Reply to Lupyan and Nedergaard (2025)

This paper continues the discussion sparked by Nedergaard and Lupyan’s recent study investigating the behavioral effects of the variation in peoples’ perceived prevalence of inner speech. I highlight the ambiguity of the term ‘anendophasia,’ coined by Nedergaard and Lupyan, which can be taken to mean either a self-perceived low prevalence, or a complete lack, of inner speech, and note the crucial difference between these two meanings. By comparing questionnaire data with data derived from descriptive experience sampling, I emphasize the importance of taking respondents’ presuppositions about their inner speech into account when evaluating inner speech data, as presuppositions can have a dramatic impact on responses to inner speech questionnaires.