Variability and methodological choices in articulatory suppression tasks: a review

Researchers often examine the role of overt language and inner speech in cognition by using articulatory suppression as a form of verbal interference. The hypothesis behind is that it causally prevents participants from using verbal strategies during the execution of a primary task. Articulatory suppression involves uttering either meaningful or meaningless syllables or words––aloud, silently, whispered. Although widely used to disrupt linguistic processing, the heterogeneity of procedures raises questions about the specificity of its effects, and its underlying mechanisms remain unclear. Studies vary in verbal stimuli, articulation modalities, rhythms, and modes of stimulus presentation. However, there are few empirical investigations about the impact of these methodological differences on the interference effects. Articulatory suppression also has different purposes: it is employed as the main experimental manipulation or as a control task. When it is the primary manipulation, once the suppression methods have been identified, attention should shift toward determining the most appropriate dual-task control condition. Conversely, when articulatory suppression is used as a control task, methodological details are often insufficiently reported, limiting replicability. This mini-review examines articles from the last decade that use articulatory suppression to disrupt phonological access during the execution of a primary task. We provide an overview of protocols employing articulatory suppression, emphasizing the heterogeneity of methodological choices and discussing the implications of this heterogeneity within embodied cognition. We stress the need for evidence on the neurocognitive implications of different articulatory suppression modalities. This would improve awareness when choosing modalities, consequently enhancing coherence across studies and replicability.