmed activities in the speech musculature that occur during inner speech, which helps to transform representations of normal but quiet nonverbal sounds that inevitably occur during inner speech, from breathing to background noise, into a mistaken perception of inner speech. Simply put, activities in the speech musculature mix with sounds to create the appearance of speech sounds, which thus explains the "voice within the mind." I also show how BET's cross-modal system fits with standard information processing accounts for speech monitoring and how it accommodates the central insights of leading theories of inner speech. In addition, I show how BET is supported by data from experience-sampling surveys and how it can be empirically tested against its rivals.

Cerebellar and Cortical Correlates of Internal and External Speech Error Monitoring

An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study examined how speakers inspect their own speech for errors. Concretely, we sought to assess 1) the role of the temporal cortex in monitoring speech errors, linked with comprehension-based monitoring; 2) the involvement of the cerebellum in internal and external monitoring, linked with forward modeling; and 3) the role of the medial frontal cortex for internal monitoring, linked with conflict-based monitoring. In a word production task priming speech errors, we observed enhanced involvement of the right posterior cerebellum for trials that were correct, but on which participants were more likely to make a word as compared with a nonword error (contrast of internal monitoring). Furthermore, comparing errors to correct utterances (contrast of external monitoring), we observed increased activation of the same cerebellar region, of the superior medial cerebellum, and of regions in temporal and medial frontal cortex. The presence of the cerebellum for both internal and external monitoring indicates the use of forward modeling across the planning and articulation of speech. Dissociations across internal and external monitoring in temporal and medial frontal cortex indicate that monitoring of overt errors is more reliant on vocal feedback control.