English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Speech monitoring and phonologically-mediated eye gaze in language perception and production: A comparison using printed word eye-tracking

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons79

Huettig,  Falk
Psychology of Language Department, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, External Organizations;
The Cultural Brain, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)
Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Gauvin, H. S., Hartsuiker, R. J., & Huettig, F. (2013). Speech monitoring and phonologically-mediated eye gaze in language perception and production: A comparison using printed word eye-tracking. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7: 818. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00818.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0014-9F45-0
Abstract
The Perceptual Loop Theory of speech monitoring assumes that speakers routinely inspect their inner speech. In contrast, Huettig and Hartsuiker (2010) observed that listening to one’s own speech during language production drives eye-movements to phonologically related printed words with a similar time-course as listening to someone else’s speech does in speech perception experiments. This suggests that speakers listen to their own overt speech, but not to their inner speech. However, a direct comparison between production and perception with the same stimuli and participants is lacking so far. The current printed word eye-tracking experiment therefore used a within-subjects design, combining production and perception. Displays showed four words, of which one, the target, either had to be named or was presented auditorily. Accompanying words were phonologically related, semantically related, or unrelated to the target. There were small increases in looks to phonological competitors with a similar time-course in both production and perception. Phonological effects in perception however lasted longer and had a much larger magnitude. We conjecture that this difference is related to a difference in predictability of one’s own and someone else’s speech, which in turn has consequences for lexical competition in other-perception and possibly suppression of activation in self-perception.