Despite the existence of speech errors, verbal communication is successful because speakers can detect (and correct) their errors. The standard theory of speech-error detection, the perceptual-loop account, posits that the comprehension system monitors production output for errors. Such a comprehension-based monitor, however, cannot explain the double dissociation between comprehension and error-detection ability observed in the aphasic patients. We propose a new theory of speech-error detection which is instead based on the production process itself. The theory borrows from studies of forced-choice-response tasks the notion that error detection is accomplished by monitoring response conflict via a frontal brain structure, such as the anterior cingulate cortex. We adapt this idea to the two-step model of word production, and test the model-derived predictions on a sample of aphasic patients. Our results show a strong correlation between patients’ error-detection ability and the model’s characterization of their production skills, and no significant correlation between error detection and comprehension measures, thus supporting a production-based monitor, generally, and the implemented conflict-based monitor in particular. The successful application of the conflict-based theory to error-detection in linguistic, as well as non-linguistic domains points to a domain-general monitoring system.

The dual-route interactive two-step model explains the variation in the error patterns of aphasic speakers in picture naming, and word and nonword repetition tasks. The model has three parameters that can vary across individuals: the efficiency of the connections between semantic and lexical representations (s-weight), between lexical and phonological representations (p-weight), and between representations of auditory input and phonological representations (nl-weight). We determined these parameter values in 103 participants with chronic aphasia from left hemisphere stroke whose lesion locations had been determined. Then, using voxel-based lesion-parameter mapping, we mapped the parameters onto the brain, thus determining the neural correlates of the model’s mechanisms. The maps and the behavioral findings supported the model’s central claim that word repetition is affected by both the p and nl parameters. We propose that these two parameters constitute the model’s analogue of the “dorsal stream” component of neurocognitive models of language processing.

This paper investigates the cognitive processes underlying picture naming and auditory word repetition. In the 2-step model of lexical access, both the semantic and phonological steps are involved in naming, but the former has no role in repetition. Assuming recognition of the to-be-repeated word, repetition could consist of retrieving the word's output phonemes from the lexicon (the lexical-route model), retrieving the output phonology directly from input phonology (the nonlexical-route model) or employing both routes together (the summation dual-route model). We tested these accounts by comparing the size of the word frequency effect (an index of lexical retrieval) in naming and repetition data from 59 aphasic patients with simulations of naming and repetition models. The magnitude of the frequency effect (and the influence of other lexical variables) was found to be comparable in naming and repetition, and equally large for both the lexical and summation dual-route models. However, only the dual-route model was fully consistent with data from patients, suggesting that nonlexical input is added on top of a fully-utilized lexical route.

Cathodal Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (C-tDCS) has been reported, across different studies, to facilitate or hinder performance, or simply to have no tangible effect on behavior. This discrepancy is most prominent when C-tDCS is used to alter a cognitive function, questioning the assumption that cathodal stimulation always compromises performance. In this study, we aimed to study the effect of two variables on performance in a simple cognitive task (letter Flanker), when C-tDCS was applied to the left prefrontal cortex (PFC): (1) the time of testing relative to stimulation (during or after), and (2) the nature of the cognitive activity during stimulation in case of post-tDCS testing. In three experiments, we had participants either perform the Flanker task during C-tDCS (Experiment 1), or after C-tDCS. When the Flanker task was administered after C-tDCS, we varied whether during stimulation subjects were engaged in activities that posed low (Experiment 2) or high (Experiment 3) demands on the PFC. Our findings show that the nature of the task during C-tDCS has a systematic influence on the outcome, while timing per se does not.