Detection of speech errors in the speech of others: An ERP study

Ganushchak, Lesya Y.; Schiller, Niels O.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.063

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Vissers et al (2006) found a P600 effect to misspelled words when the expected critical word in its correct spelling had a high cloze probability. Misspellings of critical words with a low cloze probability did not elicit a P600 effect.In a recent study by Ganushchak and Schiller (2010) an effect of conflict strength was indicated as well. In this study participants saw a visual network of coloured objects while listening to a path description through this network.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…In a recent study by Ganushchak and Schiller (2010) an effect of conflict strength was indicated as well. In this study participants saw a visual network of coloured objects while listening to a path description through this network.…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The hypothesis that the P600 effect reflects a more general reanalysis has been strengthened by a number of recent studies (for reviews on these studies see Kolk and Chwilla, 2007;Kuperberg, 2007;Van de Meerendonk et al, 2009), demonstrating P600 effects to different kinds of semantic anomalies (e.g., Ganushchak and Schiller, 2010;Hoeks et al, 2004;Kim and Osterhout, 2005;Kolk et al, 2003;Kuperberg et al, 2006Kuperberg et al, , 2007Kuperberg et al, , 2003b; Van de Meerendonk et al, 2010;Van Herten et al, 2006, 2005. Furthermore, P600 effects were found to picture-sentence mismatches in which the sentences violated the semantics of a previously shown picture (Vissers et al, 2008).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The monitoring theory of language perception proposes that competing representations that are caused by strong expectancy violations can trigger a conflict which elicits reprocessing of the input to check for possible processing errors. This monitoring process is thought to be reflected by the P600 component in the EEG. The present study further investigated this monitoring process by comparing syntactic and spelling violations in an EEG and an fMRI experiment. To assess the effect of conflict strength, misspellings were embedded in sentences that were weakly or strongly predictive of a critical word. In support of the monitoring theory, syntactic and spelling violations elicited similarly distributed P600 effects. Furthermore, the P600 effect was larger to misspellings in the strongly compared to the weakly predictive sentences. The fMRI results showed that both syntactic and spelling violations increased activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (lIFG), while only the misspellings activated additional areas. Conflict strength did not affect the hemodynamic response to spelling violations. These results extend the idea that the lIFG is involved in implementing cognitive control in the presence of representational conflicts in general to the processing of errors in language perception. © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. General introduction"Mistakes are a fact of life. It is the response to error that counts" (Nikki Giovanni). This quote nicely illustrates that we are bound to make mistakes but that we can also use the thereby obtained information to adjust our behaviour. To learn from our mistakes, however, we must be able to detect them. The detection of errors and the adjustments in behaviour require cognitive control. Cognitive control processes manage and guide other cognitive processes according to internal goals. One aspect of cognitive control is monitoring, which deals with the detection and repair of errors. Errors occur when there is a mismatch between what we intend or expect and what we do or observe. When such a mismatch is detected, compensatory adjustments are triggered in the processing pathways that are involved, leading to a repair.Mistakes, of course, occur in various domains, and here we are interested in the language domain. In this field, the main focus has been on error monitoring in language production. For language production, researchers have been interested in speech errors and their repairs (for a review see Levelt, 1983). However, in language perception error monitoring takes place as well. For example, sometimes we mishear what another person is saying and ask for a clarification: "Did I understand you correctly…?". Another type of perceptual language errors are mistakes that are made while reading a text. Kaufman and Obler (1995) call these 'slips of the eye', and showed that normal adult readers make various kinds of these errors. For instance, sometimes words are inserted, omitted or exchanged, the parsing of a word or sentence can be erroneous (e.g., reading posts as...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 93%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Monitoring in language perception: Electrophysiological and hemodynamic responses to spelling violations

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature also points out that word-level listening comprehension, which is related to vocabulary, is necessary in identifying speech errors in both inner and outer speech 33 . This system interacts with the production system in the search for errors, but the comprehension system acts on the production system and is triggered by speech monitoring 12 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does self-correction in the Rapid Naming Test reflect cognitive and language performance in teens?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: to describe the occurrence of self-correction among adolescents in the rapid automatic naming test and the influence of schooling, type of visual stimulation and cognitive and language skills. Methods: 83 typical adolescents from 11 to 16 years old, enrolled from 6th to 9th grade of two public schools in Belo Horizonte participated in the study. The following tests were applied: rapid automatic naming, NEUPSILIN Brief Neuropsychological Assessment Instrument and Boston Naming. During rapid naming, substitutions and self-correction were accounted for. The variation in the number of errors, with and without self-correction, was related to schooling, functions and skills evaluated. Appropriate statistical tests were applied, adopting a significance level lower than 0.05. Results: individuals who made no mistakes had a better performance in attention, executive functions, memory, and vocabulary than those who made. Adolescents who performed self-correction were better at attention than those who did not correct themselves. Non-alphanumeric stimuli presented a higher occurrence of self-correction. Non-alphanumeric and alphanumeric tasks differed in terms of number of errors, both with and without self-correction. Adolescents from the early and late years of middle school differed regarding self-correction in the task of naming letters. Conclusion: self-correction was frequent in the evaluated sample and differentiated the group of adolescents who self-corrected or not, regarding attention, executive functions and vocabulary.

show abstract