The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn’t fly: Related beply to Baars et al. (1975) ☆

By Robert J. Hartsuiker, Martin Corley, H. Martensen. 2005

90 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Developmental and Educational Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d850269dbc3aed7d65b49ccda69f93630883ede9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Sieb G. Nooteboom
2. Matthew A. Goldrick
3. Kuniko Y. Nielsen

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

1. Sieb G. Nooteboom
2. Matthew A. Goldrick
3. Kuniko Y. Nielsen

Citations in the corpus

• Cascading activation from phonological planning to articulatory processes: Evidence from tongue twisters (2006, background): “This activation difference accounts for the empirically observed lexical bias effect—phonological errors are more likely to create words than nonwords (Dell & Reich, 1981 ; Dell, 1986 ; see Hartsuiker, Corley, & Martensen, 2005 , for a recent review of experimental evidence, and Goldrick, 2005, f”
• Lexical bias revisited: Detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech (2005, background): “This has been demonstrated to be a robust phenomenon in laboratory-induced spoonerisms (Baars et al., 1975; Dell, 1986; Motley, 1980; Motley et al., 1982; Humphreys, 2002; Nooteboom, 2003; Hartsuiker et al., 2005a).”
• Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect. (2008, unknown): “WREATH LEAGUE fi LEATH REEG) (Baars, Motley, & MacKay, 1975; Costa, Roelstraete, & Hartsuiker, 2006; Dell, 1986, 1990; Humphreys, 2002; Hartsuiker, Corley, & Martensen, 2005, 2006; Nooteboom, 2005a).”