An event-related potential investigation of the influence of bilingualism on disambiguating homonyms in older adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ambiguity is ubiquitous in language; lexical ambiguity refers to instances where a single word has multiple meanings. The current investigation examined homonyms, words that have the same orthography and pronunciation in English but multiple meanings (e.g., BANK, meaning "financial institution" or "river's edge"). The processing of homonyms requires the engagement of executive control processes, for example, to select the appropriate meaning of the homonym while reducing interference from other meanings. Executive function processes are known to change over the lifespan and may be impacted by experiential factors such as bilingualism. The present study uses event-related brain potentials as an index of lexical access to examine whether bilingualism influences homonym processing in older adults. The results indicate that patterns of lexical access differ as a function of bilingual status in older adults and compared to young adults, suggesting that language experience may moderate language processing in both young and older adults, at least in situations where language processing is demanding on executive function, such as in the processing of homonyms. Importantly, we show that older bilinguals show a somewhat similar pattern of ambiguity processing as their younger counterparts, while age differences were observed in monolinguals when comparing across studies. This suggests that bilingual language experience may have a mitigating impact on age-related changes in ambiguity processing. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".