Patterns of resource allocation are reliable among younger and older readers.

Abstract

Younger and older adults read short expository passages across 2 times of measurement for subsequent comprehension or recall. Regression analysis was used to decompose word-by-word reading times into resources allocated to word- and textbase-level processes. Readers were more sensitive to these demands when reading for recall than when reading for comprehension. Patterns of resource allocation showed good test–retest reliabilities and were predictive of memory performance. Within age group, resource allocation parameters were not systematically correlated with other individual-difference measures, suggesting that strategies of on-line resource allocation may be a unique source of individual differences in determining comprehension of and memory for text. Age differences in allocation patterns appeared to reflect general slowing among the older adults. Because older adults showed equivalent memory performance to that of younger readers, the reading time data may represent the on-line resource allocation needed for comparable outcomes among older and younger readers.

Aging and self-regulated language processing.

“…This has been demonstrated with respect to syntactic processing (Stine-Morrow, Ryan, & Leonard, 2000), textbase processing (Haberlandt et al, 1986;Miller & Stine-Morrow, 1998;Stine, 1990;Stine et al, 1995;Stine-Morrow, Milinder et al, 2001;Stine-Morrow, Miller et al, 2001;Titone et al, 2000), situation model construction (Morrow et al, 1997;StineMorrow et al, 2004), and narrative schema development (Stine-Morrow, Miller et al, 2001). …”

“…Readers who demonstrate effective text memory allocate more time to (a) the elaboration of low frequency words, (b) the immediate processing of new concepts when they are introduced, and to (c) conceptual integration at the ends of constituents (Miller & Stine-Morrow, 1998;Stine-Morrow, Milinder et al, 2001;Stine-Morrow, Miller et al, 2001). Presumably, such variations in reading time reflect processing involved in the construction of an integrated textbase with distinctively encoded concepts, a process that supports subsequent search and retrieval.…”

“…Chronic disturbances in a system in which the discrepancy is monitored and compensated for with adjustments in the allocation policy can gently shape the allocation policy over time. Such a process may underlie some of the age differences in the allocation policy that we will discuss below (e.g., Stine-Morrow, Milinder et al, 2001;Stine-Morrow, Miller, & Leno, 2001). Acute disturbances may cause the reader to regress to earlier portions of the text (e.g., Rayner, 1998), though regressions themselves do not always reflect acute disturbances in that readers may vary in the extent to which they use regressions as an ordinary part of their allocation policies (e.g., Hyona, Lorch, & Kaakinen, 2002).…”

Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier

“…For instance, in different studies, there have been no age differences in wrap-up times at clausal boundaries coupled with greater sentence boundary wrap-up effects for older adults (Smiler, Gagne, & Stine-Morrow, 2003) and larger wrap-up effects for older adults at both intrasentence and between sentence boundaries (Miller, Stine-Morrow, Kirkorian, & Conroy, 2004;). Interestingly, and consistent with the separate sentence interpretation resource hypothesis, resource allocation parameters for wrap-up apparently do not correlate with working memory as assessed by span measures (Smiler et al, 2003;Stine-Morrow, Milinder et al, 2001). Kemper et al (2001a) analyzed both cross-sectional and longitudinal language samples and found that syntactic complexity (e.g., the number of propositions or clauses in a sentence, types of syntactic structure used) declines gradually across the life span.…”

“…Mixed findings for age effects in discourse comprehension and memory have been reported. Some studies have reported age deficits (e.g., Dixon, Hultsch, Simon, & von Eye, 1984;Hartley, Stojack, Mushaney, Annon, & Lee, 1994;Spilich, 1983;Zelinski & Burnight, 1997), whereas others have not (e.g., Mandel & Johnson, 1984;Meyer & Poon, 2001;Meyer & Rice, 1981;Stine-Morrow, Milinder, Pullara, & Herman, 2001;Tun, 1989). Some of the disparity in findings is due to the complexity of the interaction among text, task, reader, and strategy variables involved in reading (Meyer & Rice, 1983.…”