Nd when two or more judges marked precisely the same error, it was recorded in a final transcript. Second, Study 2C analyzed the neologisms, false starts, dysfluencies, and off-topic comments that have been eliminated from the transcripts in Research 1 and MacKay et al. [2]. Neologisms integrated all non-standard pronunciations of a familiar word; dysfluencies have been “um”s and “uh”s; off-topic comments had been irrelevant remarks about the activity or the experimenter (e.g., “How’s that suit you”, exactly where that refers to a self-produced response, and you for the experimenter); and false starts had been sentence-level revisions or alterations (excluding error corrections), exactly where a speaker started with one strategy or intended output, then shifted to yet another. For example, “they think it’s–they can not do it for the reason that it’s as well hard” was coded as a false start since the participant started to say they consider it is also tough but switched to “they cannot do it mainly because it’s as well hard”.Brain Sci. 2013,Lastly, Study 2C determined the frequency of 3 forms of repetition: stutters, unmodified word string repetitions, and elaborative repetitions. Following MacKay and MacDonald [71], stutters involved quick repetitions of word-initial speech Tubastatin-A sounds, syllables, and words, e.g., “s–school” (repetition of a word-initial speech sound). Unmodified word string repetitions involved instant repetition of a sequence of words without correction, as in “but it was, however it was”. Elaborative repetitions involved repetition of one or more ideas in distinctly diverse phrases. The repeated words italicized in (44) illustrate a stutter (it, it) and two elaborative repetitions (that bus, the scrawny bus, and drive it off … it drives it off”, exactly where drives elaborates the notion drive). The repeated words italicized in (45) illustrate an unmodified word string repetition (it is crowded … it really is crowded) and two elaborative repetitions (it’s crowded … also crowded, and to go around the bus … to acquire around the bus, where get PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21338877 elaborates conceptual go). The repeated words italicized in (46) illustrate an elaborative repetition (this pie is … the pie here was back here, exactly where was elaborates is as + past). 
(44). H.M.: “Melanie tra … on that bus, the scrawny bus and have it drive it off … it, it drives it off.” (repeated words in italics) (45). H.M.: …she desires to go on the bus … and it really is crowded … it really is crowded … Also crowded to acquire around the bus. (repeated words in italics) (46). H.M.: “Well this pie is- or the pie right here was (is + Previous) back here–” (brackets ours) 6.2. Results H.M. created no much more minor word, morpheme, and phonological retrieval errors than the controls. The mean variety of word and morpheme retrieval errors per response was 0.00 for H.M. and 0.00 for the controls (SD = 0.00), with absolute Ns also little for meaningful statistical analysis. The only achievable phonological retrieval error inside the database was ambiguous: “Is it crowded” in (47) transposes either the phonological units s and t or the words is and it within the BPC It is crowded. Nonetheless, this error was neither a minor phonological error nor a minor word retrieval error because (a) it was uncorrected, and (b) it and is belong to different lexical categories (pronoun and copular verb). The imply variety of minor phonological sequencing errors was as a result 0.07 per response for H.M. versus 0.01 for the controls (SD = 0.04), a non-reliable 1.5 SD distinction with Ns too compact for meaningful analysis. (47). H.M.: “Is it crowded…” (BPC ba.