A domain-general monitoring mechanism is proposed to be involved in overt speech monitoring. This mechanism is reflected in a medial frontal component, the error negativity (Ne), present in both errors and correct trials (Ne-like wave) but larger in errors than correct trials. In overt speech production, this negativity starts to rise before speech onset and is therefore associated with inner speech monitoring. Here, we investigate whether the same monitoring mechanism is involved in sign language production. Twenty deaf signers (American Sign Language [ASL] dominant) and 16 hearing signers (English dominant) participated in a picture–word interference paradigm in ASL. As in previous studies, ASL naming latencies were measured using the keyboard release time. EEG results revealed a medial frontal negativity peaking within 15 msec after keyboard release in the deaf signers. This negativity was larger in errors than correct trials, as previously observed in spoken language production. No clear negativity was present in the hearing signers. In addition, the slope of the Ne was correlated with ASL proficiency (measured by the ASL Sentence Repetition Task) across signers. Our results indicate that a similar medial frontal mechanism is engaged in preoutput language monitoring in sign and spoken language production. These results suggest that the monitoring mechanism reflected by the Ne/Ne-like wave is independent of output modality (i.e., spoken or signed) and likely monitors prearticulatory representations of language. Differences between groups may be linked to several factors including differences in language proficiency or more variable lexical access to motor programming latencies for hearing than deaf signers.

The “distractor-frequency effect” refers to the finding that high-frequency (HF) distractor words slow picture naming less than low-frequency distractors in the picture–word interference paradigm. Rival input and output accounts of this effect have been proposed. The former attributes the effect to attentional selection mechanisms operating during distractor recognition, whereas the latter attributes it to monitoring/decision mechanisms operating on distractor and target responses in an articulatory buffer. Using high-density (128-channel) EEG, we tested hypotheses from these rival accounts. In addition to conducting stimulus- and response-locked whole-brain corrected analyses, we investigated the correct-related negativity, an ERP observed on correct trials at fronto-central electrodes proposed to reflect the involvement of domain general monitoring. The whole-brain ERP analysis revealed a significant effect of distractor frequency at inferior right frontal and temporal sites between 100 and 300-msec post-stimulus onset, during which lexical access is thought to occur. Response-locked, region of interest (ROI) analyses of fronto-central electrodes revealed a correct-related negativity starting 121 msec before and peaking 125 msec after vocal onset on the grand averages. Slope analysis of this component revealed a significant difference between HF and low-frequency distractor words, with the former associated with a steeper slope on the time window spanning from 100 msec before to 100 msec after vocal onset. The finding of ERP effects in time windows and components corresponding to both lexical processing and monitoring suggests the distractor frequency effect is most likely associated with more than one physiological mechanism.