Detection of errors during speech production: a review of speech monitoring models.
Abstract
In this paper three theories of speech monitoring are evaluated. The perception-based approach proposes that the same mechanism employed in understanding other-produced language, the speech comprehension system, is also used to monitor one's own speech production. A conceptual, an inner, and an auditory loop convey information to a central, conscious monitor which scrutinizes the adequacy of the ongoing speech flow. In this model, only the end-products in the speech production sequences, the preverbal (propositional) message, the phonetic plan, and the auditory results, are verified. The production-based account assumes multiple local, autonomous monitoring devices, which can look inside formulation components. Moreover, these devices might be tuned to various signals from the actual speech motor execution, e.g. efferent, tactile, and proprioceptive feedback. Finally, node structure theory views error detection as a natural outflow of the activation patterns in the node system for speech production. Errors result in prolonged activation of uncommitted nodes, which in turn may incite error awareness. The approaches differ on the points of consciousness, volition and control, the number of monitoring channels, and their speed, flexibility, and capacity, and whether they can account for concurrent language comprehension disorders. From the empirical evidence presently available, it is argued for a central perception-based monitor, potentially augmented with a few automatic, prod…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Predictive control has been successfully implemented in speech motor control.
“Predictive control has been successfully implemented in speech motor control (e.g., Postma, 2000; Guenther et al., 2006; Houde and Nagarajan, 2011).”
From The ConDialInt Model: Condensation, Dialogality, and Intentionality Dimensions of Inner Speech Within a Hierarchical Predictive Control Framework (2019) · cites this paper as Postma, 2000
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 121 · Cited by 469
- Authors
- Postma, A.
- Affiliations
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Postma, Albert
- ORCID
- Postma, Albert
- Venue
- Cognition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2000-11
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 97-132
- ISSN
- 0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1970539221
- Cited by
- 469
- References
- 121
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 28 · 2012: 19
- FWCI
- 4.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Cognition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Keywords
- speech monitoring, error detection, speech production, speech understanding, error awareness, auditory feedback, proprioceptive feedback, tactile feedback, volition
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Language Development, Models, Psychological, Phonetics, Speech, Speech Intelligibility, Speech Perception
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