ArticleExperimental aging research
Older Adults Show Intraindividual Variation in the Use of Predictive Processing.
Article in Experimental aging research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the compatibility of predictive coding as a model of linguistic predictability effects in reading.Frontiers in cognition · 2026Review
- Diffindo! Precise language comprehension in older adulthood revealed by event-related brain potential studies of domain knowledge.Cognition · 2025Article
- Prediction in reading: A review of predictability effects, their theoretical implications, and beyond.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- Altered Oscillatory Neural Dynamics Related to Word Prediction in Older Adult Readers.Language, cognition and neuroscience · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of prediction can aid language comprehension through preactivation of relevant word features. However, predictions can be wrong, and it has been proposed that resolving the mismatch between the predicted and presented item requires cognitive resources. Older adults tend not to predict and instead rely more on passive comprehension. Here, we tested, using an intraindividual approach, whether older adults consistently use this less demanding processing strategy while reading or whether they attempt to predict on some trials.
methodsWe used a cross-task conflict paradigm. Younger and older participants self-paced to read sentences that ended with either an expected or unexpected word. Each sentence was then followed by a flanker stimulus that could be congruent or incongruent. We examined responses within and across the two tasks.
resultsUnexpected words were in general read as quickly as expected words, indicating that typical processing of these words was similar. However, for both younger and older adults, there was a greater proportion of very slow trials for unexpected words, revealing different processing on a subset of trials. Critically, in older adults, these slowly read unexpected words engaged control, as seen in speeded responses to incongruent flanker stimuli.
conclusionUsing a cross-task conflict paradigm, we showed that older adults are able to predict and engage cognitive resources to cope with prediction violations, but do not opt to use these processes consistently.
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.