Error biases in inner and overt speech: evidence from tongue twisters.

By Martin Corley, P. Brocklehurst, H. S. Moat. 2011

64 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology, Cognitive Science & Psychology

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. Ben Alderson-Day
2. Charles Fernyhough

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

1. Ben Alderson-Day
2. Charles Fernyhough

In Social Psychology

1. Ben Alderson-Day
2. Charles Fernyhough
3. Simon McCarthy-Jones
4. Simon R. Jones
5. E. Meins
6. Peter Fonagy

In Cognitive Science & Psychology

1. Ben Alderson-Day
2. Charles Fernyhough
3. E. Meins
4. Simon McCarthy-Jones
5. Christopher Jarrold
6. David M Williams
7. D. Bowler
8. J. Lidstone

Citations in the corpus

• Inner Speech: Development, Cognitive Functions, Phenomenology, and Neurobiology (2015, background): “Thus, in cases where inner speech appears to have specific phonological features (as in Corley et al., 2011), this may have been be due to participants deploying a form of inner speech involving a greater degree of articulation (such as silently mouthing words as they are represented in inner…”
• How do forward models work? And why would you want them? (2013, unknown): “Second, there is abundant evidence that people easily detect their inner speech errors (Corley et al. 2011; Dell 1978; Dell & Repka 1992; Hockett 1967; Meringer & Meyer 1895, cited in MacKay 1992; Oppen-heim & Dell 2008; 2010; Postma & Noordanus 1996).”
• Inner Speech during Silent Reading Reflects the Reader's Regional Accent (2011, background): “However, some of the evidence from tongue twister studies [30] seems to suggest that inner speech is impoverished at the featural level, compared to overt speech (but see [31]).”