Cited by 61Phonetics and Phonology ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy Development

Lexical bias revisited: detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech.

Nooteboom, Sieb G.·2005·Speech Communication

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.specom.2005.02.003

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nooteboom, S. G.
Affiliations
Utrecht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Nooteboom, Sieb G.
Venue
Speech Communication
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-09
Volume
47
Issue
1-2
Pages
43-58
ISSN
0167-6393 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2037384542
Cited by
61
References
38
Citations by year
2024: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Speech Communication (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
lexical bias, inner speech, phonological errors, spoonerisms, self-interruption, error repair, self-monitoring, phonetic distance, error detection, overt speech

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