A robust temporal map of speech monitoring from planning to articulation

Speakers continuously monitor their own speech to optimize fluent production, but the precise timing and underlying variables influencing speech monitoring remain insufficiently understood. Through two EEG experiments, this study aimed to provide a comprehensive temporal map of monitoring processes ranging from speech planning to articulation. In both experiments, participants were primed to switch the consonant onsets of target word pairs read aloud, eliciting speech errors of either lexical or articulatory-phonetic (AP) origin. Experiment I used pairs of the same stimuli words, creating lexical or non-lexical errors when switching initial consonants, with the degree of shared AP features not fully balanced but considered in the analysis. Experiment II followed a similar methodology but used different words in pairs for the lexical and non-lexical conditions, fully orthogonalizing the number of shared AP features. As error probability is higher in trials primed to result in lexical versus non-lexical errors and AP-close compared to AP-distant errors, more monitoring is required for these conditions. Similarly, error trials require more monitoring compared to correct trials. We used high versus low error probability on correct trials and errors versus correct trials as indices of monitoring. Across both experiments, we observed that on correct trials, lexical error probability effects were present during initial stages of speech planning, while AP error probability effects emerged during speech motor preparation. In contrast, error trials showed differences from correct utterances in both early and late speech motor preparation and during articulation. These findings suggest that (a) response conflict on ultimately correct trials does not persist during articulation; (b) the timecourse of response conflict is restricted to the time window during which a given linguistic level is task-relevant (early on for response appropriateness-related variables and later for articulation-relevant variables); and (c) monitoring during the response is primarily triggered by pre-response monitoring failure. These results support that monitoring in language production is temporally distributed and rely on multiple mechanisms. • Distinct EEG effects of lexical and articulatory-phonetic error probability were observed before articulation. • Processes linked to meaning surfaced earlier than those tied to form. • EEG effects of overt errors vs. correct trials were observed both before and after articulation. • Monitoring is temporally distributed and could involve multiple mechanisms.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Speech Communication
Published
2024-10-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.specom.2024.103146
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Phonetics and Phonology Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.52

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A robust temporal map of speech monitoring from planning to articulation

Benjamin Morillon, Lydia Dorokhova, Anne‐Sophie Dubarry, F.‐Xavier Alario et al.
3 citations
Speech Communication
Phonetics and Phonology Research
1.52
article

A robust temporal map of speech monitoring from planning to articulation

Benjamin Morillon, Lydia Dorokhova, Anne‐Sophie Dubarry, F.‐Xavier Alario, Elin Runnqvist, Pascal Belin, Cristina Baus
article en
3 citations

Abstract

Speakers continuously monitor their own speech to optimize fluent production, but the precise timing and underlying variables influencing speech monitoring remain insufficiently understood. Through two EEG experiments, this study aimed to provide a comprehensive temporal map of monitoring processes ranging from speech planning to articulation. In both experiments, participants were primed to switch the consonant onsets of target word pairs read aloud, eliciting speech errors of either lexical or articulatory-phonetic (AP) origin. Experiment I used pairs of the same stimuli words, creating lexical or non-lexical errors when switching initial consonants, with the degree of shared AP features not fully balanced but considered in the analysis. Experiment II followed a similar methodology but used different words in pairs for the lexical and non-lexical conditions, fully orthogonalizing the number of shared AP features. As error probability is higher in trials primed to result in lexical versus non-lexical errors and AP-close compared to AP-distant errors, more monitoring is required for these conditions. Similarly, error trials require more monitoring compared to correct trials. We used high versus low error probability on correct trials and errors versus correct trials as indices of monitoring. Across both experiments, we observed that on correct trials, lexical error probability effects were present during initial stages of speech planning, while AP error probability effects emerged during speech motor preparation. In contrast, error trials showed differences from correct utterances in both early and late speech motor preparation and during articulation. These findings suggest that (a) response conflict on ultimately correct trials does not persist during articulation; (b) the timecourse of response conflict is restricted to the time window during which a given linguistic level is task-relevant (early on for response appropriateness-related variables and later for articulation-relevant variables); and (c) monitoring during the response is primarily triggered by pre-response monitoring failure. These results support that monitoring in language production is temporally distributed and rely on multiple mechanisms. • Distinct EEG effects of lexical and articulatory-phonetic error probability were observed before articulation. • Processes linked to meaning surfaced earlier than those tied to form. • EEG effects of overt errors vs. correct trials were observed both before and after articulation. • Monitoring is temporally distributed and could involve multiple mechanisms.

Speech CommunicationVol. 165
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Inserm (FR), Aix-Marseille Université (FR), Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca (ES), Institut de Neurosciences des Systèmes (FR), Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive (FR), Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives (FR), Institut de Neurosciences de la Timone (FR), Laboratoire Parole et Langage (FR)
Aix-Marseille Université, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, CHIST-ERA
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Phonetics and Phonology Research
1.52
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.