Lexical neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition and production in healthy aging.

We examined the effects of lexical competition and word frequency on spoken word recognition and production in healthy aging. Older (n = 16) and younger adults (n = 21) heard and repeated meaningful English sentences presented in the presence of multitalker babble at two signal-to-noise ratios, +10 and -3 dB. Each sentence contained three keywords of high or low word frequency and phonological neighborhood density (ND). Both participant groups responded less accurately to high- than low-ND stimuli; response latencies (from stimulus offset to response onset) were longer for high- than low-ND sentences, whereas response durations-time from response onset to response offset-were longer for low- than high-ND stimuli. ND effects were strongest for older adults in the most difficult conditions, and ND effects in accuracy were related to inhibitory function. The results suggest that the sentence repetition task described here taps the effects of lexical competition in both perception and production and that these effects are similar across the life span, but that accuracy in the lexical discrimination process is affected by declining inhibitory function in older adults.

[1]  Timothy C. Bates,et al.  PsyScript: A Macintosh application for scripting experiments , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[2]  Rebecca Treiman,et al.  The English Lexicon Project , 2007, Behavior research methods.

[3]  J. Stroop.  Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. , 1992 .

[4]  Mitchell S. Sommers,et al.  The structural organization of the mental lexicon and its contribution to age-related declines in spoken-word recognition. , 1996 .

[5]  Marta Kutas,et al.  Electrophysiological analysis of context effects in Alzheimer's disease. , 2003, Neuropsychology.

[6]  Thomas Baer,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing‐impaired and normally hearing people , 1997 .

[7]  D. N. Kalikow,et al.  Test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentences with controlled word predictability , 1976 .

[8]  B C Moore,et al.  Speech reception thresholds in noise with and without spectral and temporal dips for hearing-impaired and normally hearing people. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[9]  Robert C. Bilger,et al.  Standardization of a Test of Speech Perception in Noise , 1984 .

[10]  Ridker Pm,et al.  C-reactive protein and risks of future myocardial infarction and thrombotic stroke. , 1998 .

[11]  Susan Kemper,et al.  The Effects of Aging and Dual Task Demands on Language Production , 2009, Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition.

[12]  Michael S Vitevitch,et al.  The influence of phonological similarity neighborhoods on speech production. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[13]  J. Jenkins,et al.  Studies in the Psychological Correlates of the Sound System of American English , 1964 .

[14]  M. Sommers,et al.  Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: the interaction of lexical competition and semantic context. , 1999, Psychology and aging.

[15]  P. Barber,et al.  An auditory Stroop effect with judgments of speaker gender , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  M. Kathleen Pichora-Fuller,et al.  Cognitive aging and auditory information processing , 2003, International journal of audiology.

[17]  Rochelle S Newman,et al.  Life Span Effects of Lexical Factors on Oral Naming , 2005, Language and speech.

[18]  E. Kaplan,et al.  The Boston naming test , 2001 .

[19]  Spoken word recognition in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer's type: changes in talker normalization and lexical discrimination. , 1998, Psychology and aging.

[20]  Susan Jerger,et al.  Developmental trends in the interaction between auditory and linguistic processing , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  Michael S Vitevitch,et al.  The facilitative influence of phonological similarity and neighborhood frequency in speech production in younger and older adults , 2003, Memory & cognition.

[22]  J. Wasowicz,et al.  Temporal characteristics of the speech of normal elderly adults. , 1987, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[23]  W. M. Rabinowitz,et al.  Standardization of a test of speech perception in noise. , 1979, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[24]  Bell Ts,et al.  Sentence recognition materials based on frequency of word use and lexical confusability. , 2001 .

[25]  L L Elliott,et al.  Development of a test of speech intelligibility in noise using sentence materials with controlled word predictability. , 1977, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  J. Cummings,et al.  The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A Brief Screening Tool For Mild Cognitive Impairment , 2005, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

[27]  Trevor A. Harley,et al.  What causes a tip-of-the-tongue state? Evidence for lexical neighbourhood effects in speech production , 1998 .

[28]  Lynn Hasher,et al.  Working Memory, Comprehension, and Aging: A Review and a New View , 1988 .

[29]  M. Vitevitch,et al.  The neighborhood characteristics of malapropisms. , 1996, Language and speech.

[30]  J. Nussbaum.  Life Span Communication and Quality of Life , 2007 .

[31]  D. Pisoni,et al.  Recognizing Spoken Words: The Neighborhood Activation Model , 1998, Ear and hearing.

[32]  E J Green,et al.  Interference effects in an auditory Stroop task: congruence and correspondence. , 1983, Acta psychologica.