It remains unknown how language-production processes decline with age. Using a picture-word interference task, the aim of this study was to investigate the influence of aging on lexical access and the contributions of language-specific and domain-general factors to semantic, phonological, and orthographic effects in Chinese spoken word production. After controlling for years of education, language comprehension, and domain-general cognitive abilities, we found a larger semantic interference effect for older speakers than for younger speakers, while the phonological effect and orthographic effect were comparable for the two age groups, supporting the transmission deficit hypothesis. Furthermore, discourse comprehension and general cognitive abilities were found to contribute to the phonological effect in older adults, but not in younger adults. Our findings indicate that both language-specific factors and domain-general factors contribute to the aging of spoken word production together.
Abdel RahmanR.SommerW. (2003). Does phonological encoding in speech production always follow the retrieval of semantic knowledge? Electrophysiological evidence for parallel processing. Cognitive Brain Research, 16(3), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0926-6410(02)00305-1
2.
AbramsL.TrunkD. L.MerrillL. A. (2007). Why a superman cannot help a tsunami: Activation of grammatical class influences resolution of young and older adults’ tip-of-the-tongue states. Psychology and Aging, 22(4), 835. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.22.4.835
3.
AkbarN.HonarmandK.KouN.FeinsteinA. (2011). Validity of a computerized version of the symbol digit modalities test in multiple sclerosis. Journal of Neurology, 258(3), 373–379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-010-5760-8
4.
AtanasovaT.FargierR.ZesigerP.LaganaroM. (2020). Dynamics of word production in the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Neurobiology of Language, 2(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00024
5.
BaciuM.BoudiafN.CousinE.Perrone-BertolottiM.PichatC.FournetN.. . .KrainikA. (2016). Functional MRI evidence for the decline of word retrieval and generation during normal aging. Age, 38, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11357-015-9857-y
6.
BarrD. J.LevyR.ScheepersC.TilyH. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
7.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1–48. http://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1406.5823
8.
BedoreL. M.PeñaE. D.GriffinZ. M.HixonJ. G. (2016). Effects of age of English exposure, current input/output, and grade on bilingual language performance. Journal of Child Language, 43(3), 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000915000811
9.
BelkeE. (2008). Effects of working memory load on lexical-semantic encoding in language production. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(2), 357–363. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.15.2.357
10.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x
11.
BenjaminiY.YekutieliD. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics, 1165, 1188. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2674075
12.
BiY.XuY.CaramazzaA. (2009). Orthographic and phonological effects in the picture–word interference paradigm: Evidence from a logographic language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 30(4), 637–658. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716409990051
13.
BortfeldH.LeonS. D.BloomJ. E.SchoberM. F.BrennanS. E. (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2), 123–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309010440020101
14.
BoudiafN.LaboissièreR.CousinÉ.FournetN.KrainikA.BaciuM. (2018). Behavioral evidence for a differential modulation of semantic processing and lexical production by aging: A full linear mixed-effects modeling approach. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 25(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2016.1257100
15.
BrehmL.AldayP. M. (2022). Contrast coding choices in a decade of mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 125, 104334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2022.104334
16.
BurkeD.MacKayD. G.WorthleyJ.WadeE. (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults?Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 542–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90026-G
17.
BurkeD. M.CollegeP. (1997). Language, aging, and inhibitory deficits: Evaluation of a theory. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(6), P254–P264. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/52B.6.P254
BurkeD. M.ShaftoM. A. (2008). Language and aging. In CraikF. I. M.SalthouseT. A. (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 373–443). Psychology Press.
20.
BürkiA.ElbuyS.MadecS.VasishthS. (2020). What did we learn from forty years of research on semantic interference? A Bayesian meta-analysis. Journal of Memory and Language, 114, 104125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2020.104125
21.
CaplanD.WatersG. (2005). The relationship between age, processing speed, working memory capacity, and language comprehension. Memory, 13(3–4), 403–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210344000459
22.
CaramazzaA. (1997). How many levels of processing are there in lexical access?Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 177–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/026432997381664
23.
CarlsonM. C.HasherL.ConnellyS. L.ZacksR. T. (1995). Aging, distraction, and the benefits of predictable location. Psychology and Aging, 10(3), 427. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.10.3.427
24.
CavanaughJ. C.GradyJ. G.PerlmutterM. (1983). Forgetting and use of memory aids in 20 to 70 year olds everyday life. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 17(2), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.2190/H7L2-K3XK-H32K-VW89
25.
ChenH. C.JuolaJ. F. (1982). Dimensions of lexical coding in Chinese and English. Memory & Cognition, 10, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197632
26.
ChenX.ZhangJ.ZhuY. (2015). The research of inhibition deficit hypothesis in the aging of speech production: Evidence from different speech level. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 47(3), 329–343.
ColtheartM.RastleK.PerryC.LangdonR.ZieglerJ. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.204
29.
CrossE. S.BurkeD. M. (2004). Do alternative names block young and older adults’ retrieval of proper names?Brain and Language, 89(1), 174–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0093-934X(03)00363-8
30.
DamianM. F.BowersJ. S. (2003). Effects of orthography on speech production in a form-preparation paradigm. Journal of Memory and Language, 49(1), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-596X(03)00008-1
31.
DamianM. F.BowersJ. S. (2009). Accessing the role of orthography in speech perception and production: Evidence from picture-word interference tasks. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440801896007
32.
DamianM. F.MartinR. C. (1999). Semantic and phonological codes interact in single word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 25(2), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.25.2.345
33.
DanemanM.GreenI. (1986). Individual differences in comprehending and producing words in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(86)90018-5
34.
DaoudJ. I. (2017). Multicollinearity and regression analysis. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 949(1), 012009.
DubossarskyH.De DeyneS.HillsT. T. (2017). Quantifying the structure of free association networks across the life span. Developmental Psychology, 53(8), 1560. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000347
37.
EarlesJ. L.ConnorL. T.FrieskeD.ParkD. C.SmithA. D.ZwahrM. (1997). Age differences in inhibition: Possible causes and consequences. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 4(1), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825589708256635
38.
EngelhardtP. E.NiggJ. T.FerreiraF. (2013). Is the fluency of language outputs related to individual differences in intelligence and executive function?Acta Psychologica, 144(2), 424–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2013.08.002
39.
FechnerH. B.PachurT.SchoolerL. J. (2019). How does aging impact decision making? The contribution of cognitive decline and strategic compensation revealed in a cognitive architecture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 45(9), 1634. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000661
40.
FedermeierK. D.KutasM. (1999). A rose by any other name: Long-term memory structure and sentence processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 41(4), 469–495. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1999.2660
41.
FedermeierK. D.KutasM. (2005). Aging in context: Age-related changes in context use during language comprehension. Psychophysiology, 42(2), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2005.00274.x
42.
FedermeierK. D.KutasM.SchulR. (2010). Age-related and individual differences in the use of prediction during language comprehension. Brain and Language, 115(3), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2010.07.006
43.
FedermeierK. D.McLennanD. B.De OchoaE.KutasM. (2002). The impact of semantic memory organization and sentence context information on spoken language processing by younger and older adults: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 39(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1469-8986.3920133
44.
FedermeierK. D.Van PettenC.SchwartzT. J.KutasM. (2003). Sounds, words, sentences: Age-related changes across levels of language processing. Psychology and Aging, 18(4), 858. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.18.4.858
45.
FengC.DamianM. F.QuQ. (2021). Parallel processing of semantics and phonology in spoken production: Evidence from blocked cyclic picture naming and EEG. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 33(4), 725–738. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_01675
46.
FerreiraV. S.PashlerH. (2002). Central bottleneck influences on the processing stages of word production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(6), 1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.28.6.1187
47.
FjellA. M.WalhovdK. B.WestlyeL. T.ØstbyY.TamnesC. K.JerniganT. L.. . .DaleA. M. (2010). When does brain aging accelerate? Dangers of quadratic fits in cross-sectional studies. NeuroImage, 50(4), 1376–1383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.01.061
48.
FoxJ.FriendlyG. G.GravesS.HeibergerR.MonetteG.NilssonH.SuggestsM. A. S. S. (2007). The car package. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 1109, 1431.
49.
GarrettM. (1980). Levels of processing in sentence production. In ButterworthB. (Ed.), Language production Vol. 1: Speech and talk (pp. 177–220). Academic Press.
GlaserW. R.DüngelhoffF. J. (1984). The time course of picture-word interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10(5), 640. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.10.5.640
52.
GoldenC.FreshwaterS. M.GoldenZ. (1978). Stroop color and word test. In A manual for clinical and experimental uses. Stoelting.
53.
GollanT. H.BrownA. S. (2006). From tip-of-the-tongue (TOT) data to theoretical implications in two steps: When more TOTs means better retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(3), 462. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.135.3.462
54.
GordonJ. K.CheimariouS. (2013). Semantic interference in a randomized naming task: Effects of age, order, and category. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 30(7–8), 476–494. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2013.877437
55.
HasherL.LustigC.ZacksR. T. (2007). Inhibitory mechanisms and the control of attention. In ConwayA.JarroldC.KaneM.MiyakeA.TowseJ. (Eds.), Variation in working memory (pp. 227–249). Oxford University Press.
56.
HasherL.ZacksR. T. (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 22, 193–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60041-9
57.
HasherL.ZacksR. T.MayC. P. (1999). Inhibitory control, circadian arousal and age. In GopherD.KoriatA. (Eds.), Attention & performance XVII: Cognitive regulation and performance: Interaction of theory and application (pp. 653–675). MIT Press.
58.
HeineM. K.OberB. A.ShenautG. K. (1999). Naturally occurring and experimentally induced tip-of-the-tongue experiences in three adult age groups. Psychology and Aging, 14(3), 445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.14.3.445
59.
HenryJ. D.PhillipsL. H. (2006). Covariates of production and perseveration on tests of phonemic, semantic and alternating fluency in normal aging. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 13(3–4), 529–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/138255890969537
60.
JaegerT. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.11.007
61.
JamesL. E.BurkeD. M. (2000). Phonological priming effects on word retrieval and tip-of-the tongue experiences in young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 1378–1391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.26.6.1378
62.
JescheniakJ. D.SchriefersH.HantschA. (2003). Utterance format affects phonological priming in the picture-word task: Implications for models of phonological encoding in speech production. Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception and Performance, 29(2), 441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.441
63.
KamelA. R.AbonazelM. R. (2023). A simple introduction to regression modeling using R. Computational Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, 2(1), 52–79. https://doi.org/10.21608/cjmss.2023.189834.1002
64.
KavéG.MashalN. (2012). Age-related differences in word-retrieval but not in meaning generation. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 19(4), 515–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2011.638975
65.
KavéG.Samuel-EnochK.AdivS. (2009). The association between age and the frequency of nouns selected for production. Psychology and Aging, 24(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014579
66.
KemperS. (1986). Imitation of complex syntactic constructions by elderly adults. Applied Psycholinguistics, 7(3), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400007578
KeuleersE.StevensM.ManderaP.BrysbaertM. (2015). Word knowledge in the crowd: Measuring vocabulary size and word prevalence in a massive online experiment. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68(8), 1665–1692. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1022560
70.
KintschW. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163
71.
KlieschM.PfenningerS. E.WielingM.StarkE.MeyerM. (2022). Cognitive benefits of learning additional languages in old adulthood? insights from an intensive longitudinal intervention study. Applied Linguistics, 43(4), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amab077
72.
KorkoM.WilliamsS. A. (2017). Inhibitory control and the speech patterns of second language users. British Journal of Psychology, 108(1), 43–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12176
73.
LaganaroM.BonnansC.FargierR. (2019). Word form encoding is under attentional demand: Evidence from dual-task interference in aphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 36(1–2), 18–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643294.2018.1564650
74.
LaganaroM.ValenteA.PerretC. (2012). Time course of word production in fast and slow speakers: A high density ERP topographic study. NeuroImage, 59(4), 3881–3888. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.10.082
75.
LangnesE.SneveM. H.SedereviciusD.AmlienI. K.WalhovdK. B.FjellA. M. (2020). Anterior and posterior hippocampus macro-and microstructure across the lifespan in relation to memory—A longitudinal study. Hippocampus, 30(7), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.1002/hipo.23189
76.
LaszloS.FedermeierK. D. (2009). A beautiful day in the neighborhood: An event-related potential study of lexical relationships and prediction in context. Journal of Memory and Language, 61(3), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2009.06.004
77.
LaverG. D.BurkeD. M. (1993). Why do semantic priming effects increase in old age? A meta-analysis. Psychology and Aging, 8(1), 34. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.8.1.34
LeveltW. J. M.RoelofsA.MeyerA. S. (1999). A theory of lexical access in speech production. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x99001776
81.
LiX.YangY. (2005). The influence of correspondence between accent and information structure on discourse comprehension (in Chinese). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37(1), 34–40.
82.
LitcofskyK. A.TannerD.van HellJ. G. (2016). Effects of language experience, use, and cognitive functioning on bilingual word production and comprehension. International Journal of Bilingualism, 20(6), 666–683. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006915579737
83.
LupkerS. J. (1979). The semantic nature of response competition in the picture-word interference task. Memory and Cognition, 7(6), 485–495. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198265
84.
LupkerS. J. (1982). The role of phonetic and orthographic similarity in picture–word interference. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 36, 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0080652
85.
MacKayD. G.AbramsL. (1998). Age-linked declines in retrieving orthographic knowledge: Empirical, practical, and theoretical implications. Psychology and Aging, 13(4), 647. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.13.4.647
86.
MasedaA.Lodeiro-FernándezL.Lorenzo-LópezL.Núñez-NaveiraL.BaloA.Millán-CalentiJ. C. (2014). Verbal fluency, naming and verbal comprehension: Three aspects of language as predictors of cognitive impairment. Aging & Mental Health, 18(8), 1037–1045. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2014.908457
87.
MathuranathP. S.GeorgeA.CherianP. J.AlexanderA.SarmaS. G.SarmaP. S. (2003). Effects of age, education and gender on verbal fluency. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 25(8), 1057–1064. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.25.8.1057.16736
88.
McClellandJ. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89(1), 60–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.89.1.60
89.
MillerG. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158
90.
MiwaK.BaayenH. (2021). Nonlinearities in bilingual visual word recognition: An introduction to generalized additive modeling. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(5), 825–832. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000079
91.
MortensenL.MeyerA. S.HumphreysG. W. (2006). Age-related effects on speech production: A review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1–3), 238–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960444000278
92.
Moscoso del Prado MartinF. (2017). Vocabulary, grammar, sex, and aging. Cognitive Science, 41(4), 950–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12367
93.
MühlbäckA.ManaJ.WallnerM.FrankW.LindenbergK. S.HoffmannR.. . . REGISTRY Investigators of the European Huntington’s Disease Network, The Enroll-HD Investigators. (2023). Establishing normative data for the evaluation of cognitive performance in Huntington’s disease considering the impact of gender, age, language, and education. Journal of Neurology, 270(10), 4903–4913. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-023-11823-x
94.
NasreddineZ. S.PhillipsN. A.BédirianV.CharbonneauS.WhiteheadV.CollinI.. . .ChertkowH. (2005). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(4), 695–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x
95.
OberleS.JamesL. E. (2013). Semantically-and phonologically-related primes improve name retrieval in young and older adults. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28(9), 1378–1393. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2012.685481
96.
OsborneG.RastleK.BurkeD. (2004). Phonological and orthographic effects on picture naming [Poster presentation]. 45th Annual Meeting of Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis, MN.
97.
OuyangM.CaiX.ZhangQ. (2020). Aging effects on phonological and semantic priming in the tip-of-the-tongue: Evidence from a two-step approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 338. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00338
98.
ParkD. C. (2000). The basic mechanisms accounting for age-related decline in cognitive function. In ParkD. C.SchwarzN. (Eds.), Cognitive aging: A primer (pp. 3–21). Psychology Press.
RabagliaC. D.SalthouseT. A. (2011). Natural and constrained language production as a function of age and cognitive abilities. Language and Cognitive Processes, 26(10), 1505–1531. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690965.2010.507489
101.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
102.
RizioA. A.MoyerK. J.DiazM. T. (2017). Neural evidence for phonologically based language production deficits in older adults: An fMRI investigation of age-related differences in picture-word interference. Brain and Behavior, 7(4), e00660. https://doi.org/10.1002/brb3.660
103.
RobertC.MatheyS. (2018). The oral and written side of word production in young and older adults: Generation of lexical neighbors. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 25(2), 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/13825585.2017.1284987
RoelofsA. (2003). Goal-referenced selection of verbal action: Modeling attentional control in the Stroop task. Psychological Review, 110(1), 88–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.110.1.88
107.
RoelofsA. (2008). Attention, gaze shifting, and dual-task interference from phonological encoding in spoken word planning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1580–1598. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012476
108.
RosinskiR. R. (1977). Picture-word interference is semantically based. Child Development, 48(2), 643–647. https://doi.org/10.2307/1128667
109.
SalthouseT. A. (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103(3), 403–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.3.403
110.
SchadD. J.VasishthS.HohensteinS.KlieglR. (2020). How to capitalize on a priori contrasts in linear (mixed)models: A tutorial. Journal of Memory and Language, 110, 104038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2019.104038
111.
SchepensJ. J.van HoutR. W.van der SlikF. W. (2023). Linguistic dissimilarity increases age-related decline in adult language learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 45(1), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263122000067
112.
SchriefersH.MeyerA. S.LeveltW. J. M. (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N
113.
SchriefersH.ZwitserloodP.RoelofsA. (1991). The identification of morphologically complex spoken words: Continuous processing or decomposition?Journal of Memory and Language, 30(1), 26–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(91)90009-9
114.
SchroederD. H.SalthouseT. A. (2004). Age-related effects on cognition between 20 and 50 years of age. Personality and Individual Differences, 36(2), 393–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00104-1
115.
ShaftoM. A.TylerL. K. (2014). Language in the aging brain: The network dynamics of cognitive decline and preservation. Science, 346(6209), 583–587. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254404
116.
ShaftoM. A.TylerL. K.DixonM.TaylorJ. R.RoweJ. B.CusackR., . . . Cam-CAN (2014). The Cambridge Centre for Ageing and Neuroscience (Cam-CAN) study protocol: A cross-sectional, lifespan, multidisciplinary examination of healthy cognitive ageing. BMC Neurology, 14, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12883-014-0204-1
117.
ShaoZ.MeyerA. S.RoelofsA. (2013). Selective and nonselective inhibition of competitors in picture naming. Memory and Cognition, 41, 1200–1211. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013-0332-7
118.
SmithT.GildehN.HolmesC. (2007). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment: Validity and utility in a memory clinic setting. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 52(5), 329–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370705200508
119.
SpielerD. H.BalotaD. A.FaustM. E. (1996). Stroop performance in healthy younger and older adults and in individuals with dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(2), 461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.22.2.461
120.
StarreveldP. A.La HeijW. (1995). Semantic interference, orthographic facilitation, and their interaction in naming tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(3), 686. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.3.686
121.
StarreveldP. A.La HeijW. (1996). Time-course analysis of semantic and orthographic context effects in picture naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(4), 896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.896
122.
SungJ. E. (2015). Age-related changes in sentence production abilities and their relation to working-memory capacity: Evidence from a verb-final language. PLOS ONE, 10(4), e0119424. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119424
123.
SungJ. E.YooJ. K.LeeS. E.EomB. (2017). Effects of age, working memory, and word order on passive-sentence comprehension: Evidence from a verb-final language. International Psychogeriatrics, 29(6), 939–948. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610217000047
124.
TangS. F.ChenI. H.ChiangH. Y.WuC. T.HsuehI. P.YuW. H.HsiehC. L. (2017). A comparison between the original and Tablet-based Symbol Digit Modalities Test in patients with schizophrenia: Test-retest agreement, random measurement error, practice effect, and ecological validity. Psychiatry Research, 260, 199–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2017.11.066
125.
TaylorJ. K.BurkeD. M. (2002). Asymmetric aging effects on semantic and phonological processes: Naming in the picture-word interference task. Psychology and Aging, 17(4), 662–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/0882-7974.17.4.662
126.
ThorntonR.LightL. L. (2006). Language comprehension and production in normal aging. In BirrenJ. E.SchaieK. W. (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (6th ed., pp. 261–287). Academic Press.
van MaanenL.van RijnH.BorstJ. P. (2009). Stroop and picture—word interference are two sides of the same coin. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 987–999. https://doi.org/10.3758/PBR.16.6.987
VromansR.JongmanS. R. (2017). The interaction between selective and nonselective inhibition during Speech Production. In The Donders Discussions, 2017.
132.
WeberS.HausmannM.KaneP.WeisS. (2020). The relationship between language ability and brain activity across language processes and modalities. Neuropsychologia, 146, 107536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107536
WeekesB. S.DaviesR. A.ChenM. J. (2002). Picture word interference effects on naming in Chinese. In KaoH. R.GaoD. G.LeongC. K. (Eds.), Cognitive neuroscience studies of the Chinese language (pp. 101–127). University of Hong Kong Press.
135.
WickhamH.WickhamH. (2016). Data analysis (pp. 189–201). Springer International Publishing.
136.
WingfieldA.GrossmanM. (2006). Language and the aging brain: Patterns of neural compensation revealed by functional brain imaging. Journal of Neurophysiology, 96(6), 2830–2839. https://doi.org/10.1152/jn.00628.2006
WoodS. N. (2017). Generalized additive models: An introduction with R. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
139.
WulffD. U.HillsT. T.MataR. (2022). Structural differences in the semantic networks of younger and older adults. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 21459. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-11698-4
140.
YangQ.ZhangQ. (2015). Aging of speech production: Behavioral and neural mechanisms (in Chinese). Advances in Psychological Science, 23, 2072–2084.
141.
YangQ.ZhangQ. (2019). Aging effect of picture naming in Chinese: The influence of the non-selective inhibition ability. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(10), 1079–1090. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01079
142.
ZacksR.HasherL. (1997). Cognitive gerontology and attentional inhibition: A reply to Burke and McDowd. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(6), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/52B.6.P274
143.
ZacksR. T.HasherL. (1994). Directed ignoring: Inhibitory regulation of working memory. In DagenbachD.CarrT. H. (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 241–264). Academic Press.
144.
ZhangQ.ChenH. C.Stuart WeekesB.YangY. (2009). Independent effects of orthographic and phonological facilitation on spoken word production in Mandarin. Language and Speech, 52(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0023830908099885
145.
ZhangQ.DamianM. F. (2012). Effects of orthography on speech production in Chinese. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 41, 267–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-011-9193-z
146.
ZhangQ.WeekesB. S. (2009). Orthographic facilitation effects on spoken word production: Evidence from Chinese. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(7–8), 1082–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960802042133
147.
ZhangQ.YangY. (2003). The determiners of picture-naming latency (in Chinese). Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(4), 447–454.
148.
ZhaoH.La HeijW.SchillerN. O. (2012). Orthographic and phonological facilitation in speech production: New evidence from picture naming in Chinese. Acta Psychologica, 139(2), 272–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.12.001
149.
ZhuX.DamianM. F.ZhangQ. (2015). Seriality of semantic and phonological processes during overt speech in Mandarin as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Brain and Language, 144, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2015.03.007
150.
ZhuX.ZhangQ.DamianM. F. (2016). Additivity of semantic and phonological effects: Evidence from speech production in Mandarin. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 69(11), 2285–2304. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2015.1129427
151.
ZhuangJ.ZhouX. L. (2003). The interaction between semantics and phonology in the speech production of Chinese. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(3), 300–308.
152.
ZorteaM.MenegolaB.VillavicencioA.SallesJ. F. D. (2014). Graph analysis of semantic word association among children, adults, and the elderly. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 27, 90–99. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722014000100011
153.
ZwaanR. A.MaglianoJ. P.GraesserA. C. (1995). Dimensions of situation model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(2), 386. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.21.2.386
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
