, Volume 195, Issue 5, pp 2113–2140 | Cite as

Bayes and the first person: consciousness of thoughts, inner speech and probabilistic inference

  • Franz KnappikEmail author


On a widely held view, episodes of inner speech provide at least one way in which we become conscious of our thoughts. However, it can be argued, on the one hand, that consciousness of thoughts in virtue of inner speech presupposes (unconscious) interpretation of the simulated speech. On the other hand, the need for such self-interpretation (even if unconscious) seems to clash with distinctive first-personal characteristics that we would normally ascribe to consciousness of one’s own thoughts: a special reliability; a lack of conscious ambiguity and incomprehensibility; and a sense of causal agency. I try to resolve this puzzle by proposing an account for the requisite self-interpretation of inner speech in terms of Bayesian probabilistic inference. Drawing on “perceptual loop” accounts of speech control, I argue that such interpretive probabilistic inferences are used for the control of inner speech, and that as a consequence of this function, they are biased toward the correct interpretations. I conclude by showing how this model can explain the first-personal characteristics of consciousness of one’s own thoughts. In the case of the sense of causal agency, the resulting explanation yields novel accounts for “audible thoughts” and thought insertion.


Inner speech Consciousness of thoughts Bayes Perceptual loop Audible thoughts Thought insertion 



I have presented versions of this paper at King’s College, London, at the Humboldt University Berlin (Colloquium Tobias Rosefeldt), at the University of Granada (Workshop “Inner Speech: Theories and Models”, July 2015), and at the Institut Jean Nicod, Paris (Paris Consciousness and Self-Consciousness Group). I am grateful to the audiences at these occasions for very helpful discussions. My special thanks for their criticisms and suggestions go to Élisabeth Pacherie, Uriah Kriegel, Mark Textor, Richard Moore, Édouard Machery, Peter Langland-Hassan, Erasmus Mayr, Ole Koksvik, and the anonymous referees for this journal.

Funding Research for this article during a research stay at the Institut Jean Nicod, Paris (2015/6) has been made possible by a scholarship in the Postdoc Programme of the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).


  1. Alderson-Day, B., & Fernyhough, C. (2015). Inner speech: Development, cognitive functions, phenomenology, and neurobiology. Psychological Bulletin, 141(5), 931–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amster, H. (1964). Semantic satiation and generation: Learning? Adaptation? Psychological Bulletin, 62(4), 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aydelott, J., et al. (2015). Semantic processing of unattended speech in dichotic listening. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 138(2), 964–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baars, B., et al. (1975). Output editing for lexical status from artificially elicited slips of the tongue. Journal for Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 382–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentin, S., et al. (1995). Semantic processing and memory for attended and unattended words in dichotic listening: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(1), 54–67.Google Scholar
  6. Bermúdez, J. L. (2003). Thinking without words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bleuler, E. (1911). Dementia Praecox oder Gruppe der Schizophrenien. Leipzig/Wien: Franz Deuticke.Google Scholar
  8. Byrne, A. (2011). Knowing that I am thinking. In A. Hatzimoysis (Ed.), Self-knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. (1999). Schizophrenia, the space of reasons, and thinking as a motor process. The Monist, 82(4), 609–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carruthers, P. (1996). Language, thought and consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carruthers, P. (2006). Conscious experience vs. conscious thought. In U. Kriegel & K. Williford (Eds.), Self-representational approaches to consciousness. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Carruthers, P. (2011). The opacity of mind. An integrative theory of self-knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carruthers, P. (2015). The centered mind. What the science of working memory shows us about the nature of human thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cassam, Q. (2011). Knowing what you believe. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 111(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  15. Cassam, Q. (2014). Self-knowledge for humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Science, 36(3), 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dell, G. S., & Repka, R. J. (1992). Errors in inner speech. In B. J. Baars (Ed.), Experimental slips and human error. Exploring the architecture of volition. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Doya, K., et al. (Ed.). (2007). Bayesian brain. Probabilistic approaches to neural coding. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Feinberg, I. (1978). Efference copy and corollary discharge: Implications for thinking and its disorders. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 4(4), 636–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Frankish, K. (2004). Mind and supermind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frith, C. (1992). The cognitive neuropsychology of schizophrenia. Hove/Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Furui, S. (2010). History and development of speech recognition. In F. Chen & C. Jokinen (Eds.), Speech technology. Theory and applications. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Gauvin, H., et al. (2016). Conflict monitoring in speech processing: An fMRI study of error detection in speech production and perception. NeuroImage, 126, 96–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gopnik, A. (1993). How we know our minds: The illusion of first-person knowledge of intentionality. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grice, P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Hartsuiker, R. J. (2014). Monitoring and control of the production system. In M. Goldrick, et al. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language production. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hartsuiker, R. J., & Kolk, H. H. J. (2001). Error monitoring in speech production: A computational test of the perceptual loop theory. Cognitive Psychology, 42(2), 113–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hartsuiker, R. J., et al. (2005). The lexical bias effect is modulated by context, but the standard monitoring account doesn’t fly: Related beply to Baars, Motley, and MacKay (1975). Journal of Memory and Language, 52(1), 58–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hohwy, J. (2014). The predictive mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Huettig, F., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2010). Listening to yourself is like listening to others: External, but not internal, verbal self-monitoring is based on speech perception. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25(3), 347–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hurlburt, R. T., et al. (2013). Toward a phenomenology of inner speaking. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(4), 1477–1494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jackendoff, R. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Jackendoff, R. (1996). How language helps us think. Pragmatics and Cognition, 4(1), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jaspers, K. (1923). Allgemeine psychopathologie. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jorba, M., & Vicente, A. (2014). Cognitive phenomenology, access to contents, and inner speech. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 21(9–10), 74–99.Google Scholar
  37. Jurafsky, D. (1996). A probabilistic model of lexical and syntactic access and disambiguation. Cognitive Science, 20(2), 137–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jurafsky, D. (2002). Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In R. Bod, et al. (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Knappik, F. (2015). Self-knowledge about attitudes: Rationalism meets interpretation. Philosophical Explorations, 18(2), 183–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Langland-Hassan, P. (2014). Inner speech and metacognition. In search of a connection. Mind and Language, 29(5), 511–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levelt, W. J. M. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 14(1), 41–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Levelt, W. J. M. (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. MacDonald, M., et al. (1994). Lexical nature of syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Martin, J.-R., & Pacherie, E. (2013). Out of nowhere: Thought insertion, ownership and context-integration. Consciousness and Cognition, 22(1), 111–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Martínez-Manrique, F., & Vicente, A. (2010). ‘What the..!’ The role of inner speech in conscious thought. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17(9–10), 141–167.Google Scholar
  46. Martínez-Manrique, F., & Vicente, A. (2015). The activity view of inner speech. Frontiers in Psychology. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00232.
  47. Mele, A. (2009). Mental action: A case study. In L. O’Brien & M. Soteriou (Eds.), Mental actions. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Moore, J. W., & Fletcher, P. C. (2012). Sense of agency in health and disease: A review of cue integration approaches. Consciousness and Cognition, 21(1), 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moran, R. (2001). Authority and estrangement: An essay on self-knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Naranayan, S., & Jurafsky, D. (1998). Bayesian models of human sentence processing. In Proceedings of the 20th annual meeting of the cognitive science society. Madison, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Nooteboom, S. G. (2005). Lexical bias revisited: Detecting, rejecting and repairing speech errors in inner speech. Speech Communication, 47, 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Norris, D., & McQueen, J. (2008). Shortlist B: A Bayesian model of continuous speech recognition. Psychological Review, 115(2), 357–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Oppenheim, G. M., & Dell, G. S. (2008). Inner speech slips exhibit lexical bias, but not the phonemic similarity effect. Cognition, 106(1), 528–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oppenheim, G. M., & Dell, G. S. (2010). Motor movement matters: The flexible abstractness of inner speech. Memory & Cognition, 38(8), 1147–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Özdemir, R., et al. (2007). Perceptual uniqueness point effects in monitoring internal speech. Cognition, 105(2), 457–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pacherie, E. (2008). The phenomenology of action: A conceptual framework. Cognition, 107(1), 179–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peacocke, C. (2008). Truly understood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pickering, M., & Garrod, S. (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 1–64.Google Scholar
  59. Postma, A. (2000). Detection of errors during speech production: A review of speech monitoring models. Cognition, 77(2), 97–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Prinz, J. (2012). The conscious brain. How attention engenders experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Rao, R., Olshausen, B., & Lewicki, M. (Eds.). (2002). Probabilistic models of the brain: Perception and neural function. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  62. Siewert, C. (1998). The significance of consciousness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sohoglu, E., et al. (2012). Predictive top-down integration of prior knowledge during speech perception. The Journal of Neuroscience, 32(25), 8443–8453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sousa, P., & Swiney, L. (2013). Thought insertion: Abnormal sense of thought agency or thought endorsement? Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 12(4), 637–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance. Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Oxford/Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  66. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Relevance theory. UCL working papers in linguistics, Vol. 14, pp. 249–287.Google Scholar
  67. Spivey, M., et al. (2002). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45(4), 447–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Synofzik, M., et al. (2008). Beyond the comparator model: A multi-factorial two-step account of agency. Consciousness and Cognition, 17(1), 219–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Titchener, E. B. (1915). A beginner’s psychology. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
  70. Treisman, A. (1964a). Verbal cues, language and meaning in attention. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Treisman, A. (1964b). The effect of irrelevant material on the efficiency of selective listening. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 533–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Vasic, N., & Wijnen, F. (2005). Stuttering as a monitoring deficit. In R. J. Hartsuiker, et al. (Eds.), Phonological encoding and monitoring in normal and pathological speech. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  73. Vigliocco, G., & Hartsuiker, R. J. (2002). The interplay of meaning, sound, and syntax in sentence production. Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), 442–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Watanabe, S., & Chien, J.-T. (2015). Bayesian speech and language processing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yildiz, I., et al. (2013). From birdsong to human speech recognition: Bayesian inference on a hierarchy of nonlinear dynamical systems. PLoS Computational Biology. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003219.
  76. Zarges, M. (2011). Monitoring via the perceptual loop: Is the inner loop based on perception or production? Bochumer Linguistische Arbeitsberichte, 5, 1–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of BergenBergenNorway

Personalised recommendations