Neurobiology of Language Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics Nijmegen, Netherlands ; Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Front Hum Neurosci. 2014 Apr 16;8:206. doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.00206. eCollection 2014.
A number of recent studies have hypothesized that monitoring in speech production may occur via domain-general mechanisms responsible for the detection of response conflict. Outside of language, two ERP components have consistently been elicited in conflict-inducing tasks (e.g., the flanker task): the stimulus-locked N2 on correct trials, and the response-locked error-related negativity (ERN). The present investigation used these electrophysiological markers to test whether a common response conflict monitor is responsible for monitoring in speech and non-speech tasks. Electroencephalography (EEG) was recorded while participants performed a tongue twister (TT) task and a manual version of the flanker task. In the TT task, people rapidly read sequences of four nonwords arranged in TT and non-TT patterns three times. In the flanker task, people responded with a left/right button press to a center-facing arrow, and conflict was manipulated by the congruency of the flanking arrows. Behavioral results showed typical effects of both tasks, with increased error rates and slower speech onset times for TT relative to non-TT trials and for incongruent relative to congruent flanker trials. In the flanker task, stimulus-locked EEG analyses replicated previous results, with a larger N2 for incongruent relative to congruent trials, and a response-locked ERN. In the TT task, stimulus-locked analyses revealed broad, frontally-distributed differences beginning around 50 ms and lasting until just before speech initiation, with TT trials more negative than non-TT trials; response-locked analyses revealed an ERN. Correlation across these measures showed some correlations within a task, but little evidence of systematic cross-task correlation. Although the present results do not speak against conflict signals from the production system serving as cues to self-monitoring, they are not consistent with signatures of response conflict being mediated by a single, domain-general conflict monitor.
一些最近的研究假设,在言语产生过程中的监测可能通过负责检测反应冲突的域普遍机制发生。在语言之外,在引起冲突的任务中(例如,flanker 任务)一致地引出了两个 ERP 成分:在正确试验上的刺激锁定 N2,以及在响应锁定的错误相关负性(ERN)。本研究使用这些电生理标记来测试是否有一个共同的反应冲突监测器负责监测言语和非言语任务。当参与者执行绕口令(TT)任务和手动版 flanker 任务时,记录脑电图(EEG)。在 TT 任务中,人们快速阅读以 TT 和非 TT 模式排列的四个非词的序列,共三次。在 flanker 任务中,人们用左/右键按下来响应面向中心的箭头,并且通过侧翼箭头的一致性来操纵冲突。行为结果显示了两个任务的典型影响,与非 TT 试验相比,TT 试验的错误率增加,言语起始时间变慢,与一致试验相比,不一致试验的错误率更高。在 flanker 任务中,刺激锁定 EEG 分析复制了以前的结果,不一致试验的 N2 大于一致试验的 N2,并且有响应锁定的 ERN。在 TT 任务中,刺激锁定分析显示出大约 50 毫秒开始并持续到言语起始之前的广泛的、额部分布的差异,TT 试验比非 TT 试验更负;响应锁定分析显示出 ERN。这些测量的相关性显示出任务内的一些相关性,但很少有系统的跨任务相关性的证据。尽管目前的结果并不反对来自产生系统的冲突信号作为自我监测的线索,但它们与由单个域普遍冲突监测器介导的响应冲突的特征不一致。