Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T21:10:08.292Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Individual differences in the scope of speech planning: evidence from eye-movements*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Grand Valley State University
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook University
Address for correspondence: Benjamin Swets, Psychology Department, 2224 Au Sable Hall, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, MI, 49401. tel: 616-331-2169; e-mail:


Previous research has demonstrated that the scope of speakers’ planning in language production varies in response to external forces such as time pressure. This susceptibility to external pressures indicates a flexibly incremental production system: speakers plan utterances piece by piece, but external pressures affect the size of the pieces speakers buffer. In the current study, we explore internal constraints on speech planning. Specifically, we examine whether individual differences in working memory predict the scope and efficiency of advance planning. In our task, speakers described picture arrays to partners in a matching game. The arrays sometimes required speakers to note a contrast between a sentence-initial object (e.g., a four-legged cat) and a sentence-final object (e.g., a three-legged cat). Based on prior screening, we selected participants who differed on verbal working memory span. Eye-movement measures revealed that high-span speakers were more likely to gaze at the contrasting pictures prior to articulation than were low-span speakers. As a result, high-span speakers were also more likely to reference the contrast early in speech. We conclude that working memory plays a substantial role in the flexibility of incremental speech planning.

Research Article
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

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.)



We thank Bill Wenzel for his significant contributions to the collection and analysis of data. We also thank two anonymous reviewers. Matthew E. Jacovina is now a Postdoctoral Fellow at the School of Education and Social Policy, and the Department of Psychology at Northwestern University.



Allum, P. H., & Wheeldon, L. R. (2007). Planning scope in spoken sentence production: the role of grammatical units. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 791810.Google ScholarPubMed
Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bates, D., Maechler, M., & Bolker, B. (2012). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. Online: <>..>Google Scholar
Bock, J. K., & Levelt, W. J. M. (1994). Language production: grammatical encoding. In Gernsbacher, M. A. (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 945984). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brown-Schmidt, S., & Konopka, A. E. (2008). Little houses and casas pequeñas: message formulation and syntactic form in unscripted speech with speakers of English and Spanish. Cognition, 109, 274280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown-Schmidt, S., & Tanenhaus, M. (2006). Watching the eyes when talking about size: an investigation of message formulation and utterance planning. Journal of Memory and Language, 54, 592609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conway, A. R. A., Kane, M. J., Bunting, M. F., Hambrick, D., Wilhelm, O., & Engle, R. W. (2005). Working memory span tasks: a methodological review and user’s guide. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 769786.Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Caramazza, A. (2002). The production of noun phrases in English and Spanish: implications for the scope of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 178198.Google Scholar
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: a reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87114.Google Scholar
Damian, M. F., & Dumay, N. (2007). Time pressure and phonological advance planning in spoken production. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 195209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 19, 450466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2002). How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory & Language, 46, 5784.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2005). The production and comprehension of resumptive pronouns in relative clause ‘island’ contexts. In Cutler, A. (Ed.), Twenty-first century psycholinguistics: four cornerstones (pp. 263278). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
Ford, M., & Holmes, V. M. (1978). Planning units and syntax in sentence production. Cognition, 6, 3553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, S., Petrone, C., Krivokapic, J., & Hoole, P. (2013). Acoustic and respiratory evidence for utterance planning in German. Journal of Phonetics, 41, 2947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrod, S., & Pickering, M. J. (2007). Automaticity of language production in monologue and dialogue. In Meyer, A. S., Wheeldon, L. R., & Krott, A. (Eds.), Automaticity and control in language processing (pp. 120). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M. (2001). Gaze durations during speech reflect word selection and phonological encoding. Cognition, 82, B1B14.Google Scholar
Griffin, Z. M., & Bock, K. (2000). What the eyes say about speaking. Psychological Science, 11, 274279.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J., & Barkhuysen, P. N. (2006). Language production and working memory: the case of subject−verb agreement. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21, 181204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitz, R. P., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Focusing the spotlight: individual differences in visual attention control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 217240.Google Scholar
Heitz, R. P., Schrock, J. C., Payne, T. W., & Engle, R. W. (2008). Effects of incentive on working memory capacity: behavioral and pupillometric data. Psychophysiology, 45, 119129.Google Scholar
Horton, W. S., & Spieler, D. H. (2007). Age-related differences in communication and audience design. Psychology and Aging, 22, 281290.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434446.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G. (1989). Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a ‘standard maximum’ silence of approximately one second in conversation. In Roger, D. & Bull, P. (Eds.), Conversation: an interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 166196). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122149.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Conway, A. R. A., Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2007). Variation in working memory capacity as variation in executive attention and control. In Conway, A. R. A.Jarrold, C.Kane, M. J.Miyake, A., and Towse, J. N. (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 2148). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kane, M. J., Hambrick, D. Z., Tuholski, S. W., Wilhelm, O., Payne, T. W. & Engle, R. W. (2004). The generality of working memory capacity: a latent-variable approach to verbal and visuospatial memory span and reasoning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 189217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kellogg, R. T., Oliver, T. & Piolat, A. (2007). Verbal, visual, and spatial working memory in written language production. Acta Psychologica, 124, 382397.Google Scholar
Kempen, G., & Hoenkamp, E. (1987). An incremental procedural grammar for sentence formulation. Cognitive Science, 11, 201258.Google Scholar
Kemper, S., Herman, R. E., & Lian, C. H. T. (2003). The costs of doing two things at once for young and older adults: talking while walking, finger tapping, and ignoring speech or noise. Psychology and Aging, 18, 181192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemper, S., & Sumner, A. (2001). The structure of verbal abilities in young and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 16, 312322.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konopka, A. E., & Meyer, A. S. (2010). Looking ahead: variability in planning scope for complex noun phrases − evidence from eye-tracking [Abstract]. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing [AMLaP 2010]. York: University of York. Online: <>.Google Scholar
Korvorst, M., Roelofs, A. & Levelt, W. J. M. (2006). Incrementality in naming and reading complex numerals: evidence from eyetracking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 296311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M., & Meyer, A. (2000). Word for word: multiple lexical access in speech production. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12, 433452.Google Scholar
Lewis, R. L., Vasishth, S. & van Dyke, J. A. (2006). Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences, 10, 447454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McElree, B. (2006). Accessing recent events. In Ross, B. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, vol. 3 (pp. 155200). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meyer, A. S. (1996). Lexical access in phrase and sentence production: results from picture−word interference experiments. Journal of Memory & Language, 35, 477496.Google Scholar
Mortensen, L., Meyer, A. S., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Speech planning during multiple-object naming: effects of ageing. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 12171238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrone, C., Fuchs, S., & Krivokapić, J. (2011). Consequences of working memory differences and phrasal length on pause duration and fundamental frequency. Paper presented at the 9th International Seminar on Speech Production (ISSP), Montréal, Canada. Online: <∼jk736/petrone_fuchs_krivokapic_ISSP_2011.pdf>..>Google Scholar
Power, M. J. (1985). Sentence production and working memory. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A: Human Experimental Psychology, 37A, 367385.Google Scholar
Rossion, B., & Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object pictorial set: the role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition. Perception, 33, 217236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salthouse, T. A. (1994). The aging of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8, 535543.Google Scholar
Schriefers, H., & Teruel, E. (1999). Phonological facilitation in the production of two-word utterances. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 11, 1750.Google Scholar
Slevc, L. R. (2007). Saying what’s on your mind: working memory effects on syntactic production. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of California, San Diego.Google Scholar
Slevc, L. R. (2011). Saying what’s on your mind: working memory effects on sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 15031514.Google Scholar
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (1999). High level processing scope in spoken sentence production. Cognition, 73, 205246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, M., & Wheeldon, L. (2001). Syntactic priming in spoken sentence production: an online study. Cognition, 78, 123164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swets, B., Desmet, T., Hambrick, D. Z., & Ferreira, F. (2007). The role of working memory in syntactic ambiguity resolution: a psychometric approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 6481.Google Scholar
Swets, B., Jacovina, M. E., & Gerrig, R. J. (2013). Effects of conversational pressures on speech planning. Discourse Processes, 50, 2351.Google Scholar
Turner, M. L., & Engle, R. W. (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127154.Google Scholar
Wagner, V., Jescheniak, J. D., & Schriefers, H. (2010). On the flexibility of grammatical advance planning during sentence production: effects of cognitive load on multiple lexical access. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 423440.Google Scholar