ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2026
Involvement of executive resources in prediction: Effects of load and hearing loss in older adults.
Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Whether linguistic prediction requires executive resources is currently unclear. Supportive evidence comes from reduced/delayed prediction in populations with fewer available executive resources, such as children or second-language speakers. However, it is possible that differences in these groups instead stem from differences in linguistic experience. In this study we test prediction using the visual world paradigm, investigating two factors proposed to reduce the availability of executive resources during listening: memory load and hearing loss. Specifically, we apply a visuo-spatial cognitive load manipulation in older adult groups matched in linguistic experience and working memory capacity, but differing in hearing ability. Without a load task, participants with normal hearing were earlier to look to the predictable target relative to those with hearing loss, suggesting a cognitive cost to hearing loss that impacts prediction mechanisms. With a load task, participants with normal hearing were later to look to the predictable target relative to the no-load task, while participants with hearing loss showed no difference by load. Our findings suggest that taxing executive resources via load delays prediction specifically in older adults with normal hearing. While the lack of load effect in the hearing loss group is surprising, it could reflect greater resilience to challenge, altered prediction strategies, or differences in task prioritization. All reported patterns were specific to predictable items and were not seen in neutral items. Importantly, differences between groups cannot be explained by differences in linguistic experience, but rather support findings that executive resources play an important role in prediction.
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.