2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2021.104941
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Aging affects steaks more than knives: Evidence that the processing of words related to motor skills is relatively spared in aging

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
27
3

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 166 publications
1
27
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Note that we found that younger adults were faster at motor than nonmotor words (e.g., see negative slope indicated in the solid line in Figure 1B), whereas the one previous study examining the effect of MOTOR-RELATEDNESS on aging in lexical decision reported in two separate experiments that younger adults were faster at nonmotor than motor words (Reifegerste et al, 2021). Since this difference could be due to differences in the covariates that were controlled for (covariates can change regression estimates and even lead to sign reversals; L. Friedman & Wall, 2005;Wurm & Fisicaro, 2014), we also ran a sensitivity analysis in which our model included only those terms that were in one or both of the models in the two lexical decision experiments reported by Reifegerste et al (2021). Nevertheless, we again obtained (see Tables A25 and A26) the same pattern of findings as in our main analysis, including a finding of younger adults showing faster RTs at motor than nonmotor words.…”
Section: Rts: Sensitivity Analysescontrasting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Note that we found that younger adults were faster at motor than nonmotor words (e.g., see negative slope indicated in the solid line in Figure 1B), whereas the one previous study examining the effect of MOTOR-RELATEDNESS on aging in lexical decision reported in two separate experiments that younger adults were faster at nonmotor than motor words (Reifegerste et al, 2021). Since this difference could be due to differences in the covariates that were controlled for (covariates can change regression estimates and even lead to sign reversals; L. Friedman & Wall, 2005;Wurm & Fisicaro, 2014), we also ran a sensitivity analysis in which our model included only those terms that were in one or both of the models in the two lexical decision experiments reported by Reifegerste et al (2021). Nevertheless, we again obtained (see Tables A25 and A26) the same pattern of findings as in our main analysis, including a finding of younger adults showing faster RTs at motor than nonmotor words.…”
Section: Rts: Sensitivity Analysescontrasting
confidence: 79%
“…Nevertheless, we again obtained (see Tables A25 and A26) the same pattern of findings as in our main analysis, including a finding of younger adults showing faster RTs at motor than nonmotor words. See the Discussion section for more on the differing results between the present study and Reifegerste et al (2021).…”
Section: Rts: Sensitivity Analysesmentioning
confidence: 67%
“…We believe that more evidence needs to be obtained to further support morphological processing preservation in healthy older adults. In fact, recent studies (Reifegerste et al, 2021) have shown age-related results in lexical decision tasks (Experiments 1 and 2) as a function of the type of word. These authors observed slower responses for older adults in comparison to younger adults when non-motor words (e.g., steak) appeared, although this effect did not emerge when motor words were presented (e.g., knife).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…Older age did not predict reaction times for action naming. A recent study showed that action naming was less affected by age, possibly because action and object naming rely on different neural networks [ 78 ]. In addition, research suggests that action naming is a slower process compared to object naming because more cognitive resources are needed [ 13 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%