Age of Acquisition Effect: Evidence from Single Word Reading and Neural Networks

Abstract

Introduction: Many studies show that words learned early in life are read more easily than the ones learned later and are less vulnerable to brain damage. Methods: the first part of the current study, 25 primary school students in the 5th grade read the word groups learned initially during a previous grade. The words used in the experiments were 327 Farsi monosyllable words matched on the other factors involved in Farsi word naming. Results: The analysis of covariance (the consistency and frequency as covariates) showed that words learned in earlier grades were read more easily than the ones learned later, showing the known effect of the Age of Acquisition (AoA). In the second part of the study, it was tried to simulate AoA in word naming by a neural network model developed earlier based on connectionist approach. While previous studies used random patterns, in the current study words from primary school books were used. Likewise, words learned early by the model were read better than words learned later. However, there was a failure in replicating previous simulation of AoA in English reading by an algorithm called Quick prop for Farsi. In addition, the model was lesioned by removing some hidden units to see its effect on word reading. As a result, words learned earlier were less vulnerable to damage compared with the ones learned later. Conclusion: The findings showed that words learned earlier, compared to those learned later, were read better and were less vulnerable to damage. These effects are explained by considering the nature of learning in neural networks trained by error back-propagation.

Serial Recall Order and Semantic Features of Category Fluency Words to Study Semantic Memory in Normal Ageing

“…Each word was scored based on 17 item-level semantic and non-semantic descriptors: typicality , age of acquisition , concreteness , frequency , prevalence , recognition time , valence , arousal , dominance , body-object interaction , graphemes count , syllables count , consonant/vowel quantity ratio , phonological complexity , SRO , in-list orthographic Levenshtein distance , and dictionary orthographic Levenshtein distance . A description of these features (inclusive of examples) and the references from which linguistic ratings were obtained ( Rosch, 1975 ; Murray and Forster, 2004 ; Yarkoni et al, 2008 ; Hargreaves et al, 2012 ; Kuperman et al, 2012 ; Warriner et al, 2013 ; Brysbaert et al, 2014 , 2019 ; van Heuven et al, 2014 ; Dufau et al, 2015 ; Riley and Thompson, 2015 ; Räling et al, 2016 ; Pexman et al, 2019 ; Sohrabi, 2019 ; Mandera et al, 2020 ) are listed in Table 2 .…”

“…Words acquired earlier in life have had time and opportunity to "sediment" more profoundly in the semantic system and solidify connections with other words than words acquired later in life. As a result, they are processed more rapidly and are more resistant to neural dysfunction (Sohrabi, 2019).…”

Age of acquisition ratings for 19,716 simplified Chinese words

“…Further, AoA has been investigated not only via a behavioral approach, but also through computational modeling and neural network simulation (e.g., Chang, Monaghan, & Welbourne, 2019;Sohrabi, 2019). These studies examined Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01455-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.…”

“…Finally, the AoA effect has been investigated in many different languages, including English (e.g., Brysbaert, 2017), Dutch (e.g., Menenti & Burani, 2007), Italian (e.g., Wilson, Ellis, & Burani, 2012), Farsi (e.g., Sohrabi, 2019), Persian (e.g., Bakhtiar, Su, Lee, & Weekes, 2016), and Chinese (e.g., Liu, Hao, Shu, Tan, & Weekes, 2008). AoA has also been studied beyond the scope of a single language.…”

Age of acquisition effects on the decomposition of compound words

“…This effect has been demonstrated in typical and atypical populations, computational modelling, neuroimaging methodologies and a variety of behavioural tasks including object naming, face naming, visual duration threshold, text reading, word naming and lexical decision across different languages (e.g. Barry et al, 1997;Catling et al, 2013;Catling & Johnston, 2006a, 2006b, 2006cDent et al, 2007;Gerhand & Barry, 1999;Juhasz & Rayner, 2003Lewis, 1999;Moore & Valentine, 1998;Morrison & Ellis, 1995;Sohrabi, 2018;Yum & Law, 2019 see also reviews by Brysbaert & Ellis, 2016;Johnston & Barry, 2006;Juhasz, 2005).…”