How Special Is Language Production? Perspectives From Monitoring and Control

Prediction during language comprehension: what is next?

Prediction is often regarded as an integral aspect of incremental language comprehension, but little is known about the cognitive architectures and mechanisms that support it. We review studies showing that listeners and readers use all manner of contextual information to generate multifaceted predictions about upcoming input. The nature of these predictions may vary between individuals owing to differences in language experience, among other factors. We then turn to unresolved questions which may guide the search for the underlying mechanisms. (i) Is prediction essential to language processing or an optional strategy? (ii) Are predictions generated from within the language system or by domain-general processes? (iii) What is the relationship between prediction and memory? (iv) Does prediction in comprehension require simulation via the production system? We discuss promising directions for making progress in answering these questions and for developing a mechanistic understanding of prediction in language.

Role of cognitive control in resolving two types of conflict during spoken word production

A theoretically- and clinically-important issue for understanding word retrieval is how speakers resolve conflict during linguistic tasks. This study investigated two types of conflict resolution: prepotent conflict, when one dominant incorrect response must be suppressed; and underdetermined conflict, when multiple reasonable responses compete. The congruency sequence effect paradigm was used to assess trial-to-trial changes in reaction time and accuracy during word production tasks with either prepotent or underdetermined conflict. Pictures were named faster on trials with low-conflict as compared to high-conflict regardless of conflict type. This effect was modulated by the amount of conflict experienced on the previous trial for both tasks. These results suggest that resolution of underdetermined and prepotent conflict may engage the same general cognitive mechanism. This work expands our understanding of the relationship between cognitive control and word production and can inform clinical approaches for people with anomia.

Lexicality-Modulated Influence of Auditory Cortex on Subthalamic Nucleus During Motor Planning for Speech

Speech requires successful information transfer within cortical-basal ganglia loop circuits to produce the desired acoustic output. For this reason, up to 90% of Parkinson's disease patients experience impairments of speech articulation. Deep brain stimulation (DBS) is highly effective in controlling the symptoms of Parkinson's disease, sometimes alongside speech improvement, but subthalamic nucleus (STN) DBS can also lead to decreases in semantic and phonological fluency. This paradox demands better understanding of the interactions between the cortical speech network and the STN, which can be investigated with intracranial EEG recordings collected during DBS implantation surgery. We analyzed the propagation of high-gamma activity between STN, superior temporal gyrus (STG), and ventral sensorimotor cortices during reading aloud via event-related causality, a method that estimates strengths and directionalities of neural activity propagation. We employed a newly developed bivariate smoothing model based on a two-dimensional moving average, which is optimal for reducing random noise while retaining a sharp step response, to ensure precise embedding of statistical significance in the time-frequency space. Sustained and reciprocal neural interactions between STN and ventral sensorimotor cortex were observed. Moreover, high-gamma activity propagated from the STG to the STN prior to speech onset. The strength of this influence was affected by the lexical status of the utterance, with increased activity propagation during word versus pseudoword reading. These unique data suggest a potential role for the STN in the feedforward control of speech.

A Comprehension- or a Production-Based Monitor? Response to Roelofs (2020)

Roelofs (2020) has put forth a rebuttal of the criticisms raised against comprehension-based monitoring and has also raised a number of objections against production-based monitors. In this response, I clarify that the model defended by Roelofs is not a comprehension-based monitor, but belongs to a class of monitoring models which I refer to as production-perception models. I review comprehension-based and production-perception models, highlight the strength of each, and point out the differences between them. I then discuss the limitations of both for monitoring production at higher levels, which has been the motivation for production-based monitors. Next, I address the specific criticisms raised by Roelofs (2020) in light of the current evidence. I end by presenting several lines of arguments that preclude a single monitoring mechanism as meeting all the demands of monitoring in a task as complex as communication. A more fruitful avenue is perhaps to focus on what theories are compatible with the nature of representations at specific levels of the production system and with specific aims of monitoring in language production.

To select or to wait? Response to the commentaries

In [Nozari, N., & Hepner, C. R. (2018). To select or to wait? The importance of criterion setting in debates of competitive lexical selection. Cognitive Neuropsychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/02643294.2018.1476335], we proposed a theoretical framework for reconciling two seemingly irreconcilable theories of lexical selection: competitive vs. non-competitive selection. The key point in this framework is the division of language production into two separate-albeit interacting-systems: a decision-making framework and a multi-layered system which maps meaning to sound. Technically, this can be accomplished by superimposing a signal detection model onto the distributions of conflict derived from the core dynamics of mapping semantic features to lexical representations. Based on this framework, we argued that a flexible selection criterion could accommodate patterns predicted by both competitive and non-competitive models of lexical selection. Five excellent commentaries posed various questions regarding the necessity, applicability, and scope of the proposed framework. This paper addresses those questions.

Cognitive Control Facilitates Attentional Disengagement during Second Language Comprehension

Bilinguals learn to resolve conflict between their two languages and that skill has been hypothesized to create long-term adaptive changes in cognitive functioning. Yet, little is known about how bilinguals recruit cognitive control to enable efficient use of one of their languages, especially in the less skilled and more effortful second language (L2). Here we examined how real-time cognitive control engagement influences L2 sentence comprehension (i.e., conflict adaptation). We tested a group of English monolinguals and a group of L2 English speakers using a recently-developed cross-task adaptation paradigm. Stroop sequences were pseudo-randomly interleaved with a visual-world paradigm in which participants were asked to carry out spoken instructions that were either syntactically ambiguous or unambiguous. Consistent with previous research, eye-movement results showed that Stroop-related conflict improved the ability to engage correct-goal interpretations, and disengage incorrect-goal interpretations, during ambiguous instructions. Such cognitive-to-language modulations were similar in both groups, but only in the engagement piece. In the disengagement portion, the modulation emerged earlier in bilinguals than in monolinguals, suggesting group differences in attentional disengagement following cognitive control recruitment. Additionally, incorrect-goal eye-movements were modulated by individual differences in working memory, although differently for each group, suggesting an involvement of both language-specific and domain-general resources.