Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T20:22:26.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The poor helping the rich: How can incomplete representations monitor complete ones?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2013

Kristof Strijkers ,
Elin Runnqvist ,
Albert Costa  and
Phillip Holcomb
Kristof Strijkers
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive, CNRS and Université d'Aix-Marseille, 13331 Marseille, France. kristof.strijkers@gmail.com
Elin Runnqvist
Affiliation:
Departamento de Psicología Básica, Universitat de Barcelona, Barcelona 08035, Spain. elin_runnquist@yahoo.es
Albert Costa
Affiliation:
Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Center for Brain and Cognition, ICREA, Barcelona 08018, Spain. costalbert@gmail.com
Phillip Holcomb
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Tufts University, Medford, MA 02155. pholcomb@tufts.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pickering & Garrod (P&G) propose that inner speech monitoring is subserved by predictions stemming from fast forward modeling. In this commentary, we question this alignment of language prediction with the inner speech monitor. We wonder how the speech monitor can function so efficiently if it is based on incomplete representations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 374 - 375
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Federmeier, K. D. (2007) Thinking ahead: The role and roots of prediction in language comprehension. Psychophysiology 44:491–505.Google Scholar
Heinks-Maldonado, T. H., Nagarajan, S. S. & Houde, J. F. (2006) Magnetoencephalographic evidence for a precise forward model in speech production. NeuroReport 17(13):1375–79.Google Scholar
Indefrey, P. & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004) The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition 92:101–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A. & Meyer, A. S. (1999) A theory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(1):1–75.Google Scholar
MacGregor, L. J., Pulvermuller, F., van Casteren, M. & Shtyrov, Y. (2012) Ultra-rapid access to words in the brain. Nature Communications 3:711.Google Scholar
Pulvermüller, F. & Shtyrov, Y. (2006) Language outside the focus of attention: the mismatch negativity as a tool for studying higher cognitive processes. Progress in Neurobiology 79:49–71.Google Scholar
Strijkers, K. & Costa, A. (2011) Riding the lexical speedway: A critical review on the time course of lexical selection in speech production. Frontiers in Psychology 2:356.Google Scholar
Strijkers, K., Holcomb, P. & Costa, A. (2011) Conscious intention to speak facilitates lexical access during overt object naming. Journal of Memory and Language 65:345–62.Google Scholar
Tian, X. & Poeppel, D. (2010) Mental imagery of speech and movement implicates the dynamics of internal forward models. Frontiers in Psychology 1:166.Google Scholar
Tourville, J. A., Reily, K. J. & Guenther, F. K. (2008) Neural mechanisms underlying auditory feedback control of speech. NeuroImage 39:1429–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed