First-language and second-language eye movement reading behavior in monolingual and bilingual children and adults: A focus on word age of acquisition effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Word age of acquisition (AoA) influences many aspects of language processing, including reading. However, reading studies of word AoA effects have almost exclusively focused on monolingual young adults, leaving their influence in other age and language groups little understood. Here, we investigated how age (childhood, young adulthood) and language background (monolingual, bilingual) influence word AoA effects during first-language (L1) and second-language (L2) reading. Using eye-tracking, we observed larger L1 word AoA effects in children versus adults (across both language backgrounds). Moreover, we observed larger L2 versus L1 word AoA effects in bilinguals (across both ages), with some evidence of heightened effects in bilingual adults (for late-stage reading only). Taken together, our findings suggest that word AoA exerts a stronger influence on reading during conditions of reduced lexical entrenchment, offering critical insights into how both developing and bilingual readers acquire and maintain word representations across their known languages.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".