Age-dependent semantic interference effect on propositional speech production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults can find verbal communication in noisy environments challenging, but the underlying cognitive phenomena and the specific mechanisms contributing to age-related decline remain unclear. Using a newly designed propositional speech production paradigm, we examined how semantic distractors of varying levels of relatedness affect propositional speech performance in healthy adults. In the paradigm, participants were assessed on their ability to formulate verbal responses while distracted by semantically related or unrelated words, simulating real-world scenarios with meaningful auditory distractions (e.g., sounds from radio programs). We also examined the cognitive processes associated with task performance. We recruited 30 younger participants (mean age: 22.23 years) and 27 older participants (mean age: 75.31 years) matched for sex, handedness, and intelligence. All participants were screened using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and neuropsychological assessments. Older adults performed better than younger adults on a semantic memory task, but performed poorer on tasks assessing executive functions, including interference control, verbal response initiation and suppression, and semantic verbal fluency. In the novel propositional speech production task, older adults exhibited a pronounced semantic interference effect (F 1.58, 83.67 = 4.67, p = .018, ηp 2 = .08; with MoCA as a covariate), particularly for concrete distractors, resulting in longer response latencies compared to associative and unrelated distractors (Bonferroni-corrected p-values < .01). Exploratory correlation analyses revealed that longer response latencies in the propositional speech production task were associated with a poorer performance on neuropsychological tests tapping verbal response suppression (false discovery rate-corrected p < .05). Our findings suggest that verbal communication difficulties in the context of environmental distractions experienced by older adults could be due to the semantic interference effect. Cognitive interventions aimed at enhancing inhibitory control could be beneficial to older adults in maintaining their social engagement in the later life.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".