Cited by 767Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The Spatial and Temporal Signatures of Word Production Components: A Critical Update

Open access
Indefrey, Peter·2011·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

In the first decade of neurocognitive word production research the predominant approach was brain mapping, i.e., investigating the regional cerebral brain activation patterns correlated with word production tasks, such as picture naming and word generation. Indefrey and Levelt (2004) conducted a comprehensive meta-analysis of word production studies that used this approach and combined the resulting spatial information on neural correlates of component processes of word production with information on the time course of word production provided by behavioral and electromagnetic studies. In recent years, neurocognitive word production research has seen a major change toward a hypothesis-testing approach. This approach is characterized by the design of experimental variables modulating single component processes of word production and testing for predicted effects on spatial or temporal neurocognitive signatures of these components. This change was accompanied by the development of a broader spectrum of measurement and analysis techniques. The article reviews the findings of recent studies using the new approach. The time course assumptions of Indefrey and Levelt (2004) have largely been confirmed requiring only minor adaptations. Adaptations of the brain structure/function relationships proposed by Indefrey and Levelt (2004) include the precise role of subregions of the left inferior frontal gyrus as well as a probable, yet to date unclear role of the inferior parietal cortex in word production.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00255

Cites

121 of 124 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?

  • In lab experiments, participants typically need 600 ms to 800 ms to name a line drawing of a common object.

    “in lab experiments participants typically need 600 ms to 800 ms to name a line drawing of a common object”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Indefrey, 2011

    In “The Time Course of the Component Processes in Word Production” (page unavailable), the paper reports a 600 ms estimate for picture naming and Table 1 includes several voice-onset times around 700–800 ms. It cautions that the 600 ms estimate came from repeated naming and that latencies vary substantially with the task and picture; it does not establish 600–800 ms as the typical range specifically for line drawings of common objects. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Utterance planning is not instantaneous but requires substantial amounts of time.

    “This is remarkable because utterance planning is not instantaneous but requires substantial amounts of time.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Indefrey, 2011

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

2 of the 126 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Indefrey, P.
Affiliations
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Indefrey, Peter
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2011
Volume
2
Pages
255-255
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2056949810
Cited by
767
References
126
Citations by year
2026: 56 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 101 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 18
FWCI
13.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
word production, neural correlates, picture naming, left inferior frontal gyrus, inferior parietal cortex, brain structure-function relationship

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