Cognitive components of aging-related increase in word-finding difficulty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Word-finding difficulty (WFD) is a common cognitive complaint in aging, manifesting both in natural speech and in controlled laboratory tests. Various theories of cognitive aging have addressed WFD, and understanding its underlying mechanisms can help to clarify whether it has diagnostic value for neurodegenerative disease. Two influential "information-universal" theories attribute it to rather broad changes in cognition. The processing speed theory posits a general slowdown of all cognitive processes, while the inhibitory deficit hypothesis (IDH) predicts a specific problem in suppressing irrelevant information. One "information specific" theory of language production, the transmission deficit hypothesis (TDH), posits a breakdown in retrieval of phonological word forms from a corresponding lemma. To adjudicate between these accounts, we administered an online gamified covert naming task featuring picture-word interference (PWI), previously validated to elicit similar semantic interference and phonological facilitation effects as overt naming tasks. 125 healthy adults aged 18 to 85 completed the task, along with a battery of executive function tasks and a naturalistic speech sample to quantify WFD in connected speech. PWI effects provided strong support for the TDH but limited support for IDH, in that semantic interference increased and phonological facilitation decreased across the lifespan. However, neither of these effects on single-word retrieval associated with WFD measured in connected speech. Rather, overall reaction time for word retrieval (controlling for psychomotor slowing) was the best predictor of spontaneous WFD and executive function decline, suggesting processing speed as the key factor, and that verbal reaction time may be an important clinical measure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".