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 194 publications

(220 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

208

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

Christoffels

Formisano

Schiller

2007

Human Brain Mapping

183

172

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

“…This form of correction may be triggered by autocontrol detection processes (described earlier). Various terms in the literature are used to refer to this rapid error detection0 correction (e.g., microslip, error sketch; covert repair) (Blavier et al, 2005;Hartsuiker & Kolk, 2001;Postma & Kolk, 1993). A real world example of a microslip is stopping short of adding sugar, instead of coffee grinds, to a coffee maker in a cluttered kitchen.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Error detection and correction patterns in dementia: A breakdown of error monitoring processes and their neuropsychological correlates

Bettcher

Giovannetti

Macmullen

et al. 2008

J. Inter. Neuropsych. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Error monitoring is critical to an individual's ability to function autonomously. This study characterized error detection and correction behaviors within the service of everyday tasks in individuals with dementia. Also, the impact of neuropsychological functioning on error detection and correction was examined. Fifty-three participants diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or vascular dementia (VaD) were administered a neuropsychological protocol and the Naturalistic Action Test, which requires performance of three everyday tasks. Error detection, correction, and the point at which correction occurred (i.e., microslip-before the error was completed, immediate-just after the error was made, delayed-after performing other task steps) was coded. Dementia participants detected 32.7% of their errors and corrected 75.8% of detected errors. Participants were more likely to engage in microslips than delayed corrections. Tests of executive control and language predicted detection and correction variables; moreover, detection and correction were each related to different aspects of executive functioning. Microslips were related to naming ability. AD and VaD patients did not differ on detection0correction variables, and regression analyses indicated that dementia severity and memory abilities were unrelated to detection0correction. The results specify the error monitoring deficits in AD and VaD and have implications for improving functional abilities in dementia. (JINS, 2008, 14, 199-208.)

show abstract

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

Cited by 194 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

Error detection and correction patterns in dementia: A breakdown of error monitoring processes and their neuropsychological correlates

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About