CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 216Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismPhonetics and Phonology ResearchSocial Representations and Identity

Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect

Open access
Oppenheim, Gary M., Dell, Gary S.·2008·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.006PMC PMC2435259
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Inner speech, that little voice that people often hear inside their heads while thinking, is a form of mental imagery. The properties of inner speech errors can be used to investigate the nature of inner speech, just as overt slips are informative about overt speech production. Overt slips tend to create words (lexical bias) and involve similar exchanging phonemes (phonemic similarity effect). We examined these effects in inner and overt speech via a tongue-twister recitation task. While lexical bias was present in both inner and overt speech errors, the phonemic similarity effect was evident only for overt errors, producing a significant overtness by similarity interaction. We propose that inner speech is impoverished at lower (featural) levels, but robust at higher (phonemic) levels.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.006

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other studies have reported evidence suggesting that inner speech has impoverished acoustic properties relative to overt speech.

    “However, other studies have reported evidence suggesting that inner speech has impoverished acoustic properties relative to overt speech (Oppenheim and Dell, 2008).”

    From Neurophysiological evidence of efference copies to inner speech (2017) · cites this paper as Oppenheim and Dell, 2008

  • In overt speech, errors occurred reflecting both lexical bias and phonemic similarity effects, but in inner speech only lexical bias was reported.

    “While in overt speech errors occurred reflecting both lexical bias (the tendency to produce a real word rather than a nonword), and phonemic similarity effects (such as substituting reef and leaf), in inner speech only the former were reported.”

    From Inner Speech: Development, Cognitive Functions, Phenomenology, and Neurobiology (2015) · cites this paper as Oppenheim and Dell (2008)

  • The total number of slips reported in inner speech remained comparable to the number that occurs in outer speech.

    “While the phonemic bias was not found, the total number of slips reported in inner speech remained comparable to the number that occurs in outer speech (p.534).”

    From Inner Speech and Metacognition: In Search of a Connection (2014) · cites this paper as Oppenheim & Dell, 2008

  • Oppenheim and Dell (2008) found that the lexical bias was replicated in inner speech, but not the phonetic bias.

    “They found that the lexical bias was replicated in inner speech, but not the phonetic bias, and concluded that such findings 'are contrary to the hypothesis that inner speech is the product of an articulatory/acoustic system with no contact with lexical information' (p.534).”

    From Inner Speech and Metacognition: In Search of a Connection (2014) · cites this paper as Oppenheim & Dell, 2008

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 43 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Dell GS. Slips of the mind. In: Paradis M, editor. The fourth LACUS forum. Columbia, S.C.: Hornbeam Press; 1978. pp. 69–75. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hartsuiker RJ, Kolk HHJ. Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cognitive Psychology. 2001;42(2):113–157. doi: 10.1006/cogp.2000.0744. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  3. Hotopf WHN. Semantic similarity as a factor in whole-word slips of the tongue. In: Fromkin VA, editor. Errors in linguistic performance: Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand. New York: Academic Press; 1980. pp. 97–109. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Oppenheim, G. M., & Dell, G. S.
Affiliations
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Oppenheim, Gary M.
ORCID
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-01
Volume
106
Issue
1
Pages
528-537
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.006
PMC
PMC2435259
OpenAlex
W2155686235
Cited by
216
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R01DC006948, R01DC000191, DC-00191, K23DC000191, F32DC000191, DC 006948)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD-44458, R01HD044458)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Representations and Identity
Keywords
inner speech, mental imagery, speech errors, lexical bias, phonological representation
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Imagination, Male, Phonetics, Semantics, Speech, Thinking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review