Scope of Word Meaning Activation During Sentence Processing by Young and Older Adults

Abstract

In a naming experiment, we examined word meaning activation on-line during sentence processing by younger and older adults. Sentences were biased to either the most or least frequently used meaning of a sentence-final ambiguous word. In order to determine the scope of initial meaning activation, targets represented either high- or low-salient semantic relationships to a single sense of the ambiguous word in context. Both age groups evidenced context-dependent activation of word meaning. In addition, context activated a wide scope of meaning that included both high- and low-salience aspects of the ambiguous words. These results contradict predictions based on the inhibition deficit hypothesis (Hasher & Zacks, 1988). However, they are compatible with an interactive activation model of language comprehension that does not discriminate among age groups.

Age-related effects on speech production: A review

“…This has been demonstrated in semantic priming studies, in which a word or sentence prime that is semantically related to a following target word has been found to speed up recognition of the target (as indicated by correct lexical decision or naming) as much in older as in young adults (e.g., Burke, White, & Diaz, 1987;Madden, 1988Madden, , 1992Madden, Pierce, & Allen, 1993;Paul, 1996; for reviews, see Burke et al, 2000;Laver & Burke, 1993). Similarly, when ambiguous words are embedded in a sentence context (e.g., Some change was removed from her pockets), older adults are as efficient as young adults in using the semantic context to disambiguate the meaning of the words (e.g., Hopkins, Kellas, & Paul, 1995;Paul, 1996; but see Wingfield, Alexander, & Cavigelli, 1994).…”

Aging and the Use of Context in Ambiguity Resolution: Complex Changes From Simple Slowing

“…A few studies in the literature, however, have failed to find age differences in context use or other language com-prehension abilities (e.g., Burke & Harrold, 1988;Hopkins et al 1995;Light, Valencia-Laver, & Zavis, 1991). We have argued that context strength, time to process context, and processing efficiency or speed are all important factors determining whether a comprehender will make good use of contextual information during language comprehension.…”

“…Some of these different outcomes may stem from variations in experimental procedures. For example, Hopkins, Kellas, and Paul (1995) reported good use of context by older adults in resolving lexical ambiguities during sentence comprehension, but these researchers used a method in which the visual presentation rate of words in the sentences was calibrated individually for each participant, with generally much slower rates for the older participants than for the younger ones. It is not hard to imagine that when processing efficiency differences are minimized by changes in presentation rates, older and younger adults could show highly similar performance, whereas clear differences could emerge when both groups are tested with identical presentation conditions.…”

Differential age effects on lexical ambiguity resolution mechanisms

“…This pattern is consistent with Dagerman et al's (2006) observation of less effective on-line ambiguity resolution in older adults when semantic contextual support was not available. More generally, the pattern of aging effects we observe across the two context types provides a reconciliation of the disparate patterns that have been observed across the literature looking at age effects on ambiguity resolution (Balota & Duchek, 1991;Dagerman, MacDonald, & Harm, 2006;Hopkins, Kellas, & Paul, 1995;Meyer & Federmeier, 2010;Swaab, Brown, & Hagoort, 1998), in showing that when age-related differences will be observed depends on the nature of the context information available to support ambiguity resolution.…”

“…However, perhaps surprisingly, empirical work looking at the effects of aging on lexical ambiguity resolution has yielded mixed results. On the one hand, several studies, including Hopkins, Kellas, & Paul (1995), Swaab, Brown, & Hagoort (1998, Balota &Duchek (1991), andMeyer &Federmeier (2010) older adults did not demonstrate the kind of rapid, online context use in the service of ambiguity resolution that was seen for younger adults, even though both groups were identical in their context use in off-line sentence completions and compatibility judgment tasks.Apart from methodological differences, including type of measure (behavioral or electrophysiological) and task (naming vs. passive reading), one critical difference between these studies is in the nature and availability of the disambiguating information provided by the experimental materials. Specifically, all four studies showing young-like patterns in healthy older adults used contexts that provided coherent lexical-semantic constraints.…”