Conceptual alignment in a joint picture-naming task performed with a social robot.

In this study we investigated whether people conceptually align when performing a language task together with a robot. In a joint picture-naming task, 24 French native speakers took turns with a robot in naming images of objects belonging to fifteen different semantic categories. For a subset of those semantic categories, the robot was programmed to produce the superordinate, semantic category name (e.g., fruit) instead of the more typical basic-level name associated with an object (e.g., pear). Importantly, while semantic categories were shared between the participant and the robot (e.g., fruits), different objects were assigned to each of them (e.g., the object of 'a pear' for the robot and of 'an apple' for the participant). Logistic regression models on participants' responses revealed that they aligned with the conceptual choices of the robot, producing over the course of the experiment more superordinate names (e.g., saying 'fruit' to the picture of an 'apple') for those objects belonging to the same semantic category as where the robot produced a superordinate name (e.g., saying 'fruit' to the picture of a 'pear'). These results provide evidence for conceptual alignment affecting speakers' word choices as a result of adaptation to the partner, even when the partner is a robot.

Can we use the internet to study speech production? Yes we can! Evidence contrasting online versus laboratory naming latencies and errors.

The closure of cognitive psychology labs around the world due to the COVID-19 pandemic has prevented in-person testing. This has caused a particular challenge for speech production researchers, as before the pandemic there were no studies demonstrating that reliable overt speech production data could be collected via the internet. Here, we present evidence that both accurate and reliable overt articulation data can be collected from internet-based speech production experiments. We tested 100 participants in a picture naming paradigm, where we manipulated the word and phonotactic frequency of the picture names. We compared our results to a lab-based study conducted on different participants which used the same materials and design. We found a significant word frequency effect but no phonotactic frequency effect, fully replicating the lab-based results. Effect sizes were similar between experiments, but with significantly longer latencies in the internet-collected data. We found no evidence that internet upload or download speed affected either naming latencies or errors. In addition, we carried out a permutation-style analysis which recommends a minimum sample size of 40 participants for online production paradigms. In sum, our study demonstrates that internet-based testing of speech production is a feasible and promising endeavour, with less challenges than many researchers (anecdotally) assumed.

Cerebellar and Cortical Correlates of Internal and External Speech Error Monitoring.

An event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study examined how speakers inspect their own speech for errors. Concretely, we sought to assess 1) the role of the temporal cortex in monitoring speech errors, linked with comprehension-based monitoring; 2) the involvement of the cerebellum in internal and external monitoring, linked with forward modeling; and 3) the role of the medial frontal cortex for internal monitoring, linked with conflict-based monitoring. In a word production task priming speech errors, we observed enhanced involvement of the right posterior cerebellum for trials that were correct, but on which participants were more likely to make a word as compared with a nonword error (contrast of internal monitoring). Furthermore, comparing errors to correct utterances (contrast of external monitoring), we observed increased activation of the same cerebellar region, of the superior medial cerebellum, and of regions in temporal and medial frontal cortex. The presence of the cerebellum for both internal and external monitoring indicates the use of forward modeling across the planning and articulation of speech. Dissociations across internal and external monitoring in temporal and medial frontal cortex indicate that monitoring of overt errors is more reliant on vocal feedback control.

The Same Ultra-Rapid Parallel Brain Dynamics Underpin the Production and Perception of Speech.

The temporal dynamics by which linguistic information becomes available is one of the key properties to understand how language is organized in the brain. An unresolved debate between different brain language models is whether words, the building blocks of language, are activated in a sequential or parallel manner. In this study, we approached this issue from a novel perspective by directly comparing the time course of word component activation in speech production versus perception. In an overt object naming task and a passive listening task, we analyzed with mixed linear models at the single-trial level the event-related brain potentials elicited by the same lexico-semantic and phonological word knowledge in the two language modalities. Results revealed that both word components manifested simultaneously as early as 75 ms after stimulus onset in production and perception; differences between the language modalities only became apparent after 300 ms of processing. The data provide evidence for ultra-rapid parallel dynamics of language processing and are interpreted within a neural assembly framework where words recruit the same integrated cell assemblies across production and perception. These word assemblies ignite early on in parallel and only later on reverberate in a behavior-specific manner.

Grammatical class modulates the (left) inferior frontal gyrus within 100 milliseconds when syntactic context is predictive.

The current study set out to examine the spatiotemporal dynamics of predictive processing during syntactic processing. To do so, we conducted an MEG experiment in which we contrasted MRI-constrained sources elicited by nouns and verbs when they were preceded by a predictive syntactic context (i.e., possessive pronouns for nouns, and personal pronouns for verbs) versus a non-predictive syntactic context (visually matched symbols). The results showed rapid (from ~80 ms onwards) noun-verb differences in the left and (to a lesser extent) right inferior frontal gyri (IFG), but only when those nouns and verbs were preceded by the syntactically predictive context (i.e. their corresponding pronoun). Furthermore, the contrast between possessive and personal pronouns that preceded the rapid noun-verb modulations in the (L)IFG also produced differences in source activation in various regions of the prefrontal cortex (the superior frontal and orbitofrontal cortex). We suggest the data show that syntactic unification manifests very early on during processing in the LIFG. The speed of such syntactic unification operations is hypothesized to be driven by predictive top-down activations stemming from a domain-general network in the prefrontal cortex.

Error-based learning and lexical competition in word production: Evidence from multilingual naming.

We tested whether learning associated to lexical selection is error-based, and whether lexical selection is competitive by assessing the after-effects of producing words on subsequent production of semantic competitors differing in degree of error (translation equivalents). Speakers named pictures or words in one language (part A), and then named the same set of pictures (old set) and a new set in another language (part B). RTs for the old set (i.e., translation equivalents) were larger than for the new set (i.e., items which not have been named previously in another language). Supporting that learning is error-based, this cost was mostly larger after naming in a language with a higher degree of error (L2 vs. L1). Supporting that lexical selection is competitive, after naming in a language with a high degree of error (L3), the cost was larger for naming in another language with a high degree of error (L2 vs. L1).

The cortical dynamics of speaking: Lexical and phonological knowledge simultaneously recruit the frontal and temporal cortex within 200 ms.

Language production models typically assume that retrieving a word for articulation is a sequential process with substantial functional delays between conceptual, lexical, phonological and motor processing, respectively. Nevertheless, explicit evidence contrasting the spatiotemporal dynamics between different word production components is scarce. Here, using anatomically constrained magnetoencephalography during overt meaningful speech production, we explore the speed with which lexico-semantic versus acoustic-articulatory information of a to-be-uttered word become first neurophysiologically manifest in the cerebral cortex. We demonstrate early modulations of brain activity by the lexical frequency of a word in the temporal cortex and the left inferior frontal gyrus, simultaneously with activity in the motor and the posterior superior temporal cortex reflecting articulatory-acoustic phonological features (+LABIAL vs. +CORONAL) of the word-initial speech sounds (e.g., Monkey vs. Donkey). The specific nature of the spatiotemporal pattern correlating with a word's frequency and initial phoneme demonstrates that, in the course of speech planning, lexico-semantic and phonological-articulatory processes emerge together rapidly, drawing in parallel on temporal and frontal cortex. This novel finding calls for revisions of current brain language theories of word production.

Pupillary Responses to Words That Convey a Sense of Brightness or Darkness.

Theories about embodiment of language hold that when you process a word's meaning, you automatically simulate associated sensory input (e.g., perception of brightness when you process lamp) and prepare associated actions (e.g., finger movements when you process typing). To test this latter prediction, we measured pupillary responses to single words that conveyed a sense of brightness (e.g., day) or darkness (e.g., night) or were neutral (e.g., house). We found that pupils were largest for words conveying darkness, of intermediate size for neutral words, and smallest for words conveying brightness. This pattern was found for both visually presented and spoken words, which suggests that it was due to the words' meanings, rather than to visual or auditory properties of the stimuli. Our findings suggest that word meaning is sufficient to trigger a pupillary response, even when this response is not imposed by the experimental task, and even when this response is beyond voluntary control.

Semantic interference and its control: A functional neuroimaging and connectivity study.

During picture naming, the ease with which humans generate words is dependent upon the context in which they are named. For instances, naming previously presented items results in facilitation. Instead, naming a picture semantically related to previous items displays persistent interference effects (i.e., cumulative semantic interference, CSI). The neural correlates of CSI are still unclear and it is a matter of debate whether semantic control, or cognitive control more in general, is necessary for the resolution of CSI. We carried out an event-related fMRI experiment to assess the neural underpinnings of the CSI effect and the involvement and nature of semantic control. Both left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) and the left caudate nucleus (LCN) showed a linear increase of BOLD response positively associated with the consecutive number of presentations of semantically related pictures independently of task-load. The generalized psychophysiological interaction analysis showed that LIFG demonstrated a quantitative neural connectivity difference with the left supramarginal and angular gyri for increases of task-load and with the fusiform gyri for linear CSI increases. Furthermore, seed-to-voxel functional connectivity showed that LIFG activity coupled with different regions involved in cognitive control and lexicosemantic processing when semantic interference was elicited to a minimum or maximum degree. Our results are consistent with the lexical-competitive nature of the CSI effect, and we provide novel evidence that semantic control lies upon a more general cognitive control network (i.e., LIFG and LCN) responsible for resolving interference between competing semantically related items through connectivity with different brain areas in order to guarantee the correct response. Hum Brain Mapp 37:4179-4196, 2016. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Seeing the same words differently: the time course of automaticity and top-down intention in reading.

We investigated how linguistic intention affects the time course of visual word recognition by comparing the brain's electrophysiological response to a word's lexical frequency, a well-established psycholinguistic marker of lexical access, when participants actively retrieve the meaning of the written input (semantic categorization) versus a situation where no language processing is necessary (ink color categorization). In the semantic task, the ERPs elicited by high-frequency words started to diverge from those elicited by low-frequency words as early as 120 msec after stimulus onset. On the other hand, when categorizing the colored font of the very same words in the color task, word frequency did not modulate ERPs until some 100 msec later (220 msec poststimulus onset) and did so for a shorter period and with a smaller scalp distribution. The results demonstrate that, although written words indeed elicit automatic recognition processes in the brain, the speed and quality of lexical processing critically depends on the top-down intention to engage in a linguistic task.

Do bilinguals show neural differences with monolinguals when processing their native language?

The present research used fMRI to measure brain activity in passive listening and picture-naming tasks with a group of early high proficient Spanish-Catalan bilinguals, in which Spanish was dominant, and a group of Spanish monolinguals. Both tasks were conducted in Spanish and the effect of cognateness was studied. The behavioural results showed slow naming responses in bilinguals. The fMRI results revealed that bilinguals and monolinguals differed only during the picture naming task. Unlike previous results, obtained mainly with L2, monolinguals displayed more activity in receptive language areas and less activity in the posterior cingulate cortex and right STG in the picture-naming task than bilinguals. As far as we know, this is the first study to investigate the neural basis of L1 processing in bilinguals and monolinguals by performing the task in the same language and in a monolingual context. The results indicate more efficient use of language networks in monolinguals because bilinguals utilised a more distributed network, which may imply subtle processing disadvantages.

The impact of early bilingualism on controlling a language learned late: an ERP study.

This study asks whether early bilingual speakers who have already developed a language control mechanism to handle two languages control a dominant and a late acquired language in the same way as late bilingual speakers. We therefore, compared event-related potentials in a language switching task in two groups of participants switching between a dominant (L1) and a weak late acquired language (L3). Early bilingual late learners of an L3 showed a different ERP pattern (larger N2 mean amplitude) as late bilingual late learners of an L3. Even though the relative strength of languages was similar in both groups (a dominant and a weak late acquired language), they controlled their language output in a different manner. Moreover, the N2 was similar in two groups of early bilinguals tested in languages of different strength. We conclude that early bilingual learners of an L3 do not control languages in the same way as late bilingual L3 learners -who have not achieved native-like proficiency in their L2- do. This difference might explain some of the advantages early bilinguals have when learning new languages.

The temporal dynamics of first versus second language production.

In this study we explored the temporal origin of processing differences between first and second language production. Forty highly proficient bilinguals named objects of high and low lexical frequency aloud for both L1 and L2 separately while event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded. The first electrophysiological differences elicited by response language occurred at the same early P2 peak (∼140-220 ms) where we observed the onset of the lexical frequency effect, but only for those bilinguals who started naming in an L1 context and afterwards switched to an L2 naming context. The bilinguals who named objects in the reverse direction did not display a language effect in the ERPs. Taken together, the data show that the L2 naming disadvantage originates during the onset of lexical access and seems to be driven by both representational strength, which is lower for L2 words, and language control demands, which are higher for L2 words.

The poor helping the rich: how can incomplete representations monitor complete ones?

Pickering & Garrod (P&G) propose that inner speech monitoring is subserved by predictions stemming from fast forward modeling. In this commentary, we question this alignment of language prediction with the inner speech monitor. We wonder how the speech monitor can function so efficiently if it is based on incomplete representations.

When does word frequency influence written production?

The aim of the present study was to explore the central (e.g., lexical processing) and peripheral processes (motor preparation and execution) underlying word production during typewriting. To do so, we tested non-professional typers in a picture typing task while continuously recording EEG. Participants were instructed to write (by means of a standard keyboard) the corresponding name for a given picture. The lexical frequency of the words was manipulated: half of the picture names were of high-frequency while the remaining were of low-frequency. Different measures were obtained: (1) first keystroke latency and (2) keystroke latency of the subsequent letters and duration of the word. Moreover, ERPs locked to the onset of the picture presentation were analyzed to explore the temporal course of word frequency in typewriting. The results showed an effect of word frequency for the first keystroke latency but not for the duration of the word or the speed to which letter were typed (interstroke intervals). The electrophysiological results showed the expected ERP frequency effect at posterior sites: amplitudes for low-frequency words were more positive than those for high-frequency words. However, relative to previous evidence in the spoken modality, the frequency effect appeared in a later time-window. These results demonstrate two marked differences in the processing dynamics underpinning typing compared to speaking: First, central processing dynamics between speaking and typing differ already in the manner that words are accessed; second, central processing differences in typing, unlike speaking, do not cascade to peripheral processes involved in response execution.

Conscious intention to speak proactively facilitates lexical access during overt object naming.

The present study explored when and how the top-down intention to speak influences the language production process. We did so by comparing the brain's electrical response for a variable known to affect lexical access, namely word frequency, during overt object naming and non-verbal object categorization. We found that during naming, the event-related brain potentials elicited for objects with low frequency names started to diverge from those with high frequency names as early as 152 ms after stimulus onset, while during non-verbal categorization the same frequency comparison appeared 200 ms later eliciting a qualitatively different brain response. Thus, only when participants had the conscious intention to name an object the brain rapidly engaged in lexical access. The data offer evidence that top-down intention to speak proactively facilitates the activation of words related to perceived objects.

Early goal-directed top-down influences in the production of speech.

It was recently reported that the conscious intention to produce speech affects the speed with which lexical information is retrieved upon presentation of an object (Strijkers et al., 2011). The goal of the present study was to elaborate further on the role of these top-down influences in the course of planning speech behavior. In an event-related potentials (ERP) experiment, participants were required to overtly name pictures and words in one block of trials, while categorizing the same stimuli in another block of trials. The ERPs elicited by the naming task started to diverge very early on (∼170 ms) from those elicited by the semantic categorization task. Interestingly, these early ERP differences related to task intentionality were identical for pictures and words. From these results we conclude that (a) in line with Strijkers et al. (2011), goal-directed processes play a crucial role very early on in speech production, and (b) these task-driven top-down influences function at least in a domain-general manner by modulating those networks which are always relevant for the production of language, irrespective of which cortical pathways are triggered by the input.

On the temporal and functional origin of l2 disadvantages in speech production: a critical review.

Despite a large amount of psycholinguistic research devoted to the issue of processing differences between a first and a second language, there is no consensus regarding the locus where these emerge or the mechanism behind them. The aim of this article is to briefly examine both the behavioral and neuroscientific evidence in order to critically assess three hypotheses that have been put forward in the literature to explain such differences: the weaker links, executive control, and post-lexical accounts. We conclude that (a) while all stages of processing are likely to be slowed down when speaking in an L2 compared to an L1, the differences seem to originate at a lexical stage; and (b) frequency of use seems to be the variable mainly responsible for these bilingual processing disadvantages.