The DOI matches its Crossref record; 121 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 2 are not checked yet.
The Spatial and Temporal Signatures of Word Production Components: A Critical Update
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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.
Citations
Cites
Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain
Talairach, J., & Tournoux, P. (1988) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,798
Co-planar stereotaxic atlas of the human brain
Laitinen, L. (1989) · Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery · doi:10.1016/0303-8467(89)90128-5 · Cited by 7,565
The cortical organization of speech processing
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2113 · Cited by 5,495 · cited 3×
“Secondly, the influential dualstream model of speech processing (Hickok and Poeppel, 2000, 2004, 2007) assumes an area at the boundary between temporal and parietal lobes (area Spt) to function as a sensorimotor interface in language production.”
BackgroundMethodA theory of lexical access in speech production
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x99001776 · Cited by 5,295 · cited 5×
“Levelt et al. (1999) assume this selection process to take place in a part of the mental lexicon (lemma level) that is linked to the conceptual level and contains information about the grammatical properties of words, such as word class or grammatical gender.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialDRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.108.1.204 · Cited by 4,500
Binder, J. R., Desai, R. H., Graves, W. W., & Conant, L. L. (2009) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhp055 · Cited by 4,060 · cited 4×
“…prefrontal cortex, IFG, ventromedial prefrontal cortex, and posterior cingulate gyrus) identified in a recent comprehensive meta-analysis by Binder et al., 2009, see also Schwartz et al., 2009, for an excellent discussion of the clinical evidence on regions involved in conceptual…”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSpeaking. From Intention to Articulation
Caplan, D. N. (1990) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/0166-2236(90)90151-y · Cited by 4,036
Speed of processing in the human visual system
Thorpe, S., Fize, D., & Marlot, C. (1996) · Nature · doi:10.1038/381520a0 · Cited by 3,538
A spreading-activation theory of retrieval in sentence production.
Dell, G. S. (1986) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.93.3.283 · Cited by 3,236 · cited 3×
“With respect to the insula, this pattern of reports is better compatible with a role in articulatory planning as suggested by Dronkers (1996) than a role in articulatory execution.”
BackgroundHickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2004) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.011 · Cited by 2,212 · cited 4×
“, 1996; Hirano et al., 1997). An involvement of the bilateral STG in the internal loop of self-monitoring is suggested by data from Shergill et al. (2002) who manipulated the rate of inner speech. More recently, Tourville et al. (2008) used feedback with a shifted first formant frequency and applied SEM to the resulti…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
3 of the 126 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Turn-taking in Human Communication – Origins and Implications for Language Processing
Levinson, S. C. (2015) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2015.10.010 · Cited by 820
“Moreover, the language production system is notoriously slow – preparation before output begins takes 600 ms for a single word if primed [7,8], approximately 1000 ms if not [9], and around 1500 ms for a short clause [10].”
Redefining the role of Broca’s area in speech
Flinker, A., Korzeniewska, A., Shestyuk, A. Y., Franaszczuk, P. J., Dronkers, N. F., Knight, R. T., & Crone, N. E. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1414491112 · Cited by 487
“Indefrey and Levelt viewed Broca’s area as critically involved in phonological processing whereas subsequent articulatory encoding is supported by motor cortices (4, 7).”
BackgroundPredicting while comprehending language: A theory and review.
Pickering, M. J., & Gambi, C. (2018) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000158 · Cited by 581
Timing in turn-taking and its implications for processing models of language
Levinson, S. C., & Torreira, F. (2015) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00731 · Cited by 686
“…serial, and proceeds through conceptualization, lemma retrieval, phonological retrieval, and phonetic encoding, following a time course that seems well understood (Indefrey, 2011), extending 600–1200 ms or more before articulation depending on the ease of retrieval and the length of the turn.”
BackgroundCoupled neural systems underlie the production and comprehension of naturalistic narrative speech
Silbert, L. J., Honey, C. J., Simony, E., Poeppel, D., & Hasson, U. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1323812111 · Cited by 352
“In addition, analytical methods differ greatly between this study and previous ones: Here we measure response reliability, whereas the majority of previous studies measure signal amplitude using eventrelated averaging methods (12, 23).”
MethodResult
Metadata
- Authors
- Indefrey, P.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Indefrey, Peter
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2011
- Volume
- 2
- Pages
- 255-255
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3191502
- OpenAlex
- W2056949810
- Semantic Scholar
- 1d28a8977f5bd27b32e22401d7ebb700d3eb494b
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
