Cargando…

Are Older Adults More Risky Readers? Evidence From Meta-Analysis

According to an influential account of aging effects on reading, older adults (65+ years) employ a more “risky” reading strategy compared to young adults (18–30 years), in which they attempt to compensate for slower processing by using lexical and contextual knowledge to guess upcoming (i.e., parafo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, Jiaqi, Warrington, Kayleigh L., Li, Lin, Pagán, Ascensión, Paterson, Kevin B., White, Sarah J., McGowan, Victoria A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Psychological Association 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8867715/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35099245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pag0000522
_version_ 1784656111634219008
author Zhang, Jiaqi
Warrington, Kayleigh L.
Li, Lin
Pagán, Ascensión
Paterson, Kevin B.
White, Sarah J.
McGowan, Victoria A.
author_facet Zhang, Jiaqi
Warrington, Kayleigh L.
Li, Lin
Pagán, Ascensión
Paterson, Kevin B.
White, Sarah J.
McGowan, Victoria A.
author_sort Zhang, Jiaqi
collection PubMed
description According to an influential account of aging effects on reading, older adults (65+ years) employ a more “risky” reading strategy compared to young adults (18–30 years), in which they attempt to compensate for slower processing by using lexical and contextual knowledge to guess upcoming (i.e., parafoveal) words more often. Consequently, while older adults may read more slowly, they might also skip words more often (by moving their gaze past words without fixating them), especially when these are of higher lexical frequency or more predictable from context. However, this characterization of aging effects on reading has been challenged recently following several failures to replicate key aspects of the risky reading hypothesis, as well as evidence that key effects predicted by the hypothesis are not observed in Chinese reading. To resolve this controversy, we conducted a meta-analysis of 102 eye movement experiments comparing the reading performance of young and older adults. We focused on the reading of sentences displayed normally (i.e., without unusual formatting or structures, or use of gaze-contingent display-change techniques), conducted using an alphabetic script or Chinese, and including experiments manipulating the frequency or predictability of a specific target word. Meta-analysis confirmed that slower reading by older compared to younger adults is accompanied by increased word-skipping, although only for alphabetic scripts. Meta-analysis additionally showed that word-skipping probabilities are unaffected by age differences in word frequency or predictability effects, casting doubt on a central component of the risky reading hypothesis. We consider implications for future research on aging effects on reading.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8867715
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher American Psychological Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-88677152022-03-07 Are Older Adults More Risky Readers? Evidence From Meta-Analysis Zhang, Jiaqi Warrington, Kayleigh L. Li, Lin Pagán, Ascensión Paterson, Kevin B. White, Sarah J. McGowan, Victoria A. Psychol Aging Cognition – Reading Processes According to an influential account of aging effects on reading, older adults (65+ years) employ a more “risky” reading strategy compared to young adults (18–30 years), in which they attempt to compensate for slower processing by using lexical and contextual knowledge to guess upcoming (i.e., parafoveal) words more often. Consequently, while older adults may read more slowly, they might also skip words more often (by moving their gaze past words without fixating them), especially when these are of higher lexical frequency or more predictable from context. However, this characterization of aging effects on reading has been challenged recently following several failures to replicate key aspects of the risky reading hypothesis, as well as evidence that key effects predicted by the hypothesis are not observed in Chinese reading. To resolve this controversy, we conducted a meta-analysis of 102 eye movement experiments comparing the reading performance of young and older adults. We focused on the reading of sentences displayed normally (i.e., without unusual formatting or structures, or use of gaze-contingent display-change techniques), conducted using an alphabetic script or Chinese, and including experiments manipulating the frequency or predictability of a specific target word. Meta-analysis confirmed that slower reading by older compared to younger adults is accompanied by increased word-skipping, although only for alphabetic scripts. Meta-analysis additionally showed that word-skipping probabilities are unaffected by age differences in word frequency or predictability effects, casting doubt on a central component of the risky reading hypothesis. We consider implications for future research on aging effects on reading. American Psychological Association 2022-01-31 2022-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8867715/ /pubmed/35099245 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pag0000522 Text en © 2022 The Author(s) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This article has been published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s). Author(s) grant(s) the American Psychological Association the exclusive right to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher.
spellingShingle Cognition – Reading Processes
Zhang, Jiaqi
Warrington, Kayleigh L.
Li, Lin
Pagán, Ascensión
Paterson, Kevin B.
White, Sarah J.
McGowan, Victoria A.
Are Older Adults More Risky Readers? Evidence From Meta-Analysis
title Are Older Adults More Risky Readers? Evidence From Meta-Analysis
title_full Are Older Adults More Risky Readers? Evidence From Meta-Analysis
title_fullStr Are Older Adults More Risky Readers? Evidence From Meta-Analysis
title_full_unstemmed Are Older Adults More Risky Readers? Evidence From Meta-Analysis
title_short Are Older Adults More Risky Readers? Evidence From Meta-Analysis
title_sort are older adults more risky readers? evidence from meta-analysis
topic Cognition – Reading Processes
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8867715/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35099245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pag0000522
work_keys_str_mv AT zhangjiaqi areolderadultsmoreriskyreadersevidencefrommetaanalysis
AT warringtonkayleighl areolderadultsmoreriskyreadersevidencefrommetaanalysis
AT lilin areolderadultsmoreriskyreadersevidencefrommetaanalysis
AT paganascension areolderadultsmoreriskyreadersevidencefrommetaanalysis
AT patersonkevinb areolderadultsmoreriskyreadersevidencefrommetaanalysis
AT whitesarahj areolderadultsmoreriskyreadersevidencefrommetaanalysis
AT mcgowanvictoriaa areolderadultsmoreriskyreadersevidencefrommetaanalysis