Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6c7dr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T03:25:46.779Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are forward models enough to explain self-monitoring? Insights from patients and eye movements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2013

Robert J. Hartsuiker
Robert J. Hartsuiker*
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium. robert.hartsuiker@ugent.be http://users.ugent.be/~rhartsui/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

At the core of Pickering & Garrod's (P&G's) theory is a monitor that uses forward models. I argue that this account is challenged by neuropsychological findings and visual world eye-tracking data and that it has two conceptual problems. I propose that conflict monitoring avoids these issues and should be considered a promising alternative to perceptual loop and forward modeling theories.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 357 - 358
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Botvinick, M. M., Braver, T. S., Barch, D. M., Carter, C. S. & Cohen, J. D. (2001) Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychological Review 108:624–52.Google Scholar
Hartsuiker, R. J. & Kolk, H. H. J. (2001) Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the Perceptual Loop Theory. Cognitive Psychology 42:11357.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartsuiker, R. J. & Notebaert, L. (2010) Lexical access problems lead to disfluencies in speech. Experimental Psychology 57:169–77.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
Huettig, F. & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010) Listening to yourself is like listening to others: External, but not internal, verbal self-monitoring is based on speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes 25:347–74.Google Scholar
Huettig, F. & McQueen, J. M. (2007) The tug of war between phonological, semantic and shape information in language-mediated visual search. Journal of Memory and Language 57:460–82.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) Speaking: From intention to articulation. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, R. C., Rappaport, B. Z. & Garcia-Bunuel, L. (1985) Self-monitoring behavior in a case of severe auditory agnosia with aphasia. Brain and Language 24:297–313.Google Scholar
Mattson, M. & Baars, B. J. (1992) Error-minimizing mechanisms: Boosting or editing? In Experimental slips and human error: Exploring the architecture of volition, ed. Baars, B. J., pp. 263–87. Plenum.Google Scholar
Nozari, N., Dell, G. S. & Schwartz, M. F. (2011) Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cognitive Psychology 63(1):1–33. DOI:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.05.001.Google Scholar
Oomen, C. C. E., Postma, A. & Kolk, H. H. J. (2005) Speech monitoring in aphasia: Error detection and repair behaviour in a patient with Broca's aphasia. In: Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech, ed. Hartsuiker, R., Bastiaanse, R., Postma, A. & Wijnen, F., pp. 209–25. Psychology Press.Google Scholar