 Match condition if the audible phoneme is presented in their own voice rather than the voice of an unknown stranger; testing this prediction may be a worthwhile endeavor in future studies.

In regards to the assumption that the sensory goals of inner speech are the same as overt speech, and that a person’s inner voice is the same as their actual voice, there is some evidence in support of this conjecture: Filik and Barber (2011) provided evidence that people produce inner speech in the same regional accent as their overt speech. However, other studies have reported evidence suggesting that inner speech has impoverished acoustic properties relative to overt speech (Oppenheim and Dell, 2008). It is also possible that inner speech can consist of several distinct ‘voices’, with each having specific auditory properties; the fact that people with auditory-verbal hallucinations often report hearing multiple voices with different auditory properties (McCarthy-Jones et al., 2014) is consistent with this idea, if – as discussed further below – auditory-verbal hallucinations ultimately reflect inner speech being misperceived as overt speech. Finally, it is also possible that the acoustic properties of inner speech are not fixed. Specifically, in the context of the present study, it is possible that the acoustic properties of the audible phonemes began to influence the inner phonemes, such that after numerous repetitions, participants began to imagine themselves producing an inner phoneme with the acoustic properties of the audible phoneme. Testing these possibilities may also be worthwhile in future studies.

While the primary focus of the paper was on the N1-component of the auditory-evoked potential, between-condition differences were also observed in the amplitude of the P2 and P3 components (see Figures 3 and 4). A likely explanation for the observed results in these later components involves another ERP component, the N2, whose spatial and temporal distribution typically overlaps with that of the P2 (Griffiths et al., 2016). The N2 and P3 components are among the most heavily investigated components in the ERP literature (Näätänen and Picton, 1986; Polich, 2007), and are typically elicited by tasks – such as the auditory oddball and Go/NoGo tasks – in which the participant is asked to identify (by means of a button-press, for example) ‘target’ stimuli which are nested among ‘non-target’ stimuli (Smith et al., 2010; Spencer et al., 1999). Critically, the N2 and P3 can also
Match condition if the audible phoneme is presented in their own voice preferably than the part of an unknown stranger; testing this prediction may be a worthwhile endeavor in future study. 

 In regards to the assumption that the sensational goal of inner address are the same as overt speech, and that a person ’s inside voice is the same as their actual voice, there is some evidence in documentation of this conjecture: Filik and Barber (2011) provided evidence that people produce inner address in the same regional accent as their overt speech. However, early studies have reported evidence suggest that inner address has impoverished acoustic properties relative to overt speech (Oppenheim and Dell, 2008). It is also potential that inner speech can consist of several distinct ‘ voices ’, with each hold specific auditory properties; the fact that people with auditory - verbal hallucinations often report hearing multiple voices with different auditory properties (McCarthy - Jones et al. , 2014) is reproducible with this idea, if – as discussed far under – auditory - verbal hallucinations ultimately reflect inside speech being misperceive as overt speech. Finally, it is also potential that the acoustic properties of inner speech are not fixed. Specifically, in the context of the present study, it is possible that the acoustic place of the audible phonemes began to influence the inner phonemes, such that after numerous repetitions, participant began to imagine themselves producing an inner phoneme with the acoustic properties of the audible phoneme. test these possibilities may also be worthwhile in future studies. 

 While the basal focus of the paper was on the N1 - component of the auditory - evoked electric potential, between - condition differences were also observed in the amplitude of the P2 and P3 components (attend Figures 3 and 4). A probable explanation for the observed results in these later components imply another ERP component, the N2, whose spatial and temporal distribution typically overlap with that of the P2 (Griffiths et al. , 2016). The N2 and P3 components are among the about heavily investigated components in the ERP literature (Näätänen and Picton, 1986; Polich, 2007), and are typically educe by tasks – such as the auditory oddball and Go / NoGo tasks – in which the participant is asked to name (by means of a button - imperativeness, for example) ‘ target ’ stimuli which are nested among ‘ non - target ’ stimuli (Smith et al. , 2010; Spencer et al. , 1999). Critically, the N2 and P3 can also
 Mahch condition if the audlble phoneme is krwsentev in thsir own xoice rather than the voice lf an ubknown stranger; testine this prvdiction nay ue a worthwhile xhdeavor in fufmre scuvies.

In regards jo the assum[tion that the sdndory goals of inner speech are the fame as ogert speech, anq thse a lvrwon’s inner voice is the same zs theig actual voice, thrre is some evidence in suoporh of this conjectuge: Filik ane Bawver (2011) providea evidence that people produce inner speech in the saoe reyional accebt as jheir overt wpeecr. However, otmvr studhes havr reported evicenre syggesting that inner vpeech has impoveryshed acogscic properties relatice to oeert spedxh (Upptnhxim and Dfll, 2008). It is alao possible that inner speech vag consist of ssveral dystinct ‘voices’, with each having specifib ausitory properties; the fqct that people with wuditory-vqrbal hallucinations often report hearing multipla voirer wnbm diwdegent auditory properties (McCarthy-Jones et al., 2014) js cpnsistent with this idea, of – sf discussed forther yslkw – auditory-verbal hallucynatiins ultimwtelu reflect inner speech beint misperceivvd aw overt speech. Finclly, it is auso kossibke that the acoustic pruperfies of innfr speech xre not fixed. Spdcinicdlly, in ufe context of the present wtudv, it is oossoble trat the aclustig properties of the audiyle pvonemes behan to influence the inner phonxkes, such thaj axteg numerouf repctitions, particypants began tp imagiue theoselves prkducing an inner proneme with tvg acoustic prmperties of rhe qudible ohoneme. Testinb these possibilitiws may also be worbhwhius in future stubnew.

While the primsry fosud pf dhe paper wav on thd N1-comoonent of tme xudiyory-evoked potential, betseen-condition diffrrcnces werg also obferved in the amplitude of the K2 and '3 compunentx (sge Figures 3 and 4). A likely explahation fog tme observed rqsulbs ig these lacer components involves another ERP compinent, the N2, whose wpatial and temporak distributipn ty[ically oeerlaps with that of the P2 (Griffiths tt al., 2016). The N2 and P3 compknents are wmong the most heavily investigated components in the ERP literature (Näätäneb and 'iston, 1986; Policg, 2007), amd arv tvpieally ejicivev by tasks – such ss the auditory oddball and Go/NuGo taskv – in which the participant is arked to identkfy (by means of a button-lress, fot example) ‘target’ stimuli which sre nested among ‘non-targct’ stimulu (Smifh et al., 2010; Rpencer et al., 1999). Criyicallv, the B2 and P3 can also
Match condition if the audible phoneme is their voice rather the voice of prediction be a worthwhile in future studies. regards to the assumption that the goals of inner speech are the same as overt speech, and that a inner voice is the same as their actual voice, there is some evidence support this Filik Barber (2011) provided evidence that people produce inner speech in the same regional accent as their speech. However, other studies have reported evidence suggesting inner speech has impoverished properties relative to overt speech and 2008). It also that speech can consist several distinct ‘voices’, with each having specific auditory properties; the fact that people with auditory-verbal hallucinations often hearing multiple different auditory (McCarthy-Jones al., is consistent with if – as discussed further below ultimately reflect inner speech being misperceived as overt Finally, it also possible that the acoustic properties inner speech are not fixed. Specifically, in the of the present study, it is possible that the acoustic properties of the audible phonemes influence the inner phonemes, that after numerous participants to themselves an inner with the acoustic properties of the audible phoneme. Testing these possibilities also be worthwhile in future studies. While the primary focus paper on the N1-component the auditory-evoked potential, between-condition were observed in the amplitude P2 P3 3 4). likely explanation for the results in these later components another ERP component, the distribution typically overlaps with that of the P2 et al., 2016). The N2 and P3 are among the most heavily investigated components in the ERP literature (Näätänen Picton, 1986; and are typically elicited by tasks – such the auditory oddball and tasks – in which the participant is asked to (by of a for example) ‘target’ which are nested ‘non-target’ stimuli (Smith 2010; Spencer al., Critically, P3 can also
 Match condition if the audiblE phoneme is PreseNteD in ThEir oWn voIce rather than tHE voiCe of an unknown stranger; tEstinG tHIs prEDiCtion May be a wORtHWHilE eNdEavOr IN fUture StuDies.

In rEgards to thE asSuMption that thE SeNsory goals Of iNner speech arE thE same aS oVerT SpeecH, anD that A persoN’S inner Voice is thE sAMe as thEIr actuaL VOiCe, thEre is some evidence IN sUPport of this conJecturE: FILiK ANd BArbEr (2011) provided EvIdencE That peoPLe PRODucE Inner speech in The same regiONal Accent As TheIR overt SpeecH. HOWevEr, other studIes hAve reportEd evidENce suggESting thAt inneR spEecH has IMpOvEriShED acOUsTic PRopErties reLaTiVe to oVert SPEECh (OpPenHeim And DeLl, 2008). It is also posSibLe thAT inNer spEech cAn coNsIst of SeveraL distInCt ‘voices’, with eacH havIng specifIc aUdItoRy PropeRTies; thE faCt tHat peopLe with aUDitOrY-VERbAl hallucinations ofTeN REpOrt heariNg multIPlE vOIces with DiFfeRent AUDitorY proPErTies (McCaRthy-JoNEs Et Al., 2014) is conSiStent wItH thIs iDea, if – AS disCussed Further bElow – aUDitory-verbal haLLucinations ulTImATElY ReflEct Inner speech BeinG MispErceIVeD as OVert sPeech. fiNAlLY, it is also possible thAt The acoUstic Properties of iNner speech ARE Not fixed. specIFiCAlly, in the conteXt of tHe present sTUdy, it is pOssibLe that thE acoustic PROperties Of tHe aUdiBle PHOnEmes began to inFLUencE tHe inner PhoNemes, suCh tHat AftEr nUmErous repeTitions, pArTiCiPaNts Began TO imagine ThEmsElVes ProduCIng an iNner pHoneMe WiTH thE acoustIC pROPertIeS oF the AudIbLe phoNeme. tEstIng thesE possibilItiES may AlSo Be worthWhile in future StUdies.

While ThE prImary fOCUs of the pAper was on the N1-component oF The audiTorY-evokEd poTential, beTweEn-condItiON diffeRences Were aLsO obSERved iN THe AmpLiTude of the P2 AND P3 cOmponEnTs (seE FigureS 3 and 4). A likely explanaTIon For the observeD reSultS IN tHesE LaTEr cOmPOneNTS involves anotheR ERP componEnT, ThE N2, whose spaTIal AnD temporAl distrIbutiON typicaLly overlaPs with thaT oF the p2 (gRifFiths et al., 2016). THe N2 and P3 cOmponents ARe amoNG tHe mosT heAvily iNvEstIgateD compoNEntS in thE ERP liTeRature (näätäNeN and PictOn, 1986; Polich, 2007), and are typically ElicitEd by tAskS – such as thE auDItoRy oddball And GO/NoGo tasks – In wHicH the pArtICipanT is aSKeD to IDentiFy (by MEans of a buTToN-prESS, fOr example) ‘taRGET’ stImuli WhiCH are neSted Among ‘non-target’ stiMUli (Smith et al., 2010; SpEnceR ET al., 1999). criTIcalLy, The N2 and P3 can alsO
 Match condition if the au dible phon eme i s p res en tedin t heir own voice rath er than the voice of a n unk no w n st r an ger;testing th i s  pr ed ic tio nm ay  be a  wo rthwhil e endeavor  in  f uture studie s .
In regard s t o the assump tio n that  t hes ensor y g oalsof inn e r spee ch are th es ame as overt s p e ec h, a nd that a person’ s  i n ner voice is t he sam ea st h eir  ac tual voice ,there is some ev i d e nce in support of  this conje c tur e: Fil ik  an d  Barbe r (20 11 )  pr ovided evid ence  that peo ple pr o duce in n er spee ch inthe  sa me r e gi on alac c ent as  th e irovert sp ee ch . How ever , o t herstu dies  have  reported evi den ce s u gge sting  that  inn er  spee ch has  impo ve rished acoustic  pro perties r ela ti veto  over t  speec h ( Opp enheimand Del l , 2 00 8 ) .  I t is also possible  t h a tinner sp eech c a nco n sist ofse ver al d i s tinct  ‘vo i ce s’, with  eachh av in g speci fi c audi to rypro perti e s; t he fac t that p eople with auditory- v erbal halluci n at i o ns ofte n r eport heari ng m u ltip le v o ic esw ith d iffer en t  a u ditory properties ( Mc Carthy -Jone s et al., 201 4) is cons i s t ent with  thi s  i d ea, if – as di scuss ed further below –audit ory-verb al halluc i n ations u lti mat ely  re f l ec t inner speec h bein gmisperc eiv ed as o ver t s pee ch.  F inally, i t is als opo ss ib lethatt he acous ti c p ro per tieso f inne r spe echar en otfixed.S pe c i fica ll y,  inthe  c ontex t of the  presen t study,iti s po ss ib le that  the acoustic  p ropertiesof  th e audi b l e phonem es began to influence t h e inner  ph oneme s, s uch thataft er num ero u s repe tition s, pa rt ici p a nts b e g an  to  i magine the m s elv es pr od ucin g an in ner phoneme with t h e a coustic prope rti es o f th e a u di b leph o nem e .  Testing thesepossibilit ie s  m ay also be wor th while i n futur e stu d ies.

W hile theprimary f oc us o f the  paper was  on theN1-compon e nt of th e aud ito ry-evo ke d p otent ial, b e twe en-co nditio ndiffer ences  w ere also  observed in the amplit ude of  theP2and P3 co mpo n ent s (see Fi gure s 3 and 4) . A  li kelyexp l anati on f o rthe obser vedr esults in th ese l at er componen t s inv olves  an o ther E RP c omponent, the N2, whose spatialandt e mpo ral dist ri bution typical lyov e r laps wit hthat of the  P2 (Gri ff i ths e t al.,  2016) . The N 2 an d  P3 co mpon ent s are amo ngth e  most h ea vi l y inve stig at ed com ponent s  int h e ERP literature  (Nää t ä nen a n d P icton ,1986; P o lich , 2007), a nd are typi callyelic itedby task s– such  as  t he auditor y  oddballand G o/NoGota sks– i n whic h th e parti cipa nt  is  asked to i de n ti fy (by  mea ns of  a  but ton-press ,  for exa mpl e ) ‘targ et ’ s t i muli w h ic h are nested  am ong ‘ n o n-target’s timu l i( Smith  et al ., 201 0; Spen c eret  al., 1 999 ) .  Critical ly, the N 2  an dP3 c an also
 Match_condition if_the audible phoneme is_presented in_their_own voice_rather_than the voice_of an unknown_stranger; testing this prediction_may be a_worthwhile_endeavor in future studies.

In regards to the assumption that the sensory goals of inner_speech_are the_same_as_overt speech, and that a_person’s inner voice is the_same as_their actual voice, there is some evidence in_support_of this conjecture:_Filik and Barber (2011) provided evidence that people produce_inner speech in the same regional_accent as their_overt_speech._However, other studies have_reported evidence suggesting that inner speech_has impoverished acoustic properties relative to_overt speech (Oppenheim and Dell, 2008). It_is also possible that inner speech_can consist of several distinct_‘voices’, with_each having specific auditory properties;_the fact that_people with_auditory-verbal hallucinations often_report hearing multiple voices with different_auditory properties (McCarthy-Jones_et al., 2014) is consistent with_this_idea, if –_as_discussed_further below_– auditory-verbal hallucinations_ultimately_reflect inner_speech_being misperceived as overt speech. Finally,_it_is also possible that the acoustic properties_of inner speech are_not_fixed. Specifically, in the_context of the present study,_it is possible that the acoustic_properties of_the audible_phonemes began to influence the inner phonemes, such that after numerous_repetitions, participants began to imagine themselves_producing an inner phoneme_with the_acoustic_properties of the_audible_phoneme. Testing_these possibilities may also be worthwhile in_future studies.

While_the primary focus of the paper_was on the N1-component_of_the auditory-evoked potential, between-condition differences were_also observed in the amplitude of_the P2 and P3 components_(see_Figures_3 and 4). A likely_explanation for the observed results in_these later components_involves another ERP component, the N2, whose_spatial_and temporal distribution typically overlaps with_that_of the P2 (Griffiths et al.,_2016)._The_N2 and P3 components are_among the most heavily investigated components_in the ERP literature (Näätänen and Picton, 1986; Polich,_2007), and are_typically elicited by tasks –_such_as_the auditory oddball and Go/NoGo tasks – in which the_participant is_asked to identify_(by means of a button-press, for example) ‘target’ stimuli which_are nested among ‘non-target’ stimuli (Smith et_al., 2010; Spencer et al., 1999). Critically, the N2 and P3_can also