Article

The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn’t fly: Related beply to Baars et al. (1975)

Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Henri Dunantlaan 2, 9000 Ghent, Belgium; University of Edinburgh, UK; University of Antwerp, Belgium
Journal of Memory and Language 01/2005; DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2004.07.006

ABSTRACT The lexical bias effect is the tendency for phonological speech errors to result in words more often than in nonwords. This effect has been accounted for by postulating feedback from sublexical to lexical representations, but also by assuming that the self-monitor covertly repairs more nonword errors than word errors. The only evidence that appears to exclusively support a monitoring account is Baars, Motley, and MacKay’s (1975) demonstration that the lexical bias is modulated by context: There was lexical bias in a mixed context of words and nonwords, but not in a pure nonword context. However, there are methodological problems with that experiment and theoretical problems with its interpretation. Additionally, a recent study failed to replicate contextual modulation (Humphreys, 2002). We therefore conducted two production experiments that solved the methodological problems. Both experiments showed there is indeed contextual modulation of the lexical bias effect. A control perception experiment excluded the possibility that the comprehension component of the task contributed to the results. In contrast to Baars et al., the production experiments suggested that lexical errors are suppressed in a nonword context. This supports a new account by which there is both feedback and self-monitoring, but in which the self-monitor sets its criteria adaptively as a function of context.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
27 Views
  • Douleurs Evaluation - Diagnostic - Traitement 01/2011; 12(4):163-164.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In most collections of segmental speech errors, exchanges are less frequent than anticipations and perseverations. However, it has been suggested that in inner speech exchanges might be more frequent than either anticipations or perseverations, because many half-way repaired errors (Yew…uhh..New York) are classified as repaired anticipations, but may equally well be half-way repaired exchanges. In this paper it is demonstrated for experimentally elicited speech errors that indeed in inner speech exchanges are more frequent than anticipations and perseverations. The predominance of exchanges can be explained by assuming a mechanism of planning and serial ordering segments during the generation of speech that is qualitatively similar to the scan-copier model proposed by Shattuck-Hufnagel (Sublexical units and suprasegmental structure in speech production planning. In P.F. MacNeilage (Ed.), The production of speech (pp. 109–136). New York: Springer).
    Journal of Memory and Language 01/2013; 68(1):26–38. · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study used functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate brain processes associated with the inhibition of socially undesirable speech. It is tested whether the inhibition of undesirable speech is solely related to brain areas associated with classical stop signal tasks or rather also involves brain areas involved in endogenous self-control. During the experiment, subjects had to do a SLIP task, which was designed to elicit taboo or neutral spoonerisms. Here we show that the internal inhibition of taboo words activates the right inferior frontal gyrus, an area that has previously been associated with externally triggered inhibition. This finding strongly suggests that external social rules become internalized and act as a stop-signal.
    Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 05/2011; 7(4):431-5. · 5.04 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
72 Downloads
Available from
May 28, 2014