CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 145Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismTactile and Sensory InteractionsReading and Literacy Development

Silent Reading of Direct versus Indirect Speech Activates Voice-selective Areas in the Auditory Cortex

Open access
Yao, Bo, Belin, Pascal, Scheepers, Christoph·2011·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
DOI 10.1162/jocn_a_00022
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In human communication, direct speech (e.g., Mary said: “I'm hungry”) is perceived to be more vivid than indirect speech (e.g., Mary said [that] she was hungry). However, for silent reading, the representational consequences of this distinction are still unclear. Although many of us share the intuition of an “inner voice,” particularly during silent reading of direct speech statements in text, there has been little direct empirical confirmation of this experience so far. Combining fMRI with eye tracking in human volunteers, we show that silent reading of direct versus indirect speech engenders differential brain activation in voice-selective areas of the auditory cortex. This suggests that readers are indeed more likely to engage in perceptual simulations (or spontaneous imagery) of the reported speaker's voice when reading direct speech as opposed to meaning-equivalent indirect speech statements as part of a more vivid representation of the former. Our results may be interpreted in line with embodied cognition and form a starting point for more sophisticated interdisciplinary research on the nature of auditory mental simulation during reading.

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 · 10.1162/jocn_a_00022

Cites

32 of 32 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?

  • Yao et al. (2011) found reading direct speech specifically associated with activation in middle and posterior right STS compared with indirect speech.

    “Reading of direct speech was specifically associated with activation in middle and posterior right STS compared with indirect speech.”

    From The brain's conversation with itself: neural substrates of dialogic inner speech (2016) · cites this paper as Yao et al. (2011)

    The paper title in our copy states that silent reading of direct versus indirect speech activates voice-selective areas in the auditory cortex. The available passages do not identify those areas as the middle and posterior right STS, so they do not verify that specific localization. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Compared with passages of indirect speech, direct speech was associated with greater activation in right auditory cortex, alongside recruitment of the superior parietal lobules, precuneus, and occipital regions bilaterally.

    “Compared with passages of indirect speech, direct speech was associated with greater activation in right auditory cortex (posterior and middle superior temporal sulcus), alongside recruitment of the superior parietal lobules, precuneus, and occipital regions bilaterally.”

    From Inner Speech: Development, Cognitive Functions, Phenomenology, and Neurobiology (2015) · cites this paper as Yao, Belin, & Scheepers, 2011

    The paper title in our copy says that silent reading of direct versus indirect speech activates voice-selective areas in the auditory cortex. The available passages do not specify greater activation in the right posterior or middle superior temporal sulcus, or recruitment of bilateral superior parietal lobules, precuneus, and occipital regions; searches for those regions returned only title and citation metadata. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Taken together, these findings suggest that dialogic forms of inner speech are likely to draw on a range of regions beyond a typical left-sided perisylvian language network, including the right IFG, right MTG and the right STG/STS.

    “Taken together, these findings suggest that dialogic forms of inner speech are likely to draw on a range of regions beyond a typical left-sided perisylvian language network, including the right IFG, right middle temporal gyrus (MTG) and the right STG/STS.”

    From The brain's conversation with itself: neural substrates of dialogic inner speech (2016) · cites this paper as Yao et al. (2011)

    Our indexed copy provides the paper’s title and bibliographic information (unpaged), but no findings identifying the right IFG, right MTG, or right STG/STS as regions involved in dialogic inner speech. Searches for those regions, dialogic inner speech, and direct-speech reading returned no substantive passage that settles the claim. (LLM, conf=0.70)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Yao, B., Belin, P., & Scheepers, C.
Affiliations
University of Glasgow (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press - Journals
Published
2011-10-01
Volume
23
Issue
10
Pages
3146-3152
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
DOI
10.1162/jocn_a_00022
OpenAlex
W2052751984
Cited by
145
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
3.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Glasgow
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
direct speech, reported speech, silent reading, auditory cortex, inner speech, embodied cognition, speech perception, auditory imagery
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adult, Attention, Auditory Cortex, Auditory Perception, Brain Mapping, Eye Movements, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Lipreading, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Oxygen, Psychomotor Performance, Semantics, Speech, 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