=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2086/AICS2017_paper_1
|storemode=property
|title=How Do Distance Runners Experience Inner Speech? An Empirical Investigation
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2086/AICS2017_paper_1.pdf
|volume=Vol-2086
|authors=Brendan Duggan
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/aics/Duggan17
}}
==How Do Distance Runners Experience Inner Speech? An Empirical Investigation==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2086/AICS2017_paper_1.pdf
How Do Distance Runners Experience
Inner Speech? An Empirical
Investigation
Brendan Duggan
University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4
ABSTRACT
According to what people report, inner speech is a very common experience.
Cognitive science researchers have been slow to investigate the phenomenon
because its non-observability makes it difficult to study. This experiment uses
an experiential questionnaire method with a tightly constrained design to
explore properties of inner speech that have been proposed by Lev Vygotsky.
Using a sample of distance running athletes, it investigates the extent of (1)
dialogue, (2) condensed syntax, (3) evaluation, and (4) auditory
representations of others, in inner speech. Employing three sets of interviews
with each athlete that immediately followed their participation in training and
competitive running, the study finds evidence to support a Vygotskian
theoretical approach to inner speech, with strong evidence for condensed
syntax, dialogue and evaluation.
KEY WORDS
Inner speech, Inner experience, Vygotsky, dialogue, evaluation, condensed
syntax, auditory representations, self talk, distance running athletes
INTRODUCTION
Inner speech, the subjective experience of talking to oneself without the utterance of sound,
is both a prominent feature of many people’s inner experience and plays an important role
in regulating aspects our behaviour. Within cognitive science, methodological concerns
regarding the ability to systematically capture and isolate the phenomenon for study, and
the reliance on the reporting of the subject’s own experience in the collection of data for use
in its study, has meant that inner speech has received relatively little attention from
researchers. Yet with the array of cognitive functions and the crucial developmental role
proposed for inner speech, there is an obligation to establish a sounder empirical footing,
notwithstanding methodological concerns. The most well understood cognitive function of
inner speech is that of verbal rehearsal (Baddeley, 1992), while there is much evidence to
support the reliance on inner speech for task-switching (Emerson & Miyake, 2003), false
belief reasoning (Newton & DeVilliers, 2007) and silent reading (Perrone-Bertolotti et al,
2014). Further evidence suggests a role for, if not reliance on, inner speech in planning
(Williams et al, 2012), logical reasoning (Gilhooly, 2005) and categorisation (Lupyan, 2009).
The work of Vygotsky (1934 / 1987) has been influential in reevaluating the importance of
inner speech for developmental cognition. Vygotsky theorised inner speech to be the
maturation of a developmental process where social interaction, mediated through
language, is internalised and transformed into a form of verbal thinking. Vygotsky made a
number of claims about the inherent properties of inner speech. This study empirically
investigates some of these properties in a sample of a specific population, amateur
distance runners. In particular, the study explores the following:
Inner speech as dialogic. Dialogue here means the presence of more than one
perspective in relation to the matter under consideration in inner speech. It can be
characterised as an internal conversation where different viewpoints are being aired, an
interplay between different internalised perspectives. It does not necessarily imply that a
full-blooded auditory-verbal representation of a speaker other than the subjects’ is present.
Fernyhough (2004) has argued that inner speech is inherently dialogic, arising from its
origin in social interaction and subsequent internalization, and that such dialogue would be
“shot through with voices”. Bakhtin, a contemporary of Vygotsky, argued that internal
dialogue is “not a polyphony of reconciled voices but a polyphony of battling and internally
divided voices” (Tovares, 2010, pp263).
Condensed syntax and semantics in inner speech. Vygotsky theorised that through the
internalisation of social speech to inner speech, a transformation occurs where the
language of inner speech becomes abbreviated, syntactically condensed. From a semantic
perspective, Vygotsky argued that in the transformation to inner speech, conventional,
public meaning of words lose salience, as “sense” becomes prominent, where sense
means multiple private meanings. To take an example from the questionnaire this study
uses, runners may use the word “kick” rather than “I need to kick at the finish”, where “kick”
may adopt multiple referents, such as anxiety about finishing time, concern about current
performance, hopes for their finishing place in the race, rather than simply referring to a
desire to increase running speed. It is this syntactic and semantic transformation in the
internalisation of inner speech that differentiates it from external speech “with the volume
turned down”. Evidence for this altered form, a condensed inner speech, would strongly
support a Vygotskian view. While the condensation of syntax is within the scope of this
study, the semantic corollary is not.
Evaluation. The evaluation of other people and of oneself has been proposed be a function
of inner speech. Morin & Michaud (2007) studied the role of inner speech self-evaluation
and self-reflection. Hardy, Hall & Hardy (2005) argued that evaluation in inner speech plays
an important role in motivation to athletic achievement, and as the subjects of this study are
distance runners, it is useful to test for the presence of such evaluation. Evidence for
evaluation may be construed as indirect evidence of dialogue. Vocate (1994) argues that
evaluation requires people to have a degree of detachment from their own experiences, and
as such, an ancillary perspective on those experiences, characteristic of dialogue.
Other people. Fernyhough (1996) has argued that within a Vygotskian view of dialogic
inner speech, the multiple perspectives to the dialogue may be “voiced”, an auditory-
articulatory representation of voices in inner speech other than one’s own. The question
here is whether the multiple perspectives that is characterised in this paper as dialogue
have discrete auditory representations. For example, as the athlete tires near the end of the
race, conflicting perspectives, between wanting to finish as fast as possible and wanting to
2
slow or stop due to fatigue, will often arise. The question under investigation is whether
these conflicting internal perspectives are separately “voiced”. While there is no evidence
that Vygotsky viewed the auditory representation of the voices (other than one’s own) as a
necessary or even typical outcome of the maturation of inner speech, it is often viewed as a
building block for developing cognitive theories of auditory verbal hallucinations and the
phenomenology of psychosis (Cho & Wu, 2013). Certainly there is evidence that people do
experience auditory representations of the voices of others in silent reading (Alexander &
Nygaard, 2008).
Self-talk in athletes
This study explores inner speech in competitive amateur distance runners. It is not focused
on any performance effects, but instead investigates whether the inner speech of such
athletes reflects a Vygotskian view. Distance running is an endurance sport performed
individually where the athlete is relatively isolated for prolonged periods. Athletes and
coaches participating in sports such as distance running view inner speech, often termed
self-talk in the literature of sports psychology, as having a material impact on athletic
performance. While there are numerous studies of self-talk in athletes that investigate
performance effects, they are typically beset with both theoretical and methodological
problems. Hatzigeogiadias et al (2004) characterise self-talk in athletes as a cognitive
strategy designed to improve performance. The concept of inner speech as a cognitive
strategy implies that the athlete has volitional control over their verbal thinking, that it is
within their gift to consciously create and edit its content. No account is offered for this
characterisation, and if inner speech ontogenetically arises from social interaction as
Vygotsky theorised, such a contrary characterisation as this warrants a more detailed
explanation. Weinberg (1988) focuses on the valence of the content of inner speech,
describing positive self-talk as that which helps the athlete to stay focused, not dwell on
past mistakes or project far in the future. Yet this valence based approach engages in
circular reasoning: the effects referred to can only be known after the event, and allows no
way to understand the valance of particular contents of inner speech at the moment of
articulation. If telling myself that I’m doing terribly in a particular event has the effect of
improving my performance, then by this approach, that is positively valenced self-talk.
There are also methodological concerns regarding studies in the literature that rely on
highly controlled laboratory conditions in the study of self-talk in athletes. Theodorakis et al
(2000) assigned subjects in a variety of sports specific phrases to use, such as “do your
best” or “I can”, in the performance of laboratory-controlled tasks. For example, youth
soccer players were tested in ball-passing performance, adult badminton players in single
serves, and school children in the performance of “sit-ups”. The results support their
hypothesis that positively valenced self-talk has a positive performance effect. However, the
non-naturalistic experiment design, which seeks to isolate one particular aspect of the sport
and does so outside a sporting competitive environment, may not be replicable in a more
meaningful environment. Harvey, Van Raalte & Brewster (2002) adopted a similar
experimenter controlled design with a sample group of golfers, as did Van Raalte et al
(1995) with darts players and tennis players (Van Raalte et al, 2000).
The design of the present study sought to investigate inner speech in the runners’ own
environment, with interviews taking place directly after an athlete’s normal training exercise
(phase 2) or competitive running event (phase 3). In doing so, we hoped to capture aspects
of their inner speech in a naturalistic manner. Empirical studies investigating the
phenomenology of inner speech suggest that most people engage in inner speech (Heavey
& Hurlburt, 2010) and that at random interventions any one person may be engaged in
3
inner speech 25% of the time (Hurlburt et al, 2013). The conditions under which distance
runners normally perform were thought likely to be suitable for the investigation of inner
speech.
A note on methodology
The methodology is based on a modified version of the Varieties in Inner Speech
Questionnaire (VISQ) developed by McCarty-Jones & Fernyhough (2011).
VISQ has been employed with subjects from either the general population using online
responses (McCarty-Jones & Fernyhough, 2011), or to investigate links between inner
speech and psychopathological variables in young adults (Alderson-Day et al, 2014).
Hurlburt et al (2013) are critical of questionnaire approaches to inner experience, and
specifically criticise the VISQ methodology because people are either not aware of, or are
unreliable reporters of, their own experience. They acknowledge that this limitation may be
overcome through an iterative process of training, where subjects are provided with
phenomenological training that improves subject’s introspective skills and provides a route
to better understand the questions being asked of them. Petitmangin (2006) notes one of
the crucial challenges of this type of methodology, which requires subjects to grow
awareness of their own subjective experience, is that it is “very hard to stabilise our
attention”. Attention is a very limited resource that can be easily diverted by both exogenous
and endogenous stimuli. She observes that it is helpful to the goal of stabilising the
subject’s attention to the locus of enquiry through having both the physical presence of the
interviewer, as a reminder of the specific objective of the interview, and the regular
reformulation of the subject matter to regularly refocus attention.
In this study, all interviews were conducted in person by the same interviewer, and on each
occasion the same process was repeated: the interviewer approached the participant
immediately following their athletic performance, asked that they reflect on their inner
experience during the performance before proceeding with the questions. Each subject was
interviewed on three occasions, so that the aggregated impact was the participant had a
stronger understanding of the interview goal at each iteration. The questions and format of
the interview remained the same, so that subjects were given a greater opportunity to
familarise themselves with what was being asked of them. Indeed the anecdotal feedback
reported from subjects was a better appreciation of their own introspections on the matter.
Through iteration, subjects sought to clarify what the intention of a specific question was
(“you mean specific to the run I just did, rather than in general”?). The study sought to
constrain the elicitation of responses to questions under these strictly controlled conditions,
so that while the setting was perfectly normal for the participant, data was collected in a
highly consistent manner. The intention in designing the experiment in this way was to
balance the tension between the ecological validity of the experiment, ensuring that the
data reflects the normal or typical experience of the participant, and the experimental
control exerted so that the data is collected in a consistent systematic manner to afford
valid comparison of results across subjects. There is no epistemically optimal way to
balance these divergent objectives, but the intention of the design was to recognise both,
without attempting to reconcile them.
4
METHOD
Participants
13 competitive amateur distance runners were recruited from a Dublin running club to take
part in the study. Of the 13, 10 were male, and the mean age was 31.27 and the age range
was 18 to 55. Participants were recruited through a formal approach to their running club.
Two participants did not complete all phases and their results were discarded. No financial
incentives were provided and informed consent was sought and received from each
individual. All information provided has been anonymised. Ethical exemption was obtained
from University College Dublin’s Ethics Committee.
Procedure
The study employs a modified version of the Varieties of Inner Speech Questionnaire
(VISQ) (McCarthy-Jones & Fernyhough, 2011). The questionnaire contains 16 items. Four
questions are intending to examine each of the aspects of inner speech proposed in the
study. The questionnaire was scaled to 6 points, as follows: Certainly applies to me (1),
Possibly applies to me (2), If anything slightly does (3), if anything slightly doesn’t (4),
Possibly doesn’t apply to me (5), Certainly does not apply to me (6). The 16 questions were
grouped into 4 aspects of inner speech that the study was interested in. These were:
§ Condensed: The extent to which participants experienced inner speech with
compressed syntax.(“My thinking is shortened compared to my normal out loud
speech. For example, rather than saying “I need to kick at near the finish”, I just say
“kick””)
§ Dialogicality: The extent to which participants experienced inner speech as dialogic,
of the quality of there being more than one perspective at play on the matter they
were attending to in inner speech. (“I think to myself about things on my mind, it is
like having a conversation with myself”)
§ Evaluation: The extent to which participants experienced inner speech as having a
quality of evaluation, self-instruction or motivation. (“I think to myself about what I
have done and whether it was right or not”)
§ The presence of the voices of others: The extent to which participants experienced
an auditory representation of a voice (or voices) other than their own in their inner
speech. (“I hear other peoples voices nagging in my head, for example a coach”)
Each participant was interviewed on three separate occasions, and the study took the form
of three discrete phases.
Phase 1: Participants were initially briefed about the nature of the study and then asked to
perform a standard behavioural task, the Tower of Hanoi. Participants were advised that
they would be asked about aspects of their inner experience following completion of the
task. After this, participants were posed a series of questions. The intention of this phase
was to introduce participants to the study and its process, and to stabilise their
understanding of the aspect of inner experience that the study was investigating.
5
Phase 2: Immediately following a normal intense training session that they performed,
participants were approached and asked the same set of interview questions as outlined in
phase 1 above.
Phase 3: Immediately following a competitive run that they perform, participants will be
approached and asked the same set of interview questions as outlined in phase 1 above.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics by Phase:
Table 1
Variable
Mean
SD
Var
Min
Q1
Median
Q3
Max
IQR
Condensed
3.00
1.14
1.30
2.0
2.25
2.50
3.25
5.50
1.00
Dialogue
2.84
1.59
2.53
1.0
1.75
2.25
4.50
5.25
2.75
Evaluative
2.88
1.28
1.64
1.5
1.50
2.25
4.00
5.00
2.50
Other
people
5.72
0.90
0.82
3.0
6.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.00
*Note: that a six point Likert scale was used, where 1 represents “certainly applies to me”,
and 6 represents “certainly does not apply to me”.
Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for phase 1 for the four dimensions examined in the
questionnaire. Mean and median scores were highest for the presence of dialogue and
evaluation in inner speech, with condensed inner speech showing similar average scores.
The measures indicate little evidence for the presence of other people, the auditory
representation of voices other than one’s own.
Table 2
Variable
Mean
SD
Var
Min
Q1
Median
Q3
Max
IQR
Condensed
1.98
1.45
2.11
1.0
1.00
1.25
2.50
5.75
1.50
Dialogue
2.82
0.94
0.88
1.25
2.00
2.75
3.50
4.50
1.50
Evaluative
2.14
0.96
0.92
1.00
1.25
2.25
2.75
4.00
1.50
Other
people
5.43
0.88
0.78
3.75
5.25
6.00
6.00
6.00
0.75
Table 2 displays the same statistical analysis for phase 2. Overall pattern is similar to
phase 1, with evidence for three dimensions, evaluation, dialogue and condensed inner
speech, while little support for the presence of other people. However, there are some
notable changes relative to phase 1:
I. Condensed inner speech is materially stronger; the mean score has reduced from 3 to
under 2, while the median score has changed from 2.5 to 1.5. This indicates more evidence
of condensed inner speech in the first running phase relative to the initial phase employing
the tower of Hanoi task.
6
II. With respect to dialogue, the mean score was marginally reduced while the median score
was higher (indicting weaker evidence), moving from 2.25 to 2.75, while standard deviation
from the mean was lower.
III. For evaluation, the mean score reduced from 2.88 to 2.14 while the median was
unchanged.
Table 3
Variable
Mean
SD
Var
Min
Q1
Median
Q3
Max
IQR
Condensed
2.05
1.17
1.36
1.00
1.00
1.75
2.75
4.75
1.75
Dialogue
3.61
1.39
1.94
1.00
2.25
4.00
4.75
5.50
2.50
Evaluative
2.16
1.38
1.89
1.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
5.00
2.00
Other
people
5.32
1.25
1.55
2.75
5.00
6.00
6.00
6.00
1.00
Table 3 shows the same analysis for phase 3. In this phase participants were responding
following a competitive run. Once again there is little evidence for the presence of other
people in participants inner speech. With respect to the other dimensions:
I. Condensed inner speech is stable relative to phase 2. Mean scores remained at
approximately 2 while the median increased from 1.5 to 1.75, and the standard deviation
from the mean reduced from 1.45 to 1.15.
II. Evidence for dialogue is significantly lower for the competitive running phase. The mean
increased to 3.61 (2.81 in phase 2), and the median increased to 4 (2.75 in phase 2).
III. Evaluation. Little change in the mean score relative to phase 2, while the median
reduced from 2.25 to 2. In addition, the standard deviation increased from 0.96 to 1.38.
Table 4
Question item
I think to myself in brief phrases & words rather than full sentences
I think to myself in words using full sentences
My thinking is shortened compared to my normal outloud speech. For example, rather than saying "I need
to kick at the finish", I will just say "kick" in my mind.
My thinking to myself in words is like shorthand notes rather than full grammatical sentences
It is like going back and forth asking questions and responding
My thinking in words is like a dialogue with myself, rather than a monologue of my own thoughts
I think to myself about things on my mind, it is like having a conversation with myself
I talk back and forth about things on my mind
I evaluate my behaviour, telling myself “that was good” or “that was stupid”
I think to myself about what I have done and whether it was right or not
I talk to myself silently telling myself to do things
I talk to myself silently telling myself not to do things
7
I experience the voices of other people asking me questions in my mind
I experience the voice of another person in my head. For example when I do something wrong a voice other
than mine admonishes me
I hear other peoples voices nagging in my head, for example a coach
I hear other peoples actual voices in my head saying things that they actually once said to me
Table 4 contains the individual items in the questionnaire. The table sequences the items in
accordance with issues the study looks to explore. For each phase, the question was
prefaced with the activity of that phase, so that for phase one, the item begins “During this
exercise…” and for items two and three, “When running…”. A question arises as to whether
the items grouped under a particular issue actually reflect an approximation of that issue.
The individual items have been included for that purpose. The questions items have been
adopted from McCarthy-Jones & Fernyhough (2011) and modified to take account of the
particular activities of the participants, distance running. The mapping from individual
questions posed to the issue of interest is intended to be clear. As an example, the first four
questions above are grouped under condensed syntax. One of the items states: “my
thinking is shortened compared to my normal out loud speech. For example, rather than
saying "I need to kick at the finish", I will just say "kick" in my mind”. Respondents are being
asked about how their inner speech compares to normal speech with respect to the
question abbreviation.
DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to explore the experience of inner speech among a sample of
distance runners, seeking evidence to support a Vygotskian conception of the
phenomenon. In particular, it sought to investigate whether participants’ phenomenology of
their inner speech contained:
Condensed syntactical structure. Based on the questions responded to, the results
provide support for condensation within their inner speech. For the aggregate of all phases,
approximately 50% indicated that the items measuring this proposed property “certainly
applies to me”. Looking by phase, the mean scores indicate the participants reported
greater condensation in the two athletic phases, two and three, relative to the first phase.
This may be attributable to a genuine effect; that with greater physical exertion there is a
greater likelihood of abbreviating syntax in inner speech. An alternative explanation is that
it may arise because participant’s introspection skills have been honed through partaking in
the initial phase and thereafter become better able to identify condensed syntax. A study
design that contained additional phases that further controlled for athletic exertion may
disambiguate between the relative impact of greater introspective abilities and athletic
exertion in the abbreviation of syntax in inner speech.
Dialogue. While the results provide some evidence of dialogicality in inner speech in
participants’ inner speech for all phases, it is weaker by comparison with condensed syntax.
What is most striking about the results is the change between phases. Mean scores for the
initial phases one and two are both approximately 2.8 (median scores of 2.25 and 2.75
respectively), for phase three this is 3.6 for mean and 4.0 for median. It seems reasonable
to infer from this that while participants experience a dialogic quality to their inner speech,
this recedes significantly in the competitive phase, so that at higher physical exertion, the
verbal quality of their thinking changes to a single perspective.
8
Evaluation. While evaluation is weakly positive in the first phase (2.8 mean, 2.25 median),
the following phases show a significant increase in evaluation (2.1 mean for both, 2.25 and
2 median respectively). This is the opposite trend to dialogue. This may be interpreted as
supporting the idea of evaluation, judging at a remove, as a type of dialogue, in the sense of
alternative perspective on the issue under consideration in inner speech. It is also worth
noting the difference in scoring between two questions grouped under evaluation. Results
for the item “I talk to myself silently telling myself to do things” are broadly similar to the
other two items in evaluation, with 60% responding that “it certainly applies to me” for all
phases. For the item “I talk to myself silently telling myself not do things”, this changes to
24%. While it is not clear why two such similar items should produce such different results,
it may hint at how respondents were more reluctant in disclosing evaluations constructed in
the negative rather the positive.
Presence of other people. There is a consistent outcome for items grouped under other
people, which here means an auditory-articulatory representation of voices other than one’s
own: little evidence from respondent in any of the phases. “Certainly does not apply to me”
was by far the most numerous response. However, a small minority of participants indicated
the presence of other voices. Given the small sample size, this is noteworthy. Working with
a much larger sample (N=235), McCarthy-Jones & Fernyhough (2011) found 7.5% of
respondents indicated “certainly applies to me” to this group of questions. It is also plausible
that this effect is underrepresented in such a methodology, as the sensitivity of the question
and historical public perception of such experiences may mean people are reluctant to
disclose their experiences of auditory representations of other people. However based on
these results, evidence for dialogicality in inner speech but not for other people suggests
that different “voicing” of parties to the dialogue of inner speech is not typical.
Overall, the study supports a Vygotskian conception of inner speech, with evidence for
condensed syntax, evaluation and dialogicality in the experience of inner speech in the
sample group of participants. As noted in the introduction, methodological concerns
regarding the ability to reliably capture inner speech has led to insufficient attention being
paid to the phenomenon. Care has been taken in the design of this study so that these
concerns are addressed. Through using as naturalistic a setting as is feasible, a consistent
process for interview, a constraining approach to the method by which the data collected,
and three separate interviews with each participant, the design balances the tension
between ecological validity and experimental control so that the results are a meaningful
contribution to the study of inner speech.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Fred Cummins for his generous support
and giving of his time. I also want to thank all of the participants and coaches of Raheny
Shamrocks Running Club for their time and full engagement in the study. In particular I
thank Tom O’Sullivan for his greatly appreciated help. Finally, I want to thank Rhys
Connolly-Duggan for his support, resourcefulness and fine statistical skills.
9
References
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working Memory: The Interface between Memory and Cognition. Journal of Cognitive
Neuroscience,4(3), 281-288. doi:10.1162/jocn.1992.4.3.281
Emerson, M. J., & Miyake, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task switching: A dual-task
investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 48(1), 148-168.
Newton, A. M., & de Villiers, J. G. (2007). Thinking while talking: Adults fail nonverbal false-belief
reasoning. Psychological Science, 18(7), 574-579.
Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Rapin, L., Lachaux, J. P., Baciu, M., & Loevenbruck, H. (2014). What is that little voice
inside my head? Inner speech phenomenology, its role in cognitive performance, and its relation to self-
monitoring. Behavioural brain research, 261, 220-239.
Williams, D. M., Bowler, D. M., & Jarrold, C. (2012). Inner speech is used to mediate short-term memory, but not
planning, among intellectually high-functioning adults with autism spectrum disorder. Development and
psychopathology, 24(1), 225-239.
Gilhooly, K. J. (2005). Working memory and strategies in reasoning. Methods of thought: Individual differences
in reasoning strategies, 57-80.
Lupyan, G. (2009). Extracommunicative functions of language: Verbal interference causes selective
categorization impairments. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 16(4), 711-718.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. The collected works of LS Vygotsky, vol. 1. New York: Plenum
Press, 114, 113-114.
Fernyhough, C. (2004). Alien voices and inner dialogue: towards a developmental account of auditory verbal
hallucinations. New ideas in Psychology, 22(1), 49-68.
Tovares, A. V. (2010). Managing the voices: Athlete self-talk as a dialogic process. Journal of language and
social psychology, 29(3), 261-277.
Morin, A., & Michaud, J. (2007). Self-awareness and the left inferior frontal gyrus: inner speech use during self-
related processing. Brain research bulletin, 74(6), 387-396.
Cho, R., & Wu, W. (2013). Mechanisms of auditory verbal hallucination in schizophrenia. Frontiers in
psychiatry, 4.
Alexander, J. D., & Nygaard, L. C. (2008). Reading voices and hearing text: talker-specific auditory imagery in
reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(2), 446.
Hardy, J., Hall, C. R., & Hardy, L. (2005). Quantifying athlete self-talk. Journal of Sports Sciences, 23(9), 905-
917.
Vocate, D. R. (Ed.). (1994). Intrapersonal communication: Different voices, different minds. Psychology Press.
Fernyhough, C. (1996). The dialogic mind: A dialogic approach to the higher mental functions. New ideas in
Psychology, 14(1), 47-62.
Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Theodorakis, Y., & Zourbanos, N. (2004). Self-talk in the swimming pool: The effects of self-
talk on thought content and performance on water-polo tasks. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16(2), 138-
150.
Weinberg, R. S. (1988). The mental advantage: Developing your psychological skills in tennis. Human Kinetics
Publishers.
Van Raalte, J. L., Cornelius, A. E., Brewer, B. W., & Hatten, S. J. (2000). The antecedents and consequences of
self-talk in competitive tennis. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 22(4), 345-356.
Harvey, D. T., Van Raalte, J. L., & Brewer, B. W. (2002). Relationship between self-talk and golf
performance. International Sports Journal, 6(1), 84-91.
Theodorakis, Y., Weinberg, R., Natsis, P., Douma, I., & Kazakas, P. (2000). The effects of motivational versus
instructional self-talk on improving motor performance. The sport psychologist, 14(3), 253-271.
Raalte, J. L. V., Brewer, B. W., Lewis, B. P., Linder, D. E., Wildman, G., & Kozimor, J. (1995). Cork! The effects
of positive and negative self-talk on dart throwing performance. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18(1), 50.
Heavey, C. L., & Hurlburt, R. T. (2008). The phenomena of inner experience. Consciousness and
Cognition,17(3), 798-810. doi:10.1016/j.concog.2007.12.006
Hurlburt, R. T., Heavey, C. L., & Kelsey, J. M. (2013). Toward a phenomenology of inner
speaking. Consciousness and Cognition,22(4), 1477-1494.doi:10.1016/j.concog.2013.10.003
McCarthy-Jones, S., & Fernyhough, C. (2011). The varieties of inner speech: links between quality of inner
speech and psychopathological variables in a sample of young adults. Consciousness and cognition, 20(4),
1586-1593.
Alderson-Day, B., McCarthy-Jones, S., Bedford, S., Collins, H., Dunne, H., Rooke, C., & Fernyhough, C. (2014).
Shot through with voices: Dissociation mediates the relationship between varieties of inner speech and auditory
hallucination proneness. Consciousness and Cognition, 27, 288-296.
Petitmengin, C. (2006). Describing one’s subjective experience in the second person: An interview method for
the science of consciousness. Phenomenology and the Cognitive sciences, 5(3), 229-269.
10