Predicting and imagining language

References

• Adank, P. (2012). The neural bases of difficult speech comprehension and speech production: Two activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analyses. Brain and Language, 122(1), 42–54. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2012.04.014
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G., & Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference. Cognition, 73(3), 247–264. doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(99)00059-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Altmann, G., & Mirković, J. (2009). Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science, 33(4), 583–609. doi: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01022.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atkinson, J. R. (2006). The perceptual characteristics of voice-hallucinations in deaf people: Insights into the nature of subvocal thought and sensory feedback loops. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32(4), 701–708. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbj063
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atmaca, S., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2011). The joint flanker effect: Sharing tasks with real and imagined co-actors. Experimental Brain Research, 211(3–4), 371–385. doi: 10.1007/s00221-011-2709-9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baus, C., Sebanz, N., de la Fuente, V., Branzi, F. M., Martin, C., & Costa, A. (2014). On predicting others’ words: Electrophysiological evidence of prediction in speech production. Cognition, 133(2), 395–407. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2014.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Behroozmand, R., & Larson, C. R. (2011). Error-dependent modulation of speech-induced auditory suppression for pitch-shifted voice feedback. BMC Neuroscience, 12(1), 54–63. doi:10.1186/1471-2202-12-54
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callan, D. E., Jones, J. A., Callan, A. M., & Akahane-Yamada, R. (2004). Phonetic perceptual identification by native-and second-language speakers differentially activates brain regions involved with acoustic phonetic processing and those involved with articulatory–auditory/orosensory internal models. NeuroImage, 22(3), 1182–1194. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.03.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corley, M., Brocklehurst, P. H., & Moat, H. S. (2011). Error biases in inner and overt speech: Evidence from tongue twisters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37(1), 162–175. doi: 10.1037/a0021321
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummins, F. (2003). Practice and performance in speech produced synchronously. Journal of Phonetics, 31(2), 139–148. doi:10.1016/S0095-4470(02)00082-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D'Ausilio, A., Bufalari, I., Salmas, P., & Fadiga, L. (2012). The role of the motor system in discriminating normal and degraded speech sounds. Cortex, 48(7), 882–887. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2011.05.017
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Emmorey, K., Bosworth, R., & Kraljic, T. (2009). Visual feedback and self-monitoring of sign language. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 398–411. doi:10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Federmeier, K. D., Kutas, M., & Schul, R. (2010). Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension. Brain and Language, 115(3), 149–161. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gambi, C., Cop, U., & Pickering, M. J. (2015). How do speakers coordinate? Evidence for prediction in a joint word-replacement task. Cortex, 68, 111–128. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2014.09.009
   Google Scholar
• Gambi, C., & Pickering, M. J. (2013). Talking to each other and talking together: Joint language tasks and degrees of interactivity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 423–424. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12001926
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gambi, C., & Pickering, M. J. (in press). Models linking production and comprehension. In E. Fernàndez, and H. Cairns (Eds.), Handbook of Psycholinguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Gambi, C., Van de Cavey, J., & Pickering, M. J. (2015). Interference in joint picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 41(1), 1–21. doi: 10.1037/a0037438
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldman, A. I. (2006). Simulating minds: The philosophy, psychology, and neuroscience of mindreading. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Grush, R. (2004). The emulation theory of representation: Motor control, imagery, and perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(3), 377–396. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X04000093
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinks-Maldonado, T. H., Nagarajan, S. S., & Houde, J. F. (2006). Magnetoencephalographic evidence for a precise forward model in speech production. Neuroreport, 17(13), 1375–1379. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000233102.43526.e9
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickok, G. (2012a). Computational neuroanatomy of speech production. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 13(2), 135–145. doi: 10.1038/nrn3158
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickok, G. (2012b). The cortical organization of speech processing: Feedback control and predictive coding the context of a dual-stream model. Journal of Communication Disorders, 45(6), 393–402. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2012.06.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hurley, S. (2008). Understanding Simulation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 77(3), 755–774. doi: 10.1111/j.1933-1592.2008.00220.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ito, T., Tiede, M., & Ostry, D. J. (2009). Somatosensory function in speech perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the Unites States of America, 106(4), 1245–1248. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0810063106
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kempen, G. (2014). Prolegomena to a neurocomputational architecture for human grammatical encoding and decoding. Neuroinformatics, 12(1), 111–142. doi: 10.1007/s12021-013-9191-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knoblich, G., Butterfill, S., & Sebanz, N. (2011). Psychological research on joint action: Theory and data. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, (Vol. 54, pp 59–101). Burlington: Academic Press.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knolle, F., Schröger, E., & Kotz, S. A. (2013). Cerebellar contribution to the prediction of self-initiated sounds. Cortex, 49(9), 2449–2461. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2012.12.012
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kutas, M., DeLong, K. A., & Smith, N. J. (2011). A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. In M. Bar (Ed.), Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future (pp. 190–207). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lesage, E., Morgan, B. E., Olson, A. C., Meyer, A. S., & Miall, R. C. (2012). Cerebellar rTMS disrupts predictive language processing. Current Biology, 22(18), R794–R795. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
   Google Scholar
• Loehr, J. D., Kourtis, D., Vesper, C., Sebanz, N., & Knoblich, G. (2013). Monitoring individual and joint action outcomes in duet music performance. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(7), 1049–1061. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00388
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacKay, D. G. (1992). Constraints on theories of inner speech. In D. Reisberg (Ed.), Auditory imagery (pp. 121–149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Niziolek, C. A., Nagarajan, S. S., & Houde, J. F. (2013). What does motor efference copy represent? Evidence from speech production. The Journal of Neuroscience, 33(41), 16110–16116. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2137-13.2013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nozari, N., Dell, G. S., & Schwartz, M. F. (2011). Is comprehension necessary for error detection? A conflict-based account of monitoring in speech production. Cognitive Psychology, 63(1), 1–33. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.05.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppenheim, G. M., & Dell, G. S. (2008). Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect. Cognition, 106(1), 528–537. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2007.02.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oppenheim, G. M., & Dell, G. S. (2010). Motor movement matters: The flexible abstractness of inner speech. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1147–1160. doi:10.3758/MC.38.8.1147
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Rapin, L., Lachaux, J. P., Baciu, M., & Lœvenbruck, H. (2014). What is that little voice inside my head? Inner speech phenomenology, its role in cognitive performance, and its relation to self-monitoring. Behavioural Brain Research, 261, 220–239. doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2013.12.034
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pezzulo, G. (2011). Grounding procedural and declarative knowledge in sensorimotor anticipation. Mind & Language, 26(1), 78–114. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01411.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Clark, A. (2014). Getting ahead: Forward models and their place in cognitive architecture. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18(9), 451–456. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain sciences, 27(2), 169–190. doi:10.1017/S0140525X04000056
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329–392. doi:10.1017/S0140525X12001495
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2014). Self-, other-, and joint monitoring using forward models. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8 (132), 1–11, doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00132
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reisberg, D., Smith, J. D., Baxter, D. A., & Sonenshine, M. (1989). “Enacted” auditory images are ambiguous; “pure” auditory images are not. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41(3), 619–641. doi:10.1080/14640748908402385
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, M., Yeung, H. H., Gick, B., & Werker, J. F. (2013). Inner speech captures the perception of external speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 133(4), EL286–EL292. doi:10.1121/1.4794932
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, S. K., McGettigan, C., & Eisner, F. (2009). A little more conversation, a little less action: Candidate roles for the motor cortex in speech perception. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 10(4), 295–302. doi:10.1038/nrn2603
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, J. D., Wilson, M., & Reisberg, D. (1995). The role of subvocalization in auditory imagery. Neuropsychologia, 33(11), 1433–1454. doi:10.1016/0028-3932(95)00074-D
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, N. J., & Levy, R. (2013). The effect of word predictability on reading time is logarithmic. Cognition, 128(3), 302–319. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2013.02.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension. Science, 268(5217), 1632–1634. doi:10.1126/science.7777863
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, N. J. (1999). Are theories of imagery theories of imagination? An active perception approach to conscious mental content. Cognitive Science, 23(2), 207–245. doi:10.1016/S0364-0213(99)00004-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, X., & Poeppel, D. (2010). Mental imagery of speech and movement implicates the dynamics of internal forward models. Frontiers in Psychology, 1 (166), 1–23, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00166.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Tian, X., & Poeppel, D. (2012). Mental imagery of speech: Linking motor and perceptual systems through internal simulation and estimation. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 6 (314), 1–11, doi:10.3389/fnhum.2012.00314
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, X., & Poeppel, D. (2013). The effect of imagination on stimulation: The functional specificity of efference copies in speech processing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 25(7), 1020–1036. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00381
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tian, X., & Poeppel, D. (2015). Dynamics of self-monitoring and error detection in speech production: Evidence from mental imagery MEG. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 27(2), 352–364. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00692
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tourville, J. A., & Guenther, F. H. (2011). The DIVA model: A neural theory of speech acquisition and production. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(7), 952–981. doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.08.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Berkum, J. J., Brown, C. M., Zwitserlood, P., Kooijman, V., & Hagoort, P. (2005). Anticipating upcoming words in discourse: Evidence from ERPs and reading times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(3), 443–467. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.443
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vesper, C., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2014). Our actions in my mind: Motor imagery of joint action. Neuropsychologia, 55, 115–121. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2013.05.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vesper, C., Van der Wel, R. P. R. D., Knoblich, G., & Sebanz, N. (2013). Are you ready to jump? Predictive mechanisms in interpersonal coordination. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(1), 48–61. doi:10.1037/a0028066
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeldon, L. R., & Levelt, W. J. (1995). Monitoring the time course of phonological encoding. Journal of Memory and Language, 34(3), 311–334. doi:10.1006/jmla.1995.1014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ylinen, S., Nora, A., Leminen, A., Hakala, T., Huotilainen, M., Shtyrov, Y., & Mäkelä, J. P. (2015). Two distinct auditory-motor circuits for monitoring speech production as revealed by content-specific suppression of auditory cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 25(6), 1576–1586. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht351
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yuen, I., Davis, M. H., Brysbaert, M., & Rastle, K. (2010). Activation of articulatory information in speech perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(2), 592–597. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0904774107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar