CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 48Phonetics and Phonology ResearchNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy Development

The segment as the minimal planning unit in speech production and reading aloud: evidence and implications

Open access
Kawamoto, Alan H., Liu, Qiang, Kello, Christopher T.·2015·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01457PMC PMC4586354
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Speech production and reading aloud studies have much in common, especially the last stages involved in producing a response. We focus on the minimal planning unit (MPU) in articulation. Although most researchers now assume that the MPU is the syllable, we argue that it is at least as small as the segment based on negative response latencies (i.e., response initiation before presentation of the complete target) and longer initial segment durations in a reading aloud task where the initial segment is primed. We also discuss why such evidence was not found in earlier studies. Next, we rebut arguments that the segment cannot be the MPU by appealing to flexible planning scope whereby planning units of different sizes can be used due to individual differences, as well as stimulus and experimental design differences. We also discuss why negative response latencies do not arise in some situations and why anticipatory coarticulation does not preclude the segment MPU. Finally, we argue that the segment MPU is also important because it provides an alternative explanation of results implicated in the serial vs. parallel processing debate.

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.2015.01457

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • Latencies to produce prepared utterances are much shorter than those observed for utterances not planned ahead of time.

    “The latencies to produce prepared utterances are much shorter than those observed for utterances not planned ahead of time.”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Kawamoto, Liu, & Kello, 2015

    In “Segment as the MPU > Negative response latencies” (page unavailable), the paper reports that priming the initial segment of a word sometimes allowed articulation to begin before the complete word appeared. This supports an effect of advance preparation on response timing, but the passage does not compare latencies for fully prepared utterances with those for utterances not planned ahead of time, or establish that they are much shorter. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Delayed naming tasks have shown that speakers can generate speech plans internally, retain them in working memory, and produce them upon presentation of a response cue.

    “This proposal is consistent with a large body of experimental work using delayed naming tasks, which has shown that speakers can indeed generate speech plans internally, retain them in working memory, and produce them upon presentation of a response cue”

    From Timing in Conversation (2023) · cites this paper as Kawamoto, Liu, & Kello, 2015

    The References list a study titled “Articulatory preparation in the delayed naming task,” but the cited paper’s discussion of planning does not report delayed-naming evidence that speakers retain speech plans in working memory and produce them at a response cue. Searches for delayed naming, working memory, and response cues found no passage establishing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kawamoto, A. H., Liu, Q., & Kello, C. T.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
  • University of California, Merced (US)
Corresponding author
Kawamoto, Alan H.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2015-09-29
Volume
6
Pages
1457-1457
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01457
PMC
PMC4586354
OpenAlex
W2118971071
Cited by
48
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Phonetics and Phonology Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
speech production, reading aloud, segments, syllables, response initiation, anticipatory coarticulation, individual differences, serial vs parallel processing

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