Does Exhausting Executive Control Impair Speech Production? Evidence From Lexical Competition

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Fink ◽  
Matt Goldrick
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Lexical Competition

scholarly journals Assessing the presence of lexical competition across languages: Evidence from the Stroop task

2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-131 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALBERT COSTA ◽  
BÁRBARA ALBAREDA ◽  
MIKEL SANTESTEBAN
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Stroop Task ◽  
Interference Effect ◽  
Lexical Competition ◽  
Facilitation Effect ◽  
Lexical Representations ◽  
Language Identity ◽  
Paradoxical Effects ◽  
The Cross ◽  
Cross Language

Do the lexical representations of the non-response language enter into lexical competition during speech production? This issue has been studied by means of the picture–word interference paradigm in which two paradoxical effects have been observed. The so-called CROSS-LANGUAGE IDENTITY EFFECT (Costa, Miozzo and Caramazza, 1999) has been taken as evidence against cross-linguistic lexical competition. In contrast, the so-called PHONO-TRANSLATION EFFECT (Hermans, Bongaerts, De Bot and Schreuder, 1998) has been interpreted as revealing lexical competition across languages. In this article, we assess the reliability of these two effects by testing Spanish–Catalan highly-proficient bilinguals performing a Stroop task. The results of the experiment are clear: while the cross-language identity facilitation effect is reliably replicated, the phono-translation interference effect is absent from the Stroop task. From these results, we conclude that we should be cautious when drawing strong conclusions about the presence of competition across languages based on the phono-translation effect observed in the picture–word interference paradigm.

The neural systems underlying lexical competition in speech production: Evidence from Aphasia

2007 ◽  
Vol 103 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 10-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith S. Apfelbaum ◽  
Sheila E. Blumstein ◽  
Audrey Kittredge
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Neural Systems ◽  
Lexical Competition

scholarly journals Inner versus Overt Speech Production: Does This Make a Difference in the Developing Brain?

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. 939
Author(s):  
Franziska Stephan ◽  
Henrik Saalbach ◽  
Sonja Rossi
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Near Infrared ◽  
Naming Task ◽  
Inner Speech ◽  
Production Network ◽  
Functional Near Infrared Spectroscopy ◽  
Preparation Phase ◽  
Overt Speech

Studies in adults showed differential neural processing between overt and inner speech. So far, it is unclear whether inner and overt speech are processed differentially in children. The present study examines the pre-activation of the speech network in order to disentangle domain-general executive control from linguistic control of inner and overt speech production in 6- to 7-year-olds by simultaneously applying electroencephalography (EEG) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). Children underwent a picture-naming task in which the pure preparation of a subsequent speech production and the actual execution of speech can be differentiated. The preparation phase does not represent speech per se but it resembles the setting up of the language production network. Only the fNIRS revealed a larger activation for overt, compared to inner, speech over bilateral prefrontal to parietal regions during the preparation phase. Findings suggest that the children’s brain can prepare the subsequent speech production. The preparation for overt and inner speech requires different domain-general executive control. In contrast to adults, the children’s brain did not show differences between inner and overt speech when a concrete linguistic content occurs and a concrete execution is required. This might indicate that domain-specific executive control processes are still under development.

The Need for a Broad-Based Model of Phonological Disorders

1992 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Kamhi
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Phonological Disorders ◽  
Production Processes ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Speech Delays ◽  
Explanatory Adequacy ◽  
State Of Affairs ◽  
Assessment Procedures ◽  
Treatment Procedures

My response to Fey’s article (1985; reprinted 1992, this issue) focuses on the confusion caused by the application of simplistic phonological definitions and models to the assessment and treatment of children with speech delays. In addition to having no explanatory adequacy, such definitions/models lead either to assessment and treatment procedures that are similarly focused or to procedures that have no clear logical ties to the models with which they supposedly are linked. Narrowly focused models and definitions also usually include no mention of speech production processes. Bemoaning this state of affairs, I attempt to show why it is important for clinicians to embrace broad-based models of phonological disorders that have some explanatory value. Such models are consistent with assessment procedures that are comprehensive in nature and treatment procedures that focus on linguistic, as well as motoric, aspects of speech.

A Family With Autosomal-Dominant Progressive Sensorineural Hearing Loss

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Halpin ◽  
Barbara Herrmann ◽  
Margaret Whearty
Keyword(s):  
Speech Production ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Role Models ◽  
Speech Intelligibility ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
The Family ◽  
Patient Will ◽  
Language Pathology

The family described in this article provides an unusual opportunity to relate findings from genetic, histological, electrophysiological, psychophysical, and rehabilitative investigation. Although the total number evaluated is large (49), the known, living affected population is smaller (14), and these are spread from age 20 to age 59. As a result, the findings described above are those of a large-scale case study. Clearly, more data will be available through longitudinal study of the individuals documented in the course of this investigation but, given the slow nature of the progression in this disease, such studies will be undertaken after an interval of several years. The general picture presented to the audiologist who must rehabilitate these cases is that of a progressive cochlear degeneration that affects only thresholds at first, and then rapidly diminishes speech intelligibility. The expected result is that, after normal language development, the patient may accept hearing aids well, encouraged by the support of the family. Performance and satisfaction with the hearing aids is good, until the onset of the speech intelligibility loss, at which time the patient will encounter serious difficulties and may reject hearing aids as unhelpful. As the histological and electrophysiological results indicate, however, the eighth nerve remains viable, especially in the younger affected members, and success with cochlear implantation may be expected. Audiologic counseling efforts are aided by the presence of role models and support from the other affected members of the family. Speech-language pathology services were not considered important by the members of this family since their speech production developed normally and has remained very good. Self-correction of speech was supported by hearing aids and cochlear implants (Case 5’s speech production was documented in Perkell, Lane, Svirsky, & Webster, 1992). These patients received genetic counseling and, due to the high penetrance of the disease, exhibited serious concerns regarding future generations and the hope of a cure.

Effects of Concurrent Manual Task Performance on Connected Speech Acoustics in Individuals With Parkinson Disease

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (7) ◽  
pp. 2099-2117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason A. Whitfield ◽  
Zoe Kriegel ◽  
Adam M. Fullenkamp ◽  
Daryush D. Mehta
Keyword(s):  
Task Performance ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Dual Task ◽  
Motor Task ◽  
Task Condition ◽  
Connected Speech ◽  
Speech Acoustics ◽  
Single Task ◽  
Manual Task ◽  
Task Conditions

Purpose Prior investigations suggest that simultaneous performance of more than 1 motor-oriented task may exacerbate speech motor deficits in individuals with Parkinson disease (PD). The purpose of the current investigation was to examine the extent to which performing a low-demand manual task affected the connected speech in individuals with and without PD. Method Individuals with PD and neurologically healthy controls performed speech tasks (reading and extemporaneous speech tasks) and an oscillatory manual task (a counterclockwise circle-drawing task) in isolation (single-task condition) and concurrently (dual-task condition). Results Relative to speech task performance, no changes in speech acoustics were observed for either group when the low-demand motor task was performed with the concurrent reading tasks. Speakers with PD exhibited a significant decrease in pause duration between the single-task (speech only) and dual-task conditions for the extemporaneous speech task, whereas control participants did not exhibit changes in any speech production variable between the single- and dual-task conditions. Conclusions Overall, there were little to no changes in speech production when a low-demand oscillatory motor task was performed with concurrent reading. For the extemporaneous task, however, individuals with PD exhibited significant changes when the speech and manual tasks were performed concurrently, a pattern that was not observed for control speakers. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8637008

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document