Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34405386›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2022

Pupillometry reveals cognitive demands of lexical competition during spoken word recognition in young and older adults.

Drew J McLaughlin, Maggie E Zink, Lauren Gaunt, Brent Spehar, Kristin J Van Engen, Mitchell S Sommers, Jonathan E Peelle

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Auditory, Lexical, and Multitasking Demands Interactively Impact Listening Effort.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023
    Article
  8. Spoken Word Recognition in Listeners with Mild Dementia Symptoms.Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Drew J McLaughlinDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Dr, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA. drewjmclaughlin@wustl.edu.
Maggie E ZinkDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Lauren GauntDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Dr, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Brent SpeharDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Kristin J Van EngenDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Dr, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Mitchell S SommersDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Dr, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA.
Jonathan E PeelleDepartment of Otolaryngology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Washington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

THE NEUROCOGNITIVE BASIS OF EFFORTFUL LISTENING - Administrative supplement for Alzheimer's DiseaseR01DC014281 · NIDCD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI PEELLE, JONATHAN E · 2015 to 2019
$3.1M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC014281
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In most contemporary activation-competition frameworks for spoken word recognition, candidate words compete against phonological "neighbors" with similar acoustic properties (e.g., "cap" vs. "cat"). Thus, recognizing words with more competitors should come at a greater cognitive cost relative to recognizing words with fewer competitors, due to increased demands for selecting the correct item and inhibiting incorrect candidates. Importantly, these processes should operate even in the absence of differences in accuracy. In the present study, we tested this proposal by examining differences in processing costs associated with neighborhood density for highly intelligible items presented in quiet. A second goal was to examine whether the cognitive demands associated with increased neighborhood density were greater for older adults compared with young adults. Using pupillometry as an index of cognitive processing load, we compared the cognitive demands associated with spoken word recognition for words with many or fewer neighbors, presented in quiet, for young (n = 67) and older (n = 69) adult listeners. Growth curve analysis of the pupil data indicated that older adults showed a greater evoked pupil response for spoken words than did young adults, consistent with increased cognitive load during spoken word recognition. Words from dense neighborhoods were marginally more demanding to process than words from sparse neighborhoods. There was also an interaction between age and neighborhood density, indicating larger effects of density in young adult listeners. These results highlight the importance of assessing both cognitive demands and accuracy when investigating the mechanisms underlying spoken word recognition.

Indexed as

Speech PerceptionAgedCognitionHumansYoung AdultCognitive loadLexical competitionSpoken word recognition

Identifiers

PMID34405386
PMCPMC9169067
OpenAlexW3163147416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.