Effects in production of word pre-activation during listening: Are listener-generated predictions specified at a speech-sound level?

The Effects of Semantic and Syntactic Prediction on Reading Aloud

Semantic and syntactic prediction effects were investigated in a word naming task using semantic or syntactic contexts that varied between three and six words. Participants were asked to read the contexts silently and name a target word, which was indicated by a color change. Semantic contexts were composed of lists of semantically associated words without any syntactic information. Syntactic contexts were composed of semantically neutral sentences, in which the grammatical category but not the lexical identity of the final word was highly predictable. When the presentation time of the context words was long (1,200 ms), both semantically and syntactically related contexts facilitated reading aloud latencies of target words and syntactically related contexts produced larger priming effects than semantically related contexts in two out of three analyses. When the presentation time was short (200 ms), however, syntactic context effects disappeared, while semantic context effects remained significant. Across the three experiments, longer contexts produced faster response latencies, but longer contexts did not produce larger priming effects. The results are discussed in the context of the extant literature on semantic and syntactic priming and more recent evidence, suggesting that syntactic information constrains single word recognition.

Cognitive control of action naming in adults who stutter

PURPOSE

Based on previous evidence that cognitive control of lexical selection in object (noun) naming operates differently in adults who stutter (AWS) versus typically-fluent adults (TFA), the aim was to investigate cognitive control of lexical selection in action (verb) naming in AWS.

METHOD

12 AWS and 12 TFA named line drawings depicting actions using verbs. Half of the pictures had high-agreement action names and the other half low-agreement action names. Naming accuracy and reaction times (RT), and event-related potentials (ERPs) time-locked to picture onset, were compared between groups.

RESULTS

Naming RTs were slower for low- versus high-agreement trials, and the magnitude of this effect was larger in AWS versus TFA. Delta-plot analysis of naming RTs revealed that individual differences in selective inhibition were associated with the agreement effect on naming RTs in AWS but not TFA. Action naming elicited frontal-central N2 activity in both agreement conditions in TFA but not AWS. Additionally, a later, posterior P3b component was affected by agreement in TFA only. In AWS, low-agreement action naming elicited frontal P3a activation.

CONCLUSIONS

Results suggest that cognitive control of action name selection was qualitatively different between groups. In TFA, cognitive control of lexical selection in action naming involved nonselective inhibition, as well as more efficient working memory updating on high- versus low-agreement trials. In AWS, cognitive control of low-agreement action naming involved increased focal attention. Individual differences in selective inhibition may have moderated cognitive control of action naming in AWS.

Characterizing spoken responses in masked-onset priming of reading aloud using articulography

A key method for studying articulatory planning at different levels of phonological organization is masked-onset priming. In previous work using that paradigm the dependent variable has been acoustic response time (RT). We used electromagnetic articulography to measure articulatory RTs and the articulatory properties of speech gestures in non-word production in a masked-onset priming experiment. Initiation of articulation preceded acoustic response onset by 199 ms, but the acoustic lag varied by up to 63 ms, depending on the phonological structure of the target. Onset priming affected articulatory response latency, but had no effect on gestural duration, inter-gestural coordination, or articulatory velocity. This is consistent with an account of the masked-onset priming effect in which the computation from orthography of an abstract phonological representation of the target is initiated earlier in the primed than in the unprimed condition. We discuss the implications of these findings for models of speech production and the scope of articulatory planning and execution.

Inhibitory Control of Lexical Selection in Adults who Stutter

PURPOSE

Based on previous evidence that lexical selection may operate differently in adults who stutter (AWS) versus typically-fluent adults (TFA), and that atypical attentional processing may be a contributing factor, the purpose of this study was to investigate inhibitory control of lexical selection in AWS.

METHOD

12 AWS and 12 TFA completed two tasks. One was a picture naming task featuring High and Low Agreement object naming. Naming accuracy and reaction times (RT), and event-related potentials (ERPs) time-locked to picture onset, were recorded. Second was a flanker task featuring Congruent and Incongruent arrow arrays. Push-button accuracy and RTs, and ERPs time-locked to arrow array onset, were recorded.

RESULTS

Low Agreement pictures were named less accurately and slower than High Agreement pictures in both Groups. The magnitude of the Agreement effect on naming RTs was larger in AWS versus TFA. Delta-plot analysis revealed that the Agreement effect was positively correlated with individual differences in inhibition in TFA but not in AWS. Moreover, Low Agreement pictures elicited negative-going ERP activity relative to High Agreement pictures in both Groups. However, the scalp topography of this effect was markedly reduced in AWS versus TFA. For the Flanker task, Congruency affected push-button accuracy and RTs, and N2 amplitudes, similarly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Results point to a selective deficit in inhibitory control of lexical selection in AWS. Potential pathways between diminished inhibitory control of lexical selection, speech motor control and stuttering are discussed.

How a question context aids word production: Evidence from the picture–word interference paradigm

Difficulties in saying the right word at the right time arise at least in part because multiple response candidates are simultaneously activated in the speaker’s mind. The word selection process has been simulated using the picture–word interference task, in which participants name pictures while ignoring a superimposed written distractor word. However, words are usually produced in context, in the service of achieving a communicative goal. Two experiments addressed the questions whether context influences word production, and if so, how. We embedded the picture–word interference task in a dialogue-like setting, in which participants heard a question and named a picture as an answer to the question while ignoring a superimposed distractor word. The conversational context was either constraining or nonconstraining towards the answer. Manipulating the relationship between the picture name and the distractor, we focused on two core processes of word production: retrieval of semantic representations (Experiment 1) and phonological encoding (Experiment 2). The results of both experiments showed that naming reaction times (RTs) were shorter when preceded by constraining contexts as compared with nonconstraining contexts. Critically, constraining contexts decreased the effect of semantically related distractors but not the effect of phonologically related distractors. This suggests that conversational contexts can help speakers with aspects of the meaning of to-be-produced words, but phonological encoding processes still need to be performed as usual.

The influence of lexical selection disruptions on articulation

Interactive models of language production predict that it should be possible to observe long-distance interactions; effects that arise at one level of processing influence multiple subsequent stages of representation and processing. We examine the hypothesis that disruptions arising in nonform-based levels of planning-specifically, lexical selection-should modulate articulatory processing. A novel automatic phonetic analysis method was used to examine productions in a paradigm yielding both general disruptions to formulation processes and, more specifically, overt errors during lexical selection. This analysis method allowed us to examine articulatory disruptions at multiple levels of analysis, from whole words to individual segments. Baseline performance by young adults was contrasted with young speakers' performance under time pressure (which previous work has argued increases interaction between planning and articulation) and performance by older adults (who may have difficulties inhibiting nontarget representations, leading to heightened interactive effects). The results revealed the presence of interactive effects. Our new analysis techniques revealed these effects were strongest in initial portions of responses, suggesting that speech is initiated as soon as the first segment has been planned. Interactive effects did not increase under response pressure, suggesting interaction between planning and articulation is relatively fixed. Unexpectedly, lexical selection disruptions appeared to yield some degree of facilitation in articulatory processing (possibly reflecting semantic facilitation of target retrieval) and older adults showed weaker, not stronger interactive effects (possibly reflecting weakened connections between lexical and form-level representations). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Phonological versus semantic prediction in focus and repair constructions: No evidence for differential predictions

Evidence suggests that the language processing system is predictive. Although past research has established prediction as a general tendency, it is not yet clear whether comprehenders can modulate their anticipatory strategies in response to cues based on sentence constructions. In two visual world eye-tracking experiments, we investigated whether focus constructions (not the hammer but rather the …) and repair disfluencies (the hammer uh I mean the …) would lead listeners to generate different patterns of predictions. In three offline tasks, we observed that participants preferred semantically related continuations (hammer - nail) following focus constructions and phonologically related continuations (hammer - hammock) following disfluencies. However, these offline preferences were not evident in participants' predictive eye-movements during online language processing: Semantically related (nail) and phonologically related words (hammock) received additional predictive looks regardless of whether the target word appeared in a disfluency or in a focus construction. However, significantly less semantic and phonological activation was observed in two "control" linguistic contexts in which predictive processing was discouraged. These findings suggest that although the prediction system is sensitive to sentence construction, is it not flexible enough to alter the type of prediction generated based on preceding context.

When Wine and Apple Both Help the Production of Grapes: ERP Evidence for Post-lexical Semantic Facilitation in Picture Naming

Background: Producing a word in referential naming requires to select the right word in our mental lexicon among co-activated semantically related words. The mechanisms underlying semantic context effects during speech planning are still controversial, particularly for semantic facilitation which investigation remains under-represented in contrast to the plethora of studies dealing with interference. Our aim is to study the time-course of semantic facilitation in picture naming, using a picture-word "interference" paradigm and event-related potentials (ERPs). Methods: We compared two different types of semantic relationships, associative and categorical, in a single word priming and a double word priming paradigm. The primes were presented visually with a long negative Stimulus Onset Asynchrony (SOA), which is expected to cause facilitation. Results: Shorter naming latencies were observed after both associative and categorical primes, as compared to unrelated primes, and even shorter latencies after two primes. Electrophysiological results showed relatively late modulations of waveform amplitudes for both types of primes (beginning ~330 ms post picture onset with a single prime and ~275 ms post picture onset with two primes), corresponding to a shift in latency of similar topographic maps across conditions. Conclusion: The present results are in favor of a post-lexical locus of semantic facilitation for associative and categorical priming in picture naming and confirm that semantic facilitation is as relevant as semantic interference to inform on word production. The post-lexical locus argued here might be related to self-monitoting or/and to modulations at the level of word-form planning, without excluding the participation of strategic processes.

Prediction is Production: The missing link between language production and comprehension

Language comprehension often involves the generation of predictions. It has been hypothesized that such prediction-for-comprehension entails actual language production. Recent studies provided evidence that the production system is recruited during language comprehension, but the link between production and prediction during comprehension remains hypothetical. Here, we tested this hypothesis by comparing prediction during sentence comprehension (primary task) in participants having the production system either available or not (non-verbal versus verbal secondary task). In the primary task, sentences containing an expected or unexpected target noun-phrase were presented during electroencephalography recording. Prediction, measured as the magnitude of the N400 effect elicited by the article (expected versus unexpected), was hindered only when the production system was taxed during sentence context reading. The present study provides the first direct evidence that the availability of the speech production system is necessary for generating lexical prediction during sentence comprehension. Furthermore, these important results provide an explanation for the recruitment of language production during comprehension.

Four central questions about prediction in language processing

The notion that prediction is a fundamental principle of human information processing has been en vogue over recent years. The investigation of language processing may be particularly illuminating for testing this claim. Linguists traditionally have argued prediction plays only a minor role during language understanding because of the vast possibilities available to the language user as each word is encountered. In the present review I consider four central questions of anticipatory language processing: Why (i.e. what is the function of prediction in language processing)? What (i.e. what are the cues used to predict up-coming linguistic information and what type of representations are predicted)? How (what mechanisms are involved in predictive language processing and what is the role of possible mediating factors such as working memory)? When (i.e. do individuals always predict up-coming input during language processing)? I propose that prediction occurs via a set of diverse PACS (production-, association-, combinatorial-, and simulation-based prediction) mechanisms which are minimally required for a comprehensive account of predictive language processing. Models of anticipatory language processing must be revised to take multiple mechanisms, mediating factors, and situational context into account. Finally, I conjecture that the evidence considered here is consistent with the notion that prediction is an important aspect but not a fundamental principle of language processing. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled SI: Prediction and Attention.