The pattern of activity between these areas, involved in the preparation for and production of speech, and posterior superior temporal areas, involved in phonological aspects of speech perception, led us to suggest that when listening to speech, we actively use our knowledge about how to produce speech to extract phonemic information from the face [1, 8].
Sample text:```For example, Kawato et al. (1990) suggested that movement trajectories can be projected using critical via-points through which the trajectory has to pass at a certain time, rather than in terms of the moment-by-moment dynamics of the implemented movement trajectory. Optimal trajectories can then be learnt by applying local optimising principles for getting from one via-point to the next. In this way, impoverished predictions can be used to monitor rich implementations. In the same way, language users might predict particularly crucial aspects of an utterance, but the aspects that they predict will depend on the circumstances. More generally, Meyer & Hagoort question the value of predicting one’s own utterance. They argue that prediction is useful when it is likely to differ from the actual event. This is the case when predicting another person’s behaviour or when the result of one’s action is uncertain (e.g., moving in a strong wind). But they argue that people are confident about their own speech. Meyer & Hagoort admit that they will tend to be less confident in dialogue, and we agree. But more important, we argue that the behaviour of the production implementer is not fully determined by the production command, because the complex processes involved in production are subject to internal (“neural”) noise or priming (i.e., influences that may not be a result of the production command). Assuming that these sources of noise do not necessarily affect forward modelling as well, predicted speech may differ from actual speech. In addition, prediction is useful even if the behaviour is fully predictable, because it allows the actor to plan future behaviour on the basis of the prediction. In fact, we made such a proposal in relation to the order of heavy and light phrases (see sect. 3.1, target article). Hartsuiker claims that our account incorrectly predicts an early competitor effect in Huettig and Hartsuiker (2010). His claim is based on the assumption that Response/Pickering & Garrod: An integrated theory of language production and comprehension```
Sample intent: method
Sample text:```To study connections spanning the cortex, we defined 90 anatomical ROIs based on Brodmann Areas spanning both the right and left cortical hemispheres using the WFU_PickAtlas toolbox [44].```
Sample intent: background



Sample text:```…(LING)] thalamus (THA), as well as limbic/paralimbic regions [e.g. insula, superior temporal pole and inferior orbitofrontal cortex] (Table 2), which is in accordance with previous findings on functional brain networks constructed using resting-state fMRI (Achard et al., 2006; He et al., 2009b).```
Sample intent: result



Sample text:```Our results confi rm previous studies that reached the same conclusion (Boushey et al 1994; Vermeulen et al 2000; Till et al 2005; Marcucci et al 2005).```
Sample intent: result



Sample text:```In this study, the proposed method is based on atrial activity extraction using an echo state network (ESN) re­ cently introduced as a unified solution to the problem of QRST cancellation in the presence of substantial variation in beat morphology and/or occasional ectopic beats [7].```
Sample intent: background



Sample text:```For example, Kawato et al. (1990) suggested that movement trajectories can be projected using critical via-points through which the trajectory has to pass at a certain time, rather than in terms of the moment-by-moment dynamics of the implemented movement trajectory. Optimal trajectories can then be learnt by applying local optimising principles for getting from one via-point to the next. In this way, impoverished predictions can be used to monitor rich implementations. In the same way, language users might predict particularly crucial aspects of an utterance, but the aspects that they predict will depend on the circumstances. More generally, Meyer & Hagoort question the value of predicting one’s own utterance. They argue that prediction is useful when it is likely to differ from the actual event. This is the case when predicting another person’s behaviour or when the result of one’s action is uncertain (e.g., moving in a strong wind). But they argue that people are confident about their own speech. Meyer & Hagoort admit that they will tend to be less confident in dialogue, and we agree. But more important, we argue that the behaviour of the production implementer is not fully determined by the production command, because the complex processes involved in production are subject to internal (“neural”) noise or priming (i.e., influences that may not be a result of the production command). Assuming that these sources of noise do not necessarily affect forward modelling as well, predicted speech may differ from actual speech. In addition, prediction is useful even if the behaviour is fully predictable, because it allows the actor to plan future behaviour on the basis of the prediction. In fact, we made such a proposal in relation to the order of heavy and light phrases (see sect. 3.1, target article). Hartsuiker claims that our account incorrectly predicts an early competitor effect in Huettig and Hartsuiker (2010). His claim is based on the assumption that Response/Pickering & Garrod: An integrated theory of language production and comprehension```
Sample intent: method
Sample text:```Our results confi rm previous studies that reached the same conclusion (Boushey et al 1994; Vermeulen et al 2000; Till et al 2005; Marcucci et al 2005).```
Sample intent: result



Sample text:```Our results on working memory performance are similar to those of earlier studies (e.g. Archbold et al., 2009; Cosentino et al., 2008; Naegele et al., 2006) in showing impaired working memory in the OSA group.```
Sample intent: result



Sample text:```…(LING)] thalamus (THA), as well as limbic/paralimbic regions [e.g. insula, superior temporal pole and inferior orbitofrontal cortex] (Table 2), which is in accordance with previous findings on functional brain networks constructed using resting-state fMRI (Achard et al., 2006; He et al., 2009b).```
Sample intent: result



Sample text:```The insertion of this time delay is critical because in previous work, it has been shown to allow the development of an inhibitory relationship between the outcome and the stimulus that follows; that is, it allows S1 to predict the absence of subsequent O1 delivery and S2 to predict the absence of subsequent O2 delivery; that is, stimuli trained in such manner exhibit properties (such as retardation) identical to those display by other conditioned inhibitors (Rescorla, 1969; Maier et al., 1976; Delamater et al., 2003).```
Sample intent: method



Sample text:```The present observations support and extend earlier contentions that Parkinson patients prefer to adopt a closedloop control mode, adjusting their movements continuously on the basis of available visual information (Flowers 1976).```
Sample intent: result



Sample text:```For example, Kawato et al. (1990) suggested that movement trajectories can be projected using critical via-points through which the trajectory has to pass at a certain time, rather than in terms of the moment-by-moment dynamics of the implemented movement trajectory. Optimal trajectories can then be learnt by applying local optimising principles for getting from one via-point to the next. In this way, impoverished predictions can be used to monitor rich implementations. In the same way, language users might predict particularly crucial aspects of an utterance, but the aspects that they predict will depend on the circumstances. More generally, Meyer & Hagoort question the value of predicting one’s own utterance. They argue that prediction is useful when it is likely to differ from the actual event. This is the case when predicting another person’s behaviour or when the result of one’s action is uncertain (e.g., moving in a strong wind). But they argue that people are confident about their own speech. Meyer & Hagoort admit that they will tend to be less confident in dialogue, and we agree. But more important, we argue that the behaviour of the production implementer is not fully determined by the production command, because the complex processes involved in production are subject to internal (“neural”) noise or priming (i.e., influences that may not be a result of the production command). Assuming that these sources of noise do not necessarily affect forward modelling as well, predicted speech may differ from actual speech. In addition, prediction is useful even if the behaviour is fully predictable, because it allows the actor to plan future behaviour on the basis of the prediction. In fact, we made such a proposal in relation to the order of heavy and light phrases (see sect. 3.1, target article). Hartsuiker claims that our account incorrectly predicts an early competitor effect in Huettig and Hartsuiker (2010). His claim is based on the assumption that Response/Pickering & Garrod: An integrated theory of language production and comprehension```
Sample intent: method



Sample text:```Catecholamines, and particularly DA, are believed to increase the efficiency of cortical processing by augmenting the signal-tonoise ratio or gain within cortical networks [4,37–39].```
Sample intent: method



Sample text:```The results for veridical recall replicated previous results in the literature (Bal-
lardini et al., 2008; McDermott & Watson, 2001), with the average recall of studied words increas-
ing monotonically as SOA increased.```
Sample intent: result



Sample text:```…with several action-based models of selective action that suggest turning one’s visual attention to an object or location in space may be the same process as preparing a movement to that object/location (e.g., Rizzolatti et al.1994; Tipper et al.1992; Welsh and Elliott 2004b; Welsh et al.1999).```
Sample intent: background



Sample text:```We have performed studies regarding lip hypoesthesia after SSRO using TSEP for long time (Nakagawa et al., 1997, 2001, 2003; Hashiba et al., 2007; Takazakura et al., 2007; Hashiba et al., 2008; Ueki et al., 2012, 2013a, 2013b).```
Sample intent: background