Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40329134›Full record

ArticleMemory & cognition2025

Anticipatory prediction in older readers.

Roslyn Wong, Aaron Veldre

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Memory & cognition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Roslyn WongSchool of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. roslyn.wong@mq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-7250-4844
Aaron VeldreGraduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council DP18102705Australian Research Council DP190100719
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is well-established that skilled, young-adult readers rely on predictive processing during online language comprehension; however, fewer studies have investigated whether this extends to healthy, older adults (60 + years). The aim of the present research was to assess whether older readers make use of lexical prediction by investigating whether they demonstrate processing costs for incorrect predictions in a controlled experimental design. The eye movements of a sample of older adults (60-86 years) were recorded as they read strongly and weakly constraining sentences containing a predictable word or an unpredictable alternative that was either semantically related or unrelated. To determine whether predictive processing depends on the stimuli presentation format, a second experiment presented the same materials in a self-paced reading task in which each word of a sentence appears one at a time at the readers' own pace. Older adults showed processing benefits for expected input on eye-movement measures of reading. They also showed processing costs for unexpected input across both methodologies, but only when semantically unrelated to the best completion. Taken together, the results suggest that the use of predictive processes remains relatively preserved with age. The implications of these findings for understanding whether prediction is a fundamental component of online language comprehension are discussed.

Indexed as

AgingAnticipation, PsychologicalComprehensionEye MovementsPsycholinguisticsReadingAgedAged, 80 and overEye Movement MeasurementsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedAgingEye movementsPredictionReadingSelf-paced reading

Identifiers

PMID40329134
PMCPMC12589329

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.