Publications

Displaying 1 - 6 of 6
  • Carota, F., Schoffelen, J.-M., Oostenveld, R., & Indefrey, P. (2023). Parallel or sequential? Decoding conceptual and phonological/phonetic information from MEG signals during language production. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 40(5-6), 298-317. doi:10.1080/02643294.2023.2283239.

    Abstract

    Speaking requires the temporally coordinated planning of core linguistic information, from conceptual meaning to articulation. Recent neurophysiological results suggested that these operations involve a cascade of neural events with subsequent onset times, whilst competing evidence suggests early parallel neural activation. To test these hypotheses, we examined the sources of neuromagnetic activity recorded from 34 participants overtly naming 134 images from 4 object categories (animals, tools, foods and clothes). Within each category, word length and phonological neighbourhood density were co-varied to target phonological/phonetic processes. Multivariate pattern analyses (MVPA) searchlights in source space decoded object categories in occipitotemporal and middle temporal cortex, and phonological/phonetic variables in left inferior frontal (BA 44) and motor cortex early on. The findings suggest early activation of multiple variables due to intercorrelated properties and interactivity of processing, thus raising important questions about the representational properties of target words during the preparatory time enabling overt speaking.
  • Jodzio, A., Piai, V., Verhagen, L., Cameron, I., & Indefrey, P. (2023). Validity of chronometric TMS for probing the time-course of word production: A modified replication. Cerebral Cortex, 33(12), 7816-7829. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhad081.

    Abstract

    In the present study, we used chronometric TMS to probe the time-course of 3 brain regions during a picture naming task. The left inferior frontal gyrus, left posterior middle temporal gyrus, and left posterior superior temporal gyrus were all separately stimulated in 1 of 5 time-windows (225, 300, 375, 450, and 525 ms) from picture onset. We found posterior temporal areas to be causally involved in picture naming in earlier time-windows, whereas all 3 regions appear to be involved in the later time-windows. However, chronometric TMS produces nonspecific effects that may impact behavior, and furthermore, the time-course of any given process is a product of both the involved processing stages along with individual variation in the duration of each stage. We therefore extend previous work in the field by accounting for both individual variations in naming latencies and directly testing for nonspecific effects of TMS. Our findings reveal that both factors influence behavioral outcomes at the group level, underlining the importance of accounting for individual variations in naming latencies, especially for late processing stages closer to articulation, and recognizing the presence of nonspecific effects of TMS. The paper advances key considerations and avenues for future work using chronometric TMS to study overt production.
  • Scheibel, M., & Indefrey, P. (2023). Top-down enhanced object recognition in blocking and priming paradigms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 49(3), 327-354. doi:10.1037/xhp0001094.

    Abstract

    Previous studies have demonstrated that context manipulations by semantic blocking and category priming can, under particular design conditions, give rise to semantic facilitation effects. The interpretation of semantic facilitation effects is controversial in the word production literature; perceptual accounts propose that contextually facilitated object recognition may underlie facilitation effects. The present study tested this notion. We investigated the difficulty of object recognition in a semantic blocking and a category priming task. We presented all pictures in gradually de-blurring image sequences and measured the de-blurring level that first allowed for correct object naming as an indicator of the perceptual demands of object recognition. Based on object recognition models assuming a temporal progression from coarse- to fine-grained visual processing, we reasoned that the lower the required level of detail, the more efficient the recognition processes. The results demonstrate that categorically related contexts reduce the level of visual detail required for object naming compared to unrelated contexts, with this effect being most pronounced for shape-distinctive objects and in contexts providing explicit category cues. We propose a top-down explanation based on target predictability of the observed effects. Implications of the recognition effects based on target predictability for the interpretation of context effects observed in latencies are discussed.

    Additional information

    Stimuli, Ratings, Analysis codes
  • 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., & 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