Cited by 193Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage, Discourse, Communication StrategiesLanguage Development and Disorders

Neural signatures of response planning occur midway through an incoming question in conversation

Open access
Bögels, Sara, Magyari, Lilla, Levinson, Stephen C.·2015·Scientific Reports

Abstract

A striking puzzle about language use in everyday conversation is that turn-taking latencies are usually very short, whereas planning language production takes much longer. This implies overlap between language comprehension and production processes, but the nature and extent of such overlap has never been studied directly. Combining an interactive quiz paradigm with EEG measurements in an innovative way, we show that production planning processes start as soon as possible, that is, within half a second after the answer to a question can be retrieved (up to several seconds before the end of the question). Localization of ERP data shows early activation even of brain areas related to late stages of production planning (e.g., syllabification). Finally, oscillation results suggest an attention switch from comprehension to production around the same time frame. This perspective from interactive language use throws new light on the performance characteristics that language competence involves.

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 · 10.1038/srep12881

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Several experiments have shown that speech planning during listening is possible and that it facilitates fast responding.

    “However, several experiments have shown that speech planning during listening is indeed possible and that it facilitates fast responding.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Bögels, Magyari, and Levinson, 2015

    The Abstract and Conclusion (pages unavailable) report that listeners began planning responses while questions were still incoming and propose that early planning helps explain rapid conversational turn-taking. The paper establishes this in its own interactive quiz study, but it does not show that several experiments demonstrated the same conclusion; the other studies discussed in the Conclusion suggest later planning and are described as contrasting with its findings. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • EEG recordings during the Bögels et al. task suggested that planning during listening progressed to the level of phonological form retrieval.

    “Moreover, EEG recordings during the task suggested that planning during listening progressed to the level of phonological form retrieval”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Bögels, Magyari, and Levinson, 2015

  • Bögels, Magyari, and Levinson (2015) found that average response latency was shorter by about 300 ms in the early-cue than in the late-cue condition.

    “This prediction was borne out, with the average response latency being shorter by about 300 ms in the early-cue than in the late-cue condition.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Bögels, Magyari, and Levinson, 2015

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 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bögels, S., Magyari, L., & Levinson, S. C.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics (NL)
  • Pázmány Péter Catholic University (HU)
Corresponding author
Bögels, Sara
Venue
Scientific Reports
Published
2015-08-05
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
12881-12881
ISSN
2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1427377083
Cited by
193
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Max Planck Instituut voor Psycholinguïstiek
  • FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (269484)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
response planning, language production, turn-taking, language comprehension, event-related potentials, EEG, oscillations, attentional shift, syllabification
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Attention, Brain, Choice Behavior, Electroencephalography, Evoked Potentials, Female, Humans, Male, Reaction Time, Verbal Behavior, Comprehension, Young Adult

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