CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 14Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismTactile and Sensory InteractionsTranscranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies

Distinct neural mechanisms support inner speaking and inner hearing

Open access
Nalborczyk, Ladislas, Longcamp, Marieke, Bonnard, Mireille, Serveau, Victor, Spieser, Laure, Alario, Francois Xavier·2021
DOI 10.31234/osf.io/x7emk
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Humans have the ability to mentally examine speech. This covert form of speech production is often accompanied by sensory (e.g., auditory) percepts. However, the cognitive and neural mechanisms that generate these percepts are still debated. According to a prominent proposal, inner speech has at least two distinct phenomenological components: inner speaking and inner hearing. We used transcranial magnetic stimulation to test whether these two phenomenologically distinct processes are supported by distinct neural mechanisms. We hypothesised that inner speaking relies more strongly on an online motor-to-sensory simulation that constructs a multisensory experience, whereas inner hearing relies more strongly on a memory-retrieval process, where the multisensory experience is reconstructed from stored motor-to-sensory associations. Accordingly, we predicted that the speech motor system will be involved more strongly during inner speaking than inner hearing. This would be revealed by modulations of TMS evoked responses at muscle level following stimulation of the lip primary motor cortex. Overall, data collected from 31 participants corroborated this prediction, showing that inner speaking increases the excitability of the primary motor cortex more than inner hearing. Moreover, this effect was more pronounced during the inner production of a syllable that strongly recruits the lips (vs. a syllable that recruits the lips to a lesser extent). These results are compatible with models assuming that the primary motor cortex is involved during inner speech and contribute to clarify the neural implementation of the fundamental ability of silently speaking in one’s mind.

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 · 10.31234/osf.io/x7emk

Cites

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?

  • Findings show distinct neural signatures for listening to speech versus imagining speech.

    “Relevant evidence comes from findings of distinct neural signatures for listening to speech versus imagining speech [41].”

    From Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool (2023) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Results report different motor-cortex responses during inner speaking and inner hearing, supporting a neural distinction between two forms of imagined speech. The Training blocks section distinguishes actual listening from inner hearing, which involved imagining a previously heard voice. The reported neural comparison was therefore not between listening to speech and imagining speech; page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Imagined speech shows distinct activation in left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's area), taken as evidence for involvement of an articulatory component combined with auditory imagery.

    “in left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's area), which was taken as evidence for the involvement of an articulatory component in the latter, combined with auditory imagery (cf [42]).”

    From Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool (2023) · cites this paper as [42]

    The Introduction (page not provided) describes inner speaking as involving motor simulation and auditory sensations, so it supports the proposed articulatory-plus-auditory account. It does not report distinct activation in the left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca’s area); the study examines excitability of the lip primary motor cortex instead. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Imagined speech shows distinct activation in left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's area), taken as evidence for involvement of an articulatory component combined with auditory imagery.

    “in left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's area), which was taken as evidence for the involvement of an articulatory component in the latter, combined with auditory imagery (cf [42]).”

    From Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool (2023) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Introduction describes inner speaking as involving motor simulation and auditory sensations. However, the paper reports excitability of the lip primary motor cortex, not distinct activation of the left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca’s area); the cited anatomical finding is unsupported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Both listening to speech and imagining speech show overlapping activation in bilateral superior temporal gyrus and supplementary motor areas.

    “Although both conditions showed overlapping activation in bilateral superior temporal gyrus and supplementary motor areas”

    From Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool (2023) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Abstract reports a TMS study of primary motor-cortex excitability during inner speaking and inner hearing, not an activation comparison between listening to and imagining speech. Searches of our copy for superior temporal gyrus, supplementary motor area, and overlapping activation found no passage reporting the claimed overlap in those regions. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    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.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 84 · Cited by 14

Research works printed but not linked: 74

  1. Adank, P., Kennedy-Higgins, D., Maegherman, G., Hannah, R., & Nuttall, H. E. (2018). Effects of Coil Orientation on Motor Evoked Potentials From Orbicularis Oris. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2018.00683 · DOI
  2. Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19(6), 716723. https://doi.org/10.1109/tac.1974.1100705 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Bach, P., Frank, C., & Kunde, W. (2021). Why motor imagery isn't really motoric: Towards a reconceptualization in terms of effect-based action control. [Preprint]. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/bkf76 · DOI
  4. Baddeley, A. D., Lewis, V., & Vallar, G. (1984). Exploring the articulatory loop. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 36(2), 233-252. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640748408402157 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Bart, V. K. E., Koch, I., & Rieger, M. (2021a). Decay of inhibition in motor imagery. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(1), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747021820949388 · DOI
  6. Bart, V. K. E., Koch, I., & Rieger, M. (2021b). Inhibitory mechanisms in motor imagery: Disentangling different forms of inhibition using action mode switching. Psychological Research, 85(4), 1418-1438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-020-01327-y · DOI
  7. Bart, V. K. E., Koch, I., & Rieger, M. (2021c). Expectations affect the contribution of tonic global inhibition, but not of phasic global inhibition to motor imagery. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000961 · DOI
  8. Berthoz, A. (1996). The role of inhibition in the hierarchical gating of executed and imagined movements. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0926-6410(95)00035-6 · DOI
  9. Bonnet, M., Decety, J., Jeannerod, M., & Requin, J. (1997). Mental simulation of an action modulates the excitability of spinal reflex pathways in man. Cognitive Brain Research, 5(3), 221-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-6410(96)00072-9 · DOI
  10. Buchsbaum, B. R., & D'Esposito, M. (2019). A sensorimotor view of verbal working memory. Cortex, 112, 134-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2018.11.010 · DOI
  11. Bürkner, P.-C. (2017). Brms : An r Package for Bayesian Multilevel Models Using stan. Journal of Statistical Software, 80(1). https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v080.i01 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model selection and multimodel inference: A practical information-theoretic approach (2nd ed). Springer.
  13. Burnham, K. P., Anderson, D. R., & Huyvaert, K. P. (2011). AIC model selection and multimodel inference in behavioral ecology: some background, observations, and comparisons. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 23-35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1029-6 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Cardellicchio, P., Dolfini, E., Fadiga, L., & D'Ausilio, A. (2020). Parallel fast and slow motor inhibition processes in Joint Action coordination. Cortex, 133, 346-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2020.09.029 · DOI
  15. Counter, S. A., Borg, E., & Lofqvist, L. (1991). Acoustic trauma in extracranial magnetic brain stimulation. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, 78(3), 173-184. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-4694(91)90031-X · DOI
  16. Devlin, J. T., & Watkins, K. E. (2007). Stimulating language: Insights from TMS. Brain, 130(3), 610-622. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awl331 · DOI
  17. Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., Buccino, G., & Rizzolatti, G. (2002). Speech listening specifically modulates the excitability of tongue muscles: A TMS study. European Journal of Neuroscience, 15(2), 399-402. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01874.x · DOI
  18. Grush, R. (2004). The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27 (3), 377-396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000093 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Guillot, A., Di Rienzo, F., MacIntyre, T., Moran, A., & Collet, C. (2012). Imagining is not doing but involves specific motor commands: A review of experimental data related to motor inhibition. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00247 · DOI
  20. Haaf, J. M., & Rouder, J. N. (2017). Developing constraint in Bayesian mixed models. Psychological Methods, 22(4), 779-798. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000156 · DOI
  21. Hallett, M. (2007). Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: A Primer. Neuron, 55(2), 187-199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.06.026 · DOI
  22. Hegyi, G., & Garamszegi, L. Z. (2011). Using information theory as a substitute for stepwise regression in ecology and behavior. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65(1), 69-76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-010-1036-7 · DOI
  23. Hupfeld, K. E., Swanson, C. W., Fling, B. W., & Seidler, R. D. (2020). TMS-induced silent periods: A review of methods and call for consistency. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 346, 108950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneumeth.2020.108950 · DOI
  24. Hurlburt, R. T. (2011). Investigating pristine inner experience: Moments of truth. C. U. Press, Ed.
  25. Hurlburt, R. T., & Akhter, S. A. (2006). The Descriptive Experience Sampling method. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 5(3-4), 271-301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-006-9024-0 · DOI
  26. Hurlburt, R. T., & Heavey, C. L. (2015). Investigating pristine inner experience: Implications for experience sampling and questionnaires. Consciousness and Cognition, 31, 148-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2014.11.002 · DOI · Paper page
  27. Hurlburt, R. T., Heavey, C. L., & Kelsey, J. M. (2013). Toward a phenomenology of inner speaking. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(4), 1477-1494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.10.003 · DOI · Paper page
  28. Jeannerod, M. (1994). The representing brain: Neural correlates of motor intention and imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 17 (02), 187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00034026 · DOI
  29. Jeannerod, M. (2001). Neural simulation of action: A unifying mechanism for motor cognition. NeuroImage, 14(1), S103-S109. https://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2001.0832 · DOI · Paper page
  30. Jeannerod, M. (2006). Motor cognition: What actions tell the self. Oxford University Press.
  31. Kosslyn, S. M., Pinker, S., Smith, G. E., & Shwartz, S. P. (1979). On the demystification of mental imagery. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2(4), 535-548. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00064268 · DOI
  32. Kruschke, J. K. (2015). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan (2nd Edition). Academic Press.
  33. Levine, D. N., Calvanio, R., & Popovics, A. (1982). Language in the absence of inner speech. Neuropsychologia, 20(4), 391-409. https://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(82)90039-2 · DOI · Paper page
  34. Li, S., Zhu, H., & Tian, X. (2020). Corollary Discharge Versus Efference Copy: Distinct Neural Signals in Speech Preparation Differentially Modulate Auditory Responses. Cerebral Cortex, 30(11), 5806-5820. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhaa154 · DOI
  35. Lœvenbruck, H., Grandchamp, R., Rapin, L., Nalborczyk, L., Dohen, M., Perrier, P., Baciu, M., & Perrone-Bertolotti, M. (2018). A cognitive neuroscience view of inner language: To predict and to hear, see, feel. In P. Langland-Hassan & A. Vicente (Eds.), Inner speech: New voices (p. 37). Oxford University Press.
  36. Ma, O., & Tian, X. (2019). Distinct mechanisms of imagery differentially influence speech perception. eNeuro. https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0261-19.2019 · DOI
  37. MacKay, D. G. (1992). Constraints on theories of inner speech. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Auditory imagery (pp. 121-149). Erlbaum;
  38. Hillsdale, N. J. Maegherman, G., Nuttall, H., Devlin, J., & Adank, P. (2020). The involvement of articulatory motor cortex in motor imagery of speech. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/5k9wa · DOI
  39. Moezzi, B., Schaworonkow, N., Plogmacher, L., Goldsworthy, M. R., Hordacre, B., McDonnell, M. D., Iannella, N., Ridding, M. C., & Triesch, J. (2018). Simulation of electromyographic recordings following transcranial magnetic stimulation. Journal of Neurophysiology, 120(5), 2532-2541. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00626.2017 · DOI
  40. Morin, A. (2012). Inner Speech. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human Behavior (Second Edition) (pp. 436-443). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375000-6.00206-8 · DOI
  41. Möttönen, R., Rogers, J. C., & Watkins, K. E. (2014). Stimulating the lip motor cortex with transcranial magnetic stimulation. Journal of Visualized Experiments : JoVE, 88, 1-7. https://doi.org/10.3791/51665 · DOI
  42. Moulton, S. T., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2009). Imagining predictions: Mental imagery as mental emulation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1521), 1273-1280. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0314 · DOI · Paper page
  43. Nalborczyk, L. (2019). Understanding rumination as a form of inner speech: Probing the role of motor processes [{PhD} {Thesis}, Univ. Grenoble Alpes & Ghent University]. https://thesiscommons.org/p6dct/
  44. Nalborczyk, L., Banjac, S., Baeyens, C., Grandchamp, R., Koster, E. H. W., Perrone-Bertolotti, M., & Lœvenbruck, H. (2021). Dissociating facial electromyographic correlates of visual and verbal induced rumination. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 159, 23-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2020.10.009 · DOI
  45. Nalborczyk, L., Batailler, C., Lœvenbruck, H., Vilain, A., & Bürkner, P.-C. (2019). An introduction to Bayesian multilevel models using brms: A case study of gender effects on vowel variability in standard indonesian. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 62(5), 1225-1242. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-18-0006 · DOI
  46. Nalborczyk, L., Debarnot, U., Longcamp, M., Guillot, A., & Alario, F.-X. (2022). The Role of Motor Inhibition During Covert Speech Production. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 16, 804832. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2022.804832 · DOI
  47. Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195-203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y · DOI
  48. Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Kujala, J., Vidal, J. R., Hamame, C. M., Ossandon, T., Bertrand, O., Minotti, L., Kahane, P., Jerbi, K., & Lachaux, J.-P. (2012). How Silent Is Silent Reading? Intracerebral Evidence for Top-Down Activation of Temporal Voice Areas during Reading. Journal of Neuroscience, 32(49), 17554-17562. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2982-12.2012 · DOI
  49. Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Rapin, L., Lachaux, J. P., Baciu, M., & Lœvenbruck, H. (2014). What is that little voice inside my head? Inner speech phenomenology, its role in cognitive performance, and its relation to self-monitoring. Behavioural Brain Research, 261, 220-239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.034 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Petkov, C. I., & Belin, P. (2013). Silent Reading: Does the Brain "Hear" Both Speech and Voices? Current Biology, 23(4), R155-R156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.002 · DOI
  51. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(04), 329-347. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Rieger, M., Dahm, S. F., & Koch, I. (2017). Inhibition in motor imagery: A novel action mode switching paradigm. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(2), 459-466. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1095-5 · DOI
  53. Robin, N., COUDEVYLLE, G. R., Guillot, A., & Toussaint, L. (2020). French Translation and Validation of the Movement Imagery Questionnaire-third Version (MIQ-3f). Movement & Sport Sciences -Science & Motricité. https://doi.org/10.1051/sm/2019035 · DOI
  54. Rouder, J. N., & Haaf, J. M. (2019). A psychometrics of individual differences in experimental tasks. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(2), 452-467. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-018-1558-y · DOI
  55. Scheil, J., & Liefooghe, B. (2018). Motor command inhibition and the representation of response mode during motor imagery. Acta Psychologica, 186, 54-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.04.008 · DOI
  56. Schieppati, M., Trompetto, C., & Abbruzzese, G. (1996). Selective facilitation of responses to cortical stimulation of proximal and distal arm muscles by precision tasks in man. The Journal of Physiology, 491(2), 551-562. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.1996.sp021239 · DOI
  57. Schönbrodt, F. D., & Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2018). Bayes factor design analysis: Planning for compelling evidence. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 25(1), 128-142. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-017-1230-y · DOI
  58. Schönbrodt, F. D., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Zehetleitner, M., & Perugini, M. (2017). Sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors: Efficiently testing mean differences. Psychological Methods, 22(2), 322-339. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000061 · DOI
  59. Silva, A. B., Liu, J. R., Zhao, L., Levy, D. F., Scott, T. L., & Chang, E. F. (2022). A Neurosurgical Functional Dissection of the Middle Precentral Gyrus during Speech Production. The Journal of Neuroscience, 42(45), 8416-8426. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.1614-22.2022 · DOI · Paper page
  60. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2012). A 21 Word Solution. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2160588 · DOI · Paper page
  61. Sokolov, A. (1972). Inner speech and thought. Springer-Verlag.
  62. Spieser, L., Aubert, S., & Bonnard, M. (2013). Involvement of SMAp in the intention-related long latency stretch reflex modulation: A TMS study. Neuroscience, 246, 329-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.05.005 · DOI
  63. Tian, X., Ding, N., Teng, X., Bai, F., & Poeppel, D. (2018). Imagined speech influences perceived loudness of sound. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(3), 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0305-8 · DOI
  64. Tian, X., & Poeppel, D. (2013). The effect of imagination on stimulation: The functional specificity of efference copies in speech processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(7), 1020-1036. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00381 · DOI · Paper page
  65. Tian, X., & Poeppel, D. (2012). Mental imagery of speech: Linking motor and perceptual systems through internal simulation and estimation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2012.00314 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Tian, X., Zarate, J. M., & Poeppel, D. (2016). Mental imagery of speech implicates two mechanisms of perceptual reactivation. Cortex, 77, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.01.002 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Van Geert, E., Moors, P., Haaf, J., & Wagemans, J. (2022). Same stimulus, same temporal context, different percept? Individual differences in hysteresis and adaptation when perceiving multistable dot lattices. I-Perception, 13(4), 204166952211093. https://doi.org/10.1177/20416695221109300 · DOI
  68. Wagenmakers, E.-J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems ofp values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(5), 779-804. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194105 · DOI · Paper page
  69. Watanabe, S. (2010). Asymptotic equivalence of Bayes cross validation and widely applicable information criterion in singular learning theory. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 11, 3571-3594.
  70. Watkins, K. E., & Paus, T. (2004). Modulation of Motor Excitability during Speech Perception: The Role of Broca's Area. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(6), 978-987. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929041502616 · DOI
  71. Watkins, K. E., Strafella, A. P., & Paus, T. (2003). Seeing and hearing speech excites the motor system involved in speech production. Neuropsychologia, 41(8), 989-994. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0028-3932(02)00316-0 · DOI
  72. Werhahn, K. J., Kunesch, E., Noachtar, S., Benecke, R., & Classen, J. (1999). Differential effects on motorcortical inhibition induced by blockade of GABA uptake in humans. The Journal of Physiology, 517 (2), 591-597. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7793.1999.0591t.x · DOI · Paper page
  73. Xie, Y. (2015). Dynamic documents with R and knitr (2nd ed.). Chapman; Hall/CRC. https://yihui.org/knitr/
  74. Zhao, L., Silva, A. B., Kurteff, G. L., & Chang, E. F. (2023). Inhibitory control of speech production in the human premotor frontal cortex. http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/2023.03.01.530698 · DOI

Authors
Nalborczyk, L., Longcamp, M., Bonnard, M., Serveau, V., Spieser, L., & Alario, F. X.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
Corresponding author
Nalborczyk, Ladislas
ORCID
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2021-11-18
Volume
169
Pages
161-173
DOI
10.31234/osf.io/x7emk
OpenAlex
W4387503795
Cited by
14
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Cortex (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL AMU (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Aix-Marseille Université (ANR-16-CONV-0002)
  • Agence Nationale de la Recherche (France2030, ANR-16-CONV-0002)
  • American University in Cairo (ANR-16-CONV-0002)
  • CHIST-ERA
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Neurology › Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Studies
Keywords
inner speech, inner hearing, primary motor cortex, memory retrieval, multisensory integration, syllable production
MeSH terms
Hearing, Humans, Speech, Speech Perception, Evoked Potentials, Motor, Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

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