There are also alternative accounts explaining these observations. Roelofs (2015) proposed an account that recognizes the universal role of segmental planning and explains away the null effect of segment repetition priming in languages like Mandarin by assuming that segmental activation was hidden by the parallel selection of the other segments of the first syllable during the planning of the actual response (hereafter the Concurrent Retrieval Account). Another account, from a very different perspective, is to attribute the lack of RT evidence to the lack of intentional orientation toward segments in Mandarin Chinese and attribute the observed phoneme repetition ERP effects as an index of phonological connectivity rather than functional engagement of segments in preparation for production. This approach was proposed by O'Seaghdha et al. (2013) (hereafter the Connectivity Account), but was refuted by Qu et al. (2012) as neuro-physiologically infeasible. It is important to note that the participants in Qu et al. (2012) and Yu et al. (2014) are university students, who learned Chinese mainly via the Latin alphabet-based Pinyin system. Nowadays, they also mainly use the Pinyin input method on digital systems to type the logographic Chinese characters, which potentially could have boosted their sensitivity to phonemic representations of Chinese characters.