The transmission of semantic, lexical, and orthographic information in young and older bilinguals’ typed word production.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults may have weakened connections between words and their sounds/spelling, which affects top-down, but not bottom-up language processes (Burke et al., 1991). Similarly, bilinguals may show weaker connections in the same system because the frequency of input for each language is lower than in monolinguals (Gollan et al., 2008). We studied whether younger and older French-English bilinguals experienced top-down and bottom-up orthographic facilitation during the typed naming of English pictures while ignoring a visual distractor word. Half of the targets were interlingual homographs (e.g., "coin" [French meaning: corner]) and were paired with a semantic distractor ("bill"), a translation-related distractor ("nook") that was (related to) the French meaning of the homograph, or an unrelated distractor ("dust"). The other half were nonhomographs (e.g., "chin") appearing with a semantic ("jaw"), (bottom-up) orthographic ("chip"), or unrelated distractor ("jar"). Top-down orthographic facilitation was measured as the difference in first keystroke latencies between the translation-related and unrelated condition in homographs and bottom-up orthographic facilitation as the difference between the orthographic and unrelated distractor in nonhomographs. We found no top-down orthographic facilitation in either group, whereas bottom-up orthographic facilitation was generally observed. These findings support the idea of weakened connections in bilinguals and old age. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".