Erika Rux, MLIS

Topic Three - Oral Communication

Hartsuiker, R. J., Catchpole, C. M., Jong, N. H. d., & Pickering, M. J. (2008). Concurrent processing of words and their replacements during speech. Cognition, 108(3), 601-607. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.04.005

Abstract (from PsycINFO):
Two picture naming experiments, in which an initial picture was occasionally replaced with another (target) picture, were conducted to study the temporal coordination of abandoning one word and resuming with another word in speech production. In Experiment 1, participants abandoned saying the initial name, and resumed with the name of the target picture. This triggered both interrupted (e.g., Mush-...scooter) and completed (mushroom...scooter) productions of the initial name. We found that the time from beginning naming the initial picture to ending it was longer when the target picture was visually degraded than when it was intact. In Experiment 2, participants abandoned saying the initial name, but without resuming. There was no visual degradation effect, and thus the effect did not seem to be driven by detection of the stopping cue. These findings demonstrate that planning a new word can begin before the initial word is abandoned, so that both words can be processed concurrently.

When the monitor gives this signal, speech does not stop immediately; stopping any action takes time (Logan & Cowen, 1984). This time-to-stop is estimated at about 150-200 ms (Hartsuiker & Kolk, 2001; Levelt, 1989; Slevc & Ferreira, 2006). According to Level'ts theory of monitoring, the signal halts every component of the language production system at roughly the same time.

  1. Baayen, R. H., Piepenbrock, R., & Gulikers, L. (1995). The Celex lexical database (CD-ROM): Linguistic data consortium. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
  2. Blackmer, E. R. & Mitton, J. L. (1991). Theories of monitoring and the timing of repairs in spontaneous speech. Cognition, 39, 173-194 10.1016/0010-0277 (91)90052-6.
  3. Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (1992). Praat. Available from http://www.fon.hum
  4. Clark, H. H. & Fox, T. J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73-111 10.1016/S0010-0277 (02)00017-3.
  5. Ferreira, V. S. & Pashler, H. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1187-1199.
  6. Fox, T. J. E., & Clark, H. H. (1997). Pronouncing “the” as “thee” to signal problems in speaking. Cognition, 151-167.
  7. Hartsuiker, R. J. & Kolk, H. H. J. (2001). Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cognitive Psychology, 42, 113-157 10.1006/cogp.2000 .0744.
  8. Hartsuiker, R. J., Pickering, M. J. & De Jong, N. H. (2005). Semantic and phonological context effects in speech error repair. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 921-932.
  9. Jescheniak, J. D. & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Word-frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 824-843.
  10. Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14, 41-104 10.1016/0010-0277 (83)90026-4.
  11. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  12. Logan, G. D. & Cowan, W. B. (1984). On the ability to inhibit thought and action: A theory of an act of control. Psychological Review, 91, 295-327 10.1037/0033-295X .91.3.295.
  13. Meyer, A. S., Sleiderink, A. M. & Levelt, W. J. M. (1998). Viewing and naming objects: Eye movements during noun phrase production. Cognition, 66, 10.1016/S0010-0277 (98)00009-2.