Publications

Displaying 1 - 10 of 10
  • Fueller, C., Loescher, J., & Indefrey, P. (2013). Writing superiority in cued recall. Frontiers in Psychology, 4: 764. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00764.

    Abstract

    In list learning paradigms with free recall, written recall has been found to be less susceptible to intrusions of related concepts than spoken recall when the list items had been visually presented. This effect has been ascribed to the use of stored orthographic representations from the study phase during written recall (Kellogg, 2001). In other memory retrieval paradigms, by contrast, either better recall for modality-congruent items or an input-independent writing superiority effect have been found (Grabowski, 2005). In a series of four experiments using a paired associate learning paradigm we tested (a) whether output modality effects on verbal recall can be replicated in a paradigm that does not involve the rejection of semantically related intrusion words, (b) whether a possible superior performance for written recall was due to a slower response onset for writing as compared to speaking in immediate recall, and (c) whether the performance in paired associate word recall was correlated with performance in an additional episodic memory recall task. We observed better written recall in the first half of the recall phase, irrespective of the modality in which the material was presented upon encoding. An explanation for this effect based on longer response latencies for writing and hence more time for memory retrieval could be ruled out by showing that the effect persisted in delayed response versions of the task. Although there was some evidence that stored additional episodic information may contribute to the successful retrieval of associate words, this evidence was only found in the immediate response experiments and hence is most likely independent from the observed output modality effect. In sum, our results from a paired associate learning paradigm suggest that superior performance for written vs. spoken recall cannot be (solely) explained in terms of additional access to stored orthographic representations from the encoding phase. Our findings rather suggest a general writing-superiority effect at the time of memory retrieval.
  • Indefrey, P., & Cutler, A. (2004). Prelexical and lexical processing in listening. In M. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences III. (pp. 759-774). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Abstract

    This paper presents a meta-analysis of hemodynamic studies on passive auditory language processing. We assess the overlap of hemodynamic activation areas and activation maxima reported in experiments involving the presentation of sentences, words, pseudowords, or sublexical or non-linguistic auditory stimuli. Areas that have been reliably replicated are identified. The results of the meta-analysis are compared to electrophysiological, magnetencephalic (MEG), and clinical findings. It is concluded that auditory language input is processed in a left posterior frontal and bilateral temporal cortical network. Within this network, no processing leve l is related to a single cortical area. The temporal lobes seem to differ with respect to their involvement in post-lexical processing, in that the left temporal lobe has greater involvement than the right, and also in the degree of anatomical specialization for phonological, lexical, and sentence -level processing, with greater overlap on the right contrasting with a higher degree of differentiation on the left.
  • Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2004). The spatial and temporal signatures of word production components. Cognition, 92(1-2), 101-144. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2002.06.001.

    Abstract

    This paper presents the results of a comprehensive meta-analysis of the relevant imaging literature on word production (82 experiments). In addition to the spatial overlap of activated regions, we also analyzed the available data on the time course of activations. The analysis specified regions and time windows of activation for the core processes of word production: lexical selection, phonological code retrieval, syllabification, and phonetic/articulatory preparation. A comparison of the word production results with studies on auditory word/non-word perception and reading showed that the time course of activations in word production is, on the whole, compatible with the temporal constraints that perception processes impose on the production processes they affect in picture/word interference paradigms.
  • Indefrey, P. (2004). Hirnaktivierungen bei syntaktischer Sprachverarbeitung: Eine Meta-Analyse. In H. Müller, & G. Rickheit (Eds.), Neurokognition der Sprache (pp. 31-50). Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
  • Indefrey, P., Hellwig, F. M., Herzog, H., Seitz, R. J., & Hagoort, P. (2004). Neural responses to the production and comprehension of syntax in identical utterances. Brain and Language, 89(2), 312-319. doi:10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00352-3.

    Abstract

    Following up on an earlier positron emission tomography (PET) experiment (Indefrey et al., 2001), we used a scene description paradigm to investigate whether a posterior inferior frontal region subserving syntactic encoding for speaking is also involved in syntactic parsing during listening. In the language production part of the experiment, subjects described visually presented scenes
    using either sentences, sequences of noun phrases, or sequences of syntactically unrelated words. In the language comprehension part of the experiment, subjects were auditorily presented with the same kinds of utterances and judged whether they matched the visual scenes. We were able to replicate the previous finding of a region in caudal Broca s area that is sensitive to the complexity of
    syntactic encoding in language production. In language comprehension, no hemodynamic activation differences due to syntactic complexity were found. Given that correct performance in the judgment task did not require syntactic processing of the auditory stimuli, the results suggest that the degree to which listeners recruit syntactic processing resources in language comprehension may be a function of the syntactic demands of the task or the stimulus material.
  • Ischebeck, A., Indefrey, P., Usui, N., Nose, I., Hellwig, F. M., & Taira, M. (2004). Reading in a regular orthography: An fMRI study investigating the role of visual familiarity. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 16(5), 727-741. doi:10.1162/089892904970708.

    Abstract

    In order to separate the cognitive processes associated with phonological encoding and the use of a visual word form lexicon in reading, it is desirable to compare the processing of words presented in a visually familiar form with words in a visually unfamiliar form. Japanese Kana orthography offers this possibility. Two phonologically equivalent but visually dissimilar syllabaries allow the writing of, for example, foreign loanwords in two ways, only one of which is visually familiar. Familiarly written words, unfamiliarly written words, and pseudowords were presented in both Kana syllabaries (yielding six conditions in total) to participants during an fMRI measurement with a silent articulation task (Experiment 1) and a phonological lexical decision task (Experiment 2) using an event-related design. Consistent over two experimental tasks, the three different stimulus types (familiar, unfamiliar, and pseudoword) were found to activate selectively different brain regions previously associated with phonological encoding and word retrieval or meaning. Compatible with the predictions of the dual-route model for reading, pseudowords and visually unfamiliar words, which have to be read using phonological assembly, caused an increase in brain activity in left inferior frontal regions (BA 44/47), as compared to visually familiar words. Visually familiar and unfamiliar words were found to activate a range of areas associated with lexico-semantic processing more strongly than pseudowords, such as the left and right temporo-parietal region (BA 39/40), a region in the left middle/inferior temporal gyrus (BA 20/21), and the posterior cingulate (BA 31).
  • Sach, M., Seitz, R. J., & Indefrey, P. (2004). Unified inflectional processing of regular and irregular verbs: A PET study. NeuroReport, 15(3), 533-537. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000113529.32218.92.

    Abstract

    Psycholinguistic theories propose different models of inflectional processing of regular and irregular verbs: dual mechanism models assume separate modules with lexical frequency sensitivity for irregular verbs. In contradistinction, connectionist models propose a unified process in a single module.We conducted a PET study using a 2 x 2 design with verb regularity and frequency.We found significantly shorter voice onset times for regular verbs and high frequency verbs irrespective of regularity. The PET data showed activations in inferior frontal gyrus (BA 45), nucleus lentiformis, thalamus, and superior medial cerebellum for both regular and irregular verbs but no dissociation for verb regularity.Our results support common processing components for regular and irregular verb inflection.
  • Vigliocco, G., Vinson, D. P., Indefrey, P., Levelt, W. J. M., & Hellwig, F. M. (2004). Role of grammatical gender and semantics in German word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30(2), 483-497. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.30.2.483.

    Abstract

    Semantic substitution errors (e.g., saying "arm" when "leg" is intended) are among the most common types of errors occurring during spontaneous speech. It has been shown that grammatical gender of German target nouns is preserved in the errors (E. Marx, 1999). In 3 experiments, the authors explored different accounts of the grammatical gender preservation effect in German. In all experiments, semantic substitution errors were induced using a continuous naming paradigm. In Experiment 1, it was found that gender preservation disappeared when speakers produced bare nouns. Gender preservation was found when speakers produced phrases with determiners marked for gender (Experiment 2) but not when the produced determiners were not marked for gender (Experiment 3). These results are discussed in the context of models of lexical retrieval during production.
  • Indefrey, P., & Levelt, W. J. M. (2000). The neural correlates of language production. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences; 2nd ed. (pp. 845-865). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Abstract

    This chapter reviews the findings of 58 word production experiments using different tasks and neuroimaging techniques. The reported cerebral activation sites are coded in a common anatomic reference system. Based on a functional model of language production, the different word production tasks are analyzed in terms of their processing components. This approach allows a distinction between the core process of word production and preceding task-specific processes (lead-in processes) such as visual or auditory stimulus recognition. The core process of word production is subserved by a left-lateralized perisylvian/thalamic language production network. Within this network there seems to be functional specialization for the processing stages of word production. In addition, this chapter includes a discussion of the available evidence on syntactic production, self-monitoring, and the time course of word production.
  • Levelt, W. J. M., & Indefrey, P. (2000). The speaking mind/brain: Where do spoken words come from? In A. Marantz, Y. Miyashita, & W. O'Neil (Eds.), Image, language, brain: Papers from the First Mind Articulation Project Symposium (pp. 77-94). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Share this page