ArticlePsychology and aging2020
Failure to stop autocorrect errors in reading aloud increases in aging especially with a positive biomarker for Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Psychology and aging, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic arts in Alzheimer disease: a brief review of evidence and mechanisms.Dementia & neuropsychologia · 2026Review
- Estimating the rate of failure to notice function word errors in natural reading.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Article
- Language switching and speaking a nondominant language challenge executive control: Preliminary data for novel behavioral markers of Alzheimer's risk in Spanish-English bilinguals.Neuropsychology · 2024Article
- Autocorrection if→of function words in reading aloud: A novel marker of Alzheimer's risk.Neuropsychology · 2023Article
- Remote data collection speech analysis in people at risk for Alzheimer's disease dementia: usability and acceptability results.Frontiers in dementia · 2023Article
- Domain-general conflict monitoring predicts neural and behavioral indices of linguistic error processing during reading comprehension.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present study examined the effects of aging and CSF biomarkers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) on the ability to control production of unexpected words in connected speech elicited by reading aloud. Fifty-two cognitively healthy participants aged 66-86 read aloud 6 paragraphs with 10 malapropisms including 5 on content words (e.g., "window cartons" that elicited autocorrect errors to "window curtains") and 5 on function words (e.g., "thus concept" that elicited autocorrections to "this concept") and completed a battery of neuropsychological tests including a standardized Stroop task. Reading aloud elicited more autocorrect errors on function than content words, but these were equally correlated with age and Aβ1-42 levels. The ability to stop autocorrect errors declined in aging and with lower (more AD-like) levels of Aβ1-42, and multiplicatively so, such that autocorrect errors were highest in the oldest-old with the lowest Aβ1-42 levels. Critically, aging effects were significant even when controlling statistically for Aβ1-42. Finally, both autocorrect and Stroop errors were correlated with Aβ1-42, but only autocorrect errors captured unique variance in predicting Aβ1-42 levels. Reading aloud requires simultaneous planning and monitoring of upcoming speech. These results suggest that healthy aging leads to decline in the ability to intermittently monitor for and detect conflict during speech planning and that subtle cognitive changes in preclinical AD magnify this aging deficit. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.