Semantic Interference Affects Speech Production by Increasing Disfluencies, Not Errors

Overview

Journal R Soc Open Sci

Specialty Science

Date 2023 Jun 30

PMID 37388312

Authors

Kelly Rapoeye

Robert J Hartsuiker

Aurelie Pistono

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Several studies have shown that different types of disfluency occur depending on the language production stage at which people experience difficulties. The current study combined a network task and a picture-word interference task to analyse whether lexical-semantic difficulty triggers errors and disfluencies in connected-speech production. The participants produced more disfluencies in the presence of a semantically related distractor word than an unrelated distractor word, while few semantic errors were made. These results support the hypothesis that difficulties at distinct stages of language production lead to distinct patterns of disfluency, with lexical-semantic difficulties leading to self-corrections and silent pauses. The results also have implications for the role of the monitoring system in connected-speech production.

Citing Articles

Semantic interference affects speech production by increasing disfluencies, not errors.

Rapoeye K, Hartsuiker R, Pistono A R Soc Open Sci. 2023; 10(6):230006.

PMID: 37388312 PMC: 10300674. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.230006.

References

Rapoeye K, Hartsuiker R, Pistono A . Semantic interference affects speech production by increasing disfluencies, not errors. R Soc Open Sci. 2023; 10(6):230006. PMC: 10300674. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.230006. View

Clark H, Wasow T . Repeating words in spontaneous speech. Cogn Psychol. 1999; 37(3):201-42. DOI: 10.1006/cogp.1998.0693. View

De Deyne S, Navarro D, Storms G . Better explanations of lexical and semantic cognition using networks derived from continued rather than single-word associations. Behav Res Methods. 2012; 45(2):480-98. DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0260-7. View

Duez D . Perception of silent pauses in continuous speech. Lang Speech. 1985; 28 ( Pt 4):377-89. DOI: 10.1177/002383098502800403. View

Clark H, Fox Tree J . Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition. 2002; 84(1):73-111. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(02)00017-3. View

Hartsuiker R, Notebaert L . Lexical access problems lead to disfluencies in speech. Exp Psychol. 2010; 57(3):169-77. DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000021. View

Pistono A, Hartsuiker R . Can object identification difficulty be predicted based on disfluencies and eye-movements in connected speech?. PLoS One. 2023; 18(3):e0281589. PMC: 10013892. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281589. View

Brysbaert M, Stevens M . Power Analysis and Effect Size in Mixed Effects Models: A Tutorial. J Cogn. 2019; 1(1):9. PMC: 6646942. DOI: 10.5334/joc.10. View

Oomen C, Postma A . Effects of time pressure on mechanisms of speech production and self-monitoring. J Psycholinguist Res. 2001; 30(2):163-84. DOI: 10.1023/a:1010377828778. View

10.

Barr D, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily H . Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. J Mem Lang. 2014; 68(3). PMC: 3881361. DOI: 10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001. View

11.

Gauvin H, Hartsuiker R . Towards a New Model of Verbal Monitoring. J Cogn. 2020; 3(1):17. PMC: 7473241. DOI: 10.5334/joc.81. View

12.

Peirce J . PsychoPy--Psychophysics software in Python. J Neurosci Methods. 2007; 162(1-2):8-13. PMC: 2018741. DOI: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2006.11.017. View

13.

Levelt W . Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition. 1983; 14(1):41-104. DOI: 10.1016/0010-0277(83)90026-4. View

14.

Severens E, Van Lommel S, Ratinckx E, Hartsuiker R . Timed picture naming norms for 590 pictures in Dutch. Acta Psychol (Amst). 2005; 119(2):159-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2005.01.002. View

15.

Dhooge E, Hartsuiker R . The distractor frequency effect in picture-word interference: Evidence for response exclusion. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010; 36(4):878-91. DOI: 10.1037/a0019128. View