Unlocking Pragmatic Changes in Typically Aging Elderly: An In‐Depth Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The dual‐cyclical relationship between language and cognition, encapsulated in linguistic relativity, underscores the reciprocal influence of thoughts on communication and vice‐versa. This study explores the intricate changes in pragmatics, a fundamental aspect of human communication, during the aging process, considering changes in sensory abilities, cognition, and language. Method Sixty participants, aged ≥50 years with a minimum of five years of formal education, were included, excluding those with neurological or psychological illnesses. Participants were categorized based on Montreal Cognitive Assessment (<25 & ≥25 MOCA scores), and their demographic details, language use, and educational and occupational history were recorded. Pragmatic evaluations included 1) functional communication profile analysis (sensory, receptive language, expressive language, pragmatic language and non‐oral communication), 2) pragmatic language evaluation (verbal aspects, paralinguistic aspects, nonverbal aspects), 3) spontaneous speech evaluation using Western Aphasia Battery, 4) discourse production assessment (macrostructures–main concept analysis, correct information units, global coherence and microstructures–T unit), and 5) hearing evaluation (pure tone audiometry, speech audiometry). Statistical analysis employed SPSS version 29.0.10, utilizing descriptive statistics and Likelihood ratio or Chi‐square tests. Results Participants had a mean age of 66.5±9.9 years, with 58.3% females and 41.7% males. Educational distribution included 31.7% with ≤10th standard, 13.3% with 12th standard, 46.7% with a Bachelor’s degree, 6.7% with a Master’s degree, and 1.7% with a Ph.D. Regarding language proficiency, 41.7% were proficient in one language, 53.3% in two languages, and 5% in three languages. Significant relationships between pragmatic characteristics were identified among participant groups, supporting existing literature linking cognitive‐linguistic decline to aging. Higher MOCA scores correlated with superior speech discrimination and communication, while lower scores were associated with hearing loss. Likelihood Ratio Tests indicated significant associations between higher MOCA scores (≥25) and clear, specific, stimulus‐related pragmatic communication, while scores below 25 were linked to pragmatic difficulties. Conclusion The study highlights the robust connection between pragmatics, cognitive function, and hearing abilities in the elderly. It offers insights into communication disorders, advocating for integrated rehabilitation programs for individuals with cognitive decline and hearing loss. Additionally, it reveals the intricate relationship between education, cognitive abilities, and pragmatic skills, guiding clinical practice and intervention strategies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".