CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 56Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismCategorization, perception, and languageSocial Representations and Identity

Verbal interference paradigms: a systematic review investigating the role of language in cognition

Open access
Nedergaard, Johanne S. K., Wallentin, Mikkel, Lupyan, Gary·2023·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/s13423-022-02144-7
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper presents a systematic review of the empirical literature that uses dual-task interference methods for investigating the on-line involvement of language in various cognitive tasks. In these studies, participants perform some primary task X putatively recruiting linguistic resources while also engaging in a secondary, concurrent task. If performance on the primary task decreases under interference, there is evidence for language involvement in the primary task. We assessed studies (N = 101) reporting at least one experiment with verbal interference and at least one control task (either primary or secondary). We excluded papers with an explicitly clinical, neurological, or developmental focus. The primary tasks identified include categorization, memory, mental arithmetic, motor control, reasoning (verbal and visuospatial), task switching, theory of mind, visual change, and visuospatial integration and wayfinding. Overall, the present review found that covert language is likely to play a facilitative role in memory and categorization when items to be remembered or categorized have readily available labels, when inner speech can act as a form of behavioral self-cuing (inhibitory control, task set reminders, verbal strategy), and when inner speech is plausibly useful as "workspace," for example, for mental arithmetic. There is less evidence for the role of covert language in cross-modal integration, reasoning relying on a high degree of visual detail or items low on nameability, and theory of mind. We discuss potential pitfalls and suggestions for streamlining and improving the methodology.

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 · 10.3758/s13423-022-02144-7

Cites

186 of 186 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?

  • Articulatory suppression, which typically involves repeating words out loud, blocks language processing.

    “articulatory suppression, which typically involves repeating words out loud so as to block language processing [15].”

    From Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool (2023) · cites this paper as [15]

    The “Verbal interference and verbal working memory” section (page unavailable) defines articulatory suppression as repeating a syllable or short word out loud. The “Syllable/word repetition” section says this can disrupt covert language use, but describes suppression of articulatory function—not a general block on language processing. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bek, J., Blades, M., Siegal, M., & Varley, R. (2009). Linguistic pro- cesses in visuospatial representation: Clarifying verbal interfer- ence effects. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 31.
  2. Müller, M. (1978). The science of thought. In The science of thought / (Repr.). AMS Press.
  3. Phillips, L. H., Wynn, V., Gilhooly, K. J., Della Sala, S., & Logie, R. H. (1999). The role of memory in the tower of London task. Memory, 7(2), 209-231. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 74194 4066 · DOI
  4. Ratliff, K. R., & Newcombe, N. S. (2005). Human spatial reorientation using dual task paradigms (pp. 6).
  5. Sokolov, A. N. (1968). Inner speech and thought (G. T. Onischenko, Trans.). Plenum Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nedergaard, J. S. K., Wallentin, M., & Lupyan, G.
Affiliations
  • Aarhus University (DK)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Nedergaard, Johanne S. K.
ORCID
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-08-22
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
464-488
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-022-02144-7
OpenAlex
W4292663747
Cited by
56
References
186
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Social Representations and Identity
Keywords
verbal interference, dual-task paradigm, inner speech, language and cognition, memory, categorization, mental arithmetic, task switching, theory of mind, cross-modal integration, reasoning, inhibitory control, workspace
MeSH terms
Cognition, Cues, Humans, Language, Memory, Short-Term, Problem Solving, Speech

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