Slow and Steady Does Not Always Win the Race: Investigating the Effect of Processing Speed across Five Naming Tests

Soble, Jason R.; Sordahl, Jeffrey A.; Critchfield, Edan A.; Highsmith, Jonathan M.; González, David Andrés; Ashish, Dev; Marceaux, Janice C.; O’Rourke, Justin J.F.; McCoy, Karin J. M.

doi:10.1093/arclin/acw073

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, Rogalski, Peelle, and Reilly (2011) tested a sample of young adults ( N = 20, aged 18–26 years) and a sample of older adults ( N = 23, aged 54–81 years) in a picture-naming task and two processing speed tasks (Trail Maker, TMT-A and TMT-B; Reitan & Wolfson, 1985). Consistent with the results obtained by Soble et al (2016), they found that approximately 25% of the variance in picture-naming latencies was accounted for by processing speed. Verhaegen and Poncelet (2013) reported that both general processing speed and naming speed declined with age, but did not quantify the relationship between the two skills.…”

Section: The Choice Of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Taskssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…Two studies have directly assessed the relationship between general processing speed and picture-naming speed in older adults. Soble et al (2016) conducted a study with a sample ( N = 60) of healthy and neuro-cognitively impaired older participants and found that 26% of the variance in picture-naming latency was explained by processing speed (measured as PSI, the processing speed index of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th edition, WAIS-IV; Wechsler, 2008). Similarly, Rogalski, Peelle, and Reilly (2011) tested a sample of young adults ( N = 20, aged 18–26 years) and a sample of older adults ( N = 23, aged 54–81 years) in a picture-naming task and two processing speed tasks (Trail Maker, TMT-A and TMT-B; Reitan & Wolfson, 1985).…”

Section: The Choice Of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shared lexical access processes in speaking and listening? An individual differences study.

Hintz¹,

Jongman²,

Dijkhuis³

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lexical access is a core component of word processing. In order to produce or comprehend a word, language users must access word forms in their mental lexicon. However, despite its involvement in both tasks, previous research has often studied lexical access in either production or comprehension alone. Therefore, it is unknown to which extent lexical access processes are shared across both tasks. Picture naming and auditory lexical decision are considered good tools for studying lexical access. Both of them are speeded tasks. Given these commonalities, another open question concerns the involvement of general cognitive abilities (e.g., processing speed) in both linguistic tasks. In the present study, we addressed these questions. We tested a large group of young adults enrolled in academic and vocational courses. Participants completed picture-naming and auditory lexical-decision tasks as well as a battery of tests assessing nonverbal processing speed, vocabulary, and nonverbal intelligence. Our results suggest that the lexical access processes involved in picture naming and lexical decision are related but less closely than one might have thought. Moreover, reaction times in picture naming and lexical decision depended as least as much on general processing speed as on domain-specific linguistic processes (i.e., lexical access processes).

show abstract

Section: The Choice Of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Taskssupporting

confidence: 83%

Section: The Choice Of Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared lexical access processes in speaking and listening? An individual differences study.

Hintz¹,

Jongman²,

Dijkhuis³

et al. 2020

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Discussions of processing speed in linguistic research are found primarily in studies of aging and language, given that a slowing in processing speed is a well-established component of cognitive aging (Eckert, 2010;Rogalski et al, 2011;Salthouse, 1996;Soble et al, 2016). However, processing speed correlates with picture naming, auditory lexical decision, and idiom processing in young adults as well (Hintz et al, 2020;Tilmatine et al, 2021).…”

Section: Processing Speedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual Differences in Holistic and Compositional Language Processing

McConnell

2023

Journal of Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in cognitive abilities are ubiquitous across the spectrum of proficient language users. Although speakers differ with regard to their memory capacity, ability for inhibiting distraction, and ability to shift between different processing levels, comprehension is generally successful. However, this does not mean it is identical across individuals; listeners and readers may rely on different processing strategies to exploit distributional information in the service of efficient understanding. In the following psycholinguistic reading experiment, we investigate potential sources of individual differences in the processing of co-occurring words. Participants read modifier-noun bigrams like absolute silence in a self-paced reading task. Backward transition probability (BTP) between the two lexemes was used to quantify the prominence of the bigram as a whole in comparison to the frequency of its parts. Of five individual difference measures (processing speed, verbal working memory, cognitive inhibition, global-local scope shifting, and personality), two proved to be significantly associated with the effect of BTP on reading times. Participants who could inhibit a distracting global environment in order to more efficiently retrieve a single part and those that preferred the local level in the shifting task showed greater effects of the co-occurrence probability of the parts. We conclude that some participants are more likely to retrieve bigrams via their parts and their co-occurrence statistics whereas others more readily retrieve the two words together as a single chunked unit.

show abstract

“…Performance on NAB-N and BNT-2 were both significantly related to semantic fluency. Soble et al (2016) suggest the BNT-2 may involve greater visual perceptual demands than NAB-N. The visual perceptual demands of three confrontation naming tests, including BNT-2, NAB-N, and the Visual Naming Test (Hamberger & Seidel, 2003) were examined in a clinical sample of veterans (M age = 58.6 years; n = 106).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This converges with the findings of Yochim et al (2009), who found that the correlation between the Judgment of Line Orientation (JLO; Benton, Varney, & Hamsher, 1978) and BNT-2 (r = .49) is stronger than the correlation between JLO and NAB-N (Form 1: r = .35; Form 2: r = .20). Soble et al (2016) hypothesized this may be related to differences in test stimuli, with the BNT-2 stimuli consisting of black and white drawings and NAB-N stimuli consisting of full color photographs. Yochim, Rashid, Raymond, and Beaudreau (2013) compared the frequency with which words on BNT-2 and NAB-N are used in everyday language.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Boston Naming Test With the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery–Naming Subtest in a Neurodegenerative Disease Clinic Population

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Boston Naming Test–Second edition (BNT-2) and the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery–Naming (NAB-N) subtest are two commonly used confrontation naming tests used to evaluate word-finding ability in individuals suspected of neurodegenerative disease. The BNT-2 and NAB-N are designed to measure the same construct; however, observations in practice suggest these two tests provide divergent estimates of naming ability. This study sought to systematically investigate the level of agreement between performance on the BNT-2 and NAB-N. Records from 105 consecutive referrals seen for neuropsychological evaluation as part of routine care in an outpatient memory disorders clinic were reviewed. Discrepancy scores, concordance correlation coefficients, and root mean squared differences were calculated between demographically adjusted T-scores on the BNT-2 and NAB-N. Results indicated that estimates of word finding ability generated by the BNT-2 and NAB-N have a strong linear relationship but systematically generate scores that are inconsistent. Despite similar task demands, the BNT-2 and NAB-N provide different information about naming ability and further research is needed to understand these differences and inform clinicians on interpreting the naming estimates provided by each test.

show abstract

Slow and Steady Does Not Always Win the Race: Investigating the Effect of Processing Speed across Five Naming Tests

Cited by 6 publications

References 18 publications

Shared lexical access processes in speaking and listening? An individual differences study.

Shared lexical access processes in speaking and listening? An individual differences study.

Individual Differences in Holistic and Compositional Language Processing

Comparing the Boston Naming Test With the Neuropsychological Assessment Battery–Naming Subtest in a Neurodegenerative Disease Clinic Population

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About