ArticleJournal of cognition2020
Self-Monitoring in Speaking: In Defense of a Comprehension-Based Account.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ctrl + Alt + Inner Speech: A Verbal-Cognitive Scaffold (VCS) Model of Pathways to Computational Thinking.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
- Behavioral-Based Sorting of Single-Trial EEG Data Reveals Evidence for ERP Correlates of Facilitation and Interference in the Picture-Word Interference Task.Psychophysiology · 2025Article
- Predictive language processing: integrating comprehension and production, and what atypical populations can tell us.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Review
- Inner speech and the body error theory.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Inner speech in the daily lives of people with aphasia.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Cortico-Cerebellar Monitoring of Speech Sequence Production.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- The coproduction of a multilevel personal narrative intervention for people with aphasia in a community communication support group-A pilot study.Frontiers in stroke · 2024Article
- Listening to Yourself and Watching Your Tongue: Distinct Abilities and Brain Regions for Monitoring Semantic and Phonological Speech Errors.Journal of cognitive neuroscience · 2023Article
- Structural disconnection of the posterior medial frontal cortex reduces speech error monitoring.NeuroImage. Clinical · 2022Article
- Comprehension exposures to words in sentence contexts impact spoken word production.Memory & cognition · 2022Article
- Intellectual awareness of naming abilities in people with chronic post-stroke aphasia.Neuropsychologia · 2021Article
- Cerebellar and Cortical Correlates of Internal and External Speech Error Monitoring.Cerebral cortex communications · 2021Article
- On (Correctly Representing) Comprehension-Based Monitoring in Speaking: Rejoinder to Nozari (2020).Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- Self-Monitoring in Speech Production: Comprehending the Conflict Between Conflict- and Comprehension-Based Accounts.Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- A Comprehension- or a Production-Based Monitor? Response to Roelofs (2020).Journal of cognition · 2020Article
- Naming as a window to word retrieval changes in healthy and pathological ageing: Methodological considerations.International journal of language & communication disordersReview
- The role of the left posterior temporal cortex in speech monitoring.Cognitive neuropsychologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Speakers occasionally make speech errors, which may be detected and corrected. According to the comprehension-based account proposed by Levelt, Roelofs, and Meyer (1999) and Roelofs (2004), speakers detect errors by using their speech comprehension system for the monitoring of overt as well as inner speech. According to the production-based account of Nozari, Dell, and Schwartz (2011), speakers may use their comprehension system for external monitoring but error detection in internal monitoring is based on the amount of conflict within the speech production system, assessed by the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). Here, I address three main arguments of Nozari et al. and Nozari and Novick (2017) against a comprehension-based account of internal monitoring, which concern cross-talk interference between inner and overt speech, a double dissociation between comprehension and self-monitoring ability in patients with aphasia, and a domain-general error-related negativity in the ACC that is allegedly independent of conscious awareness. I argue that none of the arguments are conclusive, and conclude that comprehension-based monitoring remains a viable account of self-monitoring in speaking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.