Cited by 106Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy DevelopmentPhonetics and Phonology Research

Riding the Lexical Speedway: A Critical Review on the Time Course of Lexical Selection in Speech Production

Open access
Strijkers, Kristof, Costa, Albert·2011·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Speech requires time. How much time often depends on the amount of labor the brain has to perform in order to retrieve the linguistic information related to the ideas we want to express. Although most psycholinguistic research in the field of language production has focused on the net result of time required to utter words in various experimental conditions, over the last years more and more researchers pursued the objective to flesh out the time course of particular stages implicated in language production. Here we critically review these studies, with particular interest for the time course of lexical selection. First, we evaluate the data underlying the estimates of an influential temporal meta-analysis on language production (Indefrey and Levelt, 2004). We conclude that those data alone are not sufficient to provide a reliable time frame of lexical selection. Next, we discuss recent neurophysiological evidence which we argue to offer more explicit insights into the time course of lexical selection. Based on this evidence we suggest that, despite the absence of a clear time frame of how long lexical selection takes, there is sufficient direct evidence to conclude that the brain initiates lexical access within 200 ms after stimulus presentation, hereby confirming Indefrey and Levelt's estimate. In a final section, we briefly review the proposed mechanisms which could lead to this rapid onset of lexical access, namely automatic spreading activation versus specific concept selection, and discuss novel data which support the notion of spreading activation, but indicate that the speed with which this principle takes effect is driven by a top-down signal in function of the intention to engage in a speech act.

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.2011.00356

Cites

164 of 164 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?

  • Chatbots can effectively generate a text faster than humans can think of, type out, or dictate a similar text.

    “Now chatbots can effectively generate a text faster than humans can think of, type out, or dictate a similar text (Strijkers and Costa 2011), requiring high-level reading skills to assess that AI output, and high-level editing skills to adjust one's prompt and/or edit the AI output.”

    From Large language models and the problem of rhetorical debt (2025) · cites this paper as Strijkers and Costa 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

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Garrett M. F. (1975). “The analysis of speech production,” in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, ed. Bower G. H. (London: Academic Press), 133– 177
  2. Goldrick M. Dell G. S. Kroll J. Rapp B. (2009). Sequential information processing and limited interaction in language production. Online letters to Science. Available at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5951/445/reply 10.1037/0096-3445.118.1.13 · DOI
  3. Luce R. D. (1986). Response Times. New York: Oxford University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Strijkers, K., & Costa, A.
Affiliations
  • Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
  • Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
Corresponding author
Strijkers, Kristof
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2011
Volume
2
Pages
356-356
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2062719061
Cited by
106
References
164
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.54
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)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
Keywords
word choice, speech production, spreading activation, concept selection, top-down control

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