Error Monitoring in Speech Production: A Computational Test of the Perceptual Loop Theory

Hartsuiker, Robert J.; Kolk, Herman

doi:10.1006/cogp.2000.0744

Cited by 193 publications

(218 citation statements)

References 49 publications

(95 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

207

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This observation has sparked considerable theoretical (Hartsuiker & Kolk, 2001;Levelt, 1989;Nooteboom, 1980) and empirical investigation, both in the form of observational studies (Blakmer & Mitton, 1991;Seyfeddinipur, Kita, & Indefrey, 2008) and experiments (Hartsuiker, et al, 2008;Hartsuiker, Pickering, & De Jong, 2005;Tydgat, Stevens, Hartsuiker, & Pickering, 2011;cf. Van Wijk & Kempen, 1987).…”

Section: Coordinating Stopping and Resuming Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the account proposed by Hartsuiker and Kolk (2001), and modified by Hartsuiker et al (2008) and Tydgat et al (2011), the speaker simultaneously initiates two processes when executing a self-repair: the process of stopping articulation and the process of planning the replacement. These processes proceed in parallel and share a limited pool of resources.…”

Section: Coordinating Stopping and Resuming Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

How do speakers coordinate? Evidence for prediction in a joint word-replacement task

Gambi

Cop

Pickering

2015

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated whether speakers represent their partners' task in a joint naming paradigm. Two participants took turns in naming pictures; occasionally the (initial) picture was replaced by a different picture (target), signalling that they had to stop naming the initial picture. When the same participant had to name the target picture, he or she completed the name of the initial picture more often than when neither participant had to name the target picture. Crucially, when the other participant had to name the target picture, the first participant also completed the name of the initial picture more often than when neither participant named the target picture. However, the tendency to complete the initial name was weaker when the other participant had to name the target than when the same participant went on to name the target. We argue that speakers predict that their partner is about to respond using some, but not all, of the mechanisms they use when they prepare to speak.

show abstract

Section: Coordinating Stopping and Resuming Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Coordinating Stopping and Resuming Speechmentioning

confidence: 99%

How do speakers coordinate? Evidence for prediction in a joint word-replacement task

Gambi

Cop

Pickering

2015

Cortex

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important function of the ongoing monitoring process is to detect, intercept, and correct speech production errors [e.g., Hartsuiker and Kolk, 2001;Postma, 2000;Schiller, 2005;Schiller and De Ruiter, 2004]. In studies involving EEG, the error-related negativity, known from action monitoring [e.g., Holroyd and Coles, 2002], has been shown to be generated in verbal errors as well [Masaki et al, 2001;Ganushchak and Schiller, in press].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neural correlates of verbal feedback processing: An fMRI study employing overt speech

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Speakers use external auditory feedback to monitor their own speech. Feedback distortion has been found to increase activity in the superior temporal areas. Using fMRI, the present study investigates the neural correlates of processing verbal feedback without distortion. In a blocked design, the following conditions were presented: (1) overt picture-naming, (2) overt picture-naming while pink noise was presented to mask external feedback, (3) covert picture-naming, (4) listening to the picture names (previously recorded from participants' own voices), and (5) listening to pink noise. The results show that auditory feedback processing involves a network of different areas related to general performance monitoring and speech-motor control. These include the cingulate cortex and the bilateral insula, supplementary motor area, bilateral motor areas, cerebellum, thalamus and basal ganglia. Our findings suggest that the anterior cingulate cortex, which is often implicated in error-processing and conflict-monitoring, is also engaged in ongoing speech monitoring. Furthermore, in the superior temporal gyrus, we found a reduced response to speaking under normal feedback conditions. This finding is interpreted in the framework of a forward model according to which, during speech production, the sensory consequence of the speech-motor act is predicted to attenuate the sensitivity of the auditory cortex. Hum Brain Mapp 28: [868][869][870][871][872][873][874][875][876][877][878][879] 2007. V V C 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

show abstract

“…When a speech planning error is made at the phonological processing level, it may be picked up by means of internal selfmonitoring, i.e. the so-called inner speech is checked for errors (see Hartsuiker and Kolk, 2001;Postma, 2000;Levelt,1983Levelt, , 1989Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer, 1999). Overt speech, in contrast, is evaluated through external self-monitoring (Christoffels, Formisano, and Schiller, 2007 for neurocognitive evidence).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Event-related brain potentials during the monitoring of speech errors

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f oWhen we perceive speech, our goal is to extract the meaning of the verbal message which includes semantic processing. However, how deeply do we process speech in different situations? In two experiments, native Dutch participants heard spoken sentences describing simultaneously presented pictures. Sentences either correctly described the pictures or contained an anomalous final word (i.e. a semantically or phonologically incongruent word). In the first experiment, spoken sentences were task-irrelevant and both anomalous conditions elicited similar centro-parietal N400s that were larger in amplitude than the N400 for the correct condition. In the second experiment, we ensured that participants processed the same stimuli semantically. In an early time window, we found similar phonological mismatch negativities for both anomalous conditions compared to the correct condition. These negativities were followed by an N400 that was larger for semantic than phonological errors. Together, these data suggest that we process speech semantically, even if the speech is task-irrelevant. Once listeners allocate more cognitive resources to the processing of speech, we suggest that they make predictions for upcoming words, presumably by means of the production system and an internal monitoring loop, to facilitate lexical processing of the perceived speech.

show abstract

Error Monitoring in Speech Production: A Computational Test of the Perceptual Loop Theory

Cited by 193 publications

References 49 publications

How do speakers coordinate? Evidence for prediction in a joint word-replacement task

How do speakers coordinate? Evidence for prediction in a joint word-replacement task

Neural correlates of verbal feedback processing: An fMRI study employing overt speech

Event-related brain potentials during the monitoring of speech errors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About