语言能力的老化机制：语言特异性与非特异性因素的共同作用

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2020.00541

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

语言能力的衰退是由于一般认知能力衰退引起的, 还是由于语言加工系统的衰退引起的, 抑或是两者的共同作用?研究中测量了青年组和老年组的一般认知能力(加工速度、工作记忆和抑制能力), 以及在词汇、句子和语篇三个水平上的语言理解能力和语言产生能力。结果发现, 一般认知能力、语言理解和语言产生能力都存在年老化现象。分层回归分析表明, 一般认知能力对语言能力的贡献, 以及语言理解能力和产生能力之间的相互贡献在青年组和老年组中是不同的, 且存在词汇、句子和语篇水平上的差异。在词汇水平上, 青年人的成绩能够被一般认知能力和另一种语言能力所显著预测, 而老年人的成绩却不受一般认知因素影响; 在句子水平上, 青年人的成绩仍能被一般认知能力或另一种语言能力所解释, 但这两类变量都无法预测老年人的任务成绩; 在语篇水平上, 青年人理解任务的成绩显著地受到产生能力影响, 而老年人的理解和产生任务成绩则分别可以被一般认知能力和语言理解能力所解释。对组间差异的回归分析表明, 一般认知能力和另一种语言能力对组间差异都有显著贡献, 且前者的贡献大于后者。上述研究结果表明, 语言能力的老化是语言特异性因素和非特异性因素共同作用的结果。

关键词: 认知年老化, 一般认知能力, 语言理解能力, 语言产生能力, 语言特异性, 语言非特异性

Abstract:

Language is a complex lifelong faculty supported by the general cognitive system as well as the dynamic interactions between comprehension and production processes within the language system. Studies reported that while normal aging impairs important aspects of language production, most core processes of comprehension are robust. However, accumulating evidence suggests a decline in comprehension when comparing older adults with young ones. Thus it is plausible to assume that there might be a general degradation in older adults’ language capacity. The information-universal theories assume that the aging of language is contributed by the declines in general cognitive abilities including processing speed, working memory and inhibitory function, while the information-specific theories highlight the unique changes of linguistic representations and their connections in the brain, which may result in decreased interplay between comprehension and production.
The current study investigated the relationships among language comprehension capacity, production capacity, and general cognitive abilities, and explored the factors that influence the aging of language processing. We employed two groups of participants (103 young adults and 114 older adults), and measured their general cognitive abilities and language capacities with different tasks. General cognitive abilities were assessed in three dimensions: processing speed by color judgment and numerical judgment tasks, working memory by digit span forward and backward tasks, and inhibitory function by STROOP color-word judgment task. Language comprehension and production capacities were measured at word, sentence and discourse processing levels, respectively.
We first compared the performance between the two age groups, and then conducted hierarchical regression analyses to examine the contributions of information-universal and information-specific factors to language performance. Results showed lower scores in older adults than their young counterparts on all measures. The first hierarchical regression analyses revealed that there were differences between the older and the young groups, which presented not only in the contributions of general cognitive abilities to language capacities but also in the contributions of comprehension and production capacities to each other. For word processing, young adults’ performance was predicted by both general cognitive abilities and the other language capacities, while the former did not predict older adults’ performance; for sentence processing, young adults’ performance was predicted by general cognitive abilities (only in comprehension) and the other language capacities, while neither of them explained older adults’ performance; for discourse processing, young adults’ comprehension scores were predicted by their production capacity, while older adults’ scores of comprehension and production were predicted by their general cognitive abilities and comprehension capacity respectively. Results of the second hierarchical regression analyses indicated that both general cognitive abilities and the other language capacities contributed to the group differences in language performance, and the contributions of the former were larger than those of the latter.
In sum, older adults show an overall age-related decline in general cognitive abilities, language comprehension and production capacities. We suggest that the aging of language processing is subject to both the information- universal factor as well as the information-specific factor, with the former reflected as the general degradation in cognitive abilities and the latter related to specific changes in the architecture of language system.

Key words: cognitive aging, general cognitive abilities, language comprehension, language production, information- universal factor, information-specific factor

中图分类号:

B842

吴翰林, 于宙, 王雪娇, 张清芳. (2020). 语言能力的老化机制：语言特异性与非特异性因素的共同作用. 心理学报, 52(5), 541-561.

WU Hanlin, YU Zhou, WANG Xuejiao, ZHANG Qingfang. (2020). Language processing in normal aging: Contributions of information-universal and information-specific factors. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 52(5), 541-561.

图/表 10

参考文献 95

[1]	Ackerman P. L. (2008). Knowledge and cognitive aging. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (3rd ed., pp. 445-489). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
[2]	Adams A. M., & Gathercole S. E . (2000). Limitations in working memory: Implications for language development. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 35(1), 95-116. doi: 10.1080/136828200247278 URL pmid: 10824227
[3]	Arbuckle T. Y., & Gold D. P . (1993). Aging, inhibition, and verbosity. Journal of Gerontology, 48(5), 225-232.
[4]	Baddeley A . (1992). Working memory. Science, 255(5044), 556-559. doi: 10.1126/science.1736359 URL pmid: 1736359
[5]	Baddeley A . (2003). Working memory: looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829-839. doi: 10.1038/nrn1201 URL pmid: 14523382
[6]	Bock K., & Miller C. A . (1991). Broken agreement. Cognitive Psychology, 23(1), 45-93. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(91)90003-7 URL pmid: 2001615
[7]	Bortfeld H., Leon S. D., Bloom J. E., Schober M. F., & Brennan S. E . (2001). Disfluency rates in conversation: Effects of age, relationship, topic, role, and gender. Language and Speech, 44(2), 123-147. doi: 10.1177/00238309010440020101 URL pmid: 11575901
[8]	Boudiaf N., Laboissière R., Cousin É., Fournet N., Krainik A., & Baciu M . (2018). Behavioral evidence for a differential modulation of semantic processing and lexical production by aging: A full linear mixed-effects modeling approach. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 25(1), 1-22. doi: 10.1080/13825585.2016.1257100 URL pmid: 27883290
[9]	Britt A. E., Ferrara C., & Mirman D . (2016). Distinct effects of lexical and semantic competition during picture naming in younger adults, older adults, and people with aphasia. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 813. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00813 URL pmid: 27458393
[10]	Burke D. M., & College P . (1997). Language, aging, and inhibitory deficits: Evaluation of a theory. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(6), 254-264. doi: 10.1093/geronb/52b.6.p254 URL pmid: 9403514
[11]	Burke D. M., MacKay D. G., Worthley J. S., & Wade E . (1991). On the tip of the tongue: What causes word finding failures in young and older adults? Journal of Memory and Language, 30(5), 542-579. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbw074 URL pmid: 27371482
[12]	Burke D. M., & Shafto M. A . (2004). Aging and language production. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(1), 21-24. doi: 10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01301006.x URL pmid: 18414600
[13]	Cai Q., & Brysbaert M . (2010). SUBTLEX-CH: Chinese word and character frequencies based on film subtitles. PloS One, 5(6), e10729. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010729 URL pmid: 20532192
[14]	Caplan D., & Waters G. S . (1999). Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(1), 77-94. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x99001788 URL pmid: 11301522
[15]	Caplan D., & Waters G . (2005). The relationship between age, processing speed, working memory capacity, and language comprehension. Memory, 13(3-4), 403-413. doi: 10.1080/09658210344000459 URL pmid: 15952262
[16]	Clark L. J., Gatz M., Zheng L., Chen Y. L., McCleary C., & Mack W. J . (2009). Longitudinal verbal fluency in normal aging, preclinical, and prevalent Alzheimer’s disease. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias, 24(6), 461-468. doi: 10.1177/1533317509345154 URL pmid: 19759254
[17]	Daneman M., & Merikle P. M . (1996). Working memory and language comprehension: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3(4), 422-433. doi: 10.3758/BF03214546 URL pmid: 24213976
[18]	de Beni R., Borella E., & Carretti B . (2007). Reading comprehension in aging: The role of working memory and metacomprehension. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 14(2), 189-212. doi: 10.1080/13825580500229213 URL pmid: 17364380
[19]	DeDe G., Caplan D., Kemtes K., & Waters G . (2004). The relationship between age, verbal working memory, and language comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 19(4), 601-616. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.19.4.601 URL pmid: 15584786
[20]	DeDe G., & Flax J. K . (2016). Language comprehension in aging. Language, Cognition and Aging, 107-133.
[21]	Ellis N. C . (1996). Sequencing in SLA: Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(1), 91-126.
[22]	Federmeier K. D., McLennan D. B., de Ochoa E., & Kutas M . (2002). The impact of semantic memory organization and sentence context information on spoken language processing by younger and older adults: An ERP study. Psychophysiology, 39(2), 133-146. doi: 10.1017/S0048577202001373 URL pmid: 12212662
[23]	Gaskell G. M. . (2007). Oxford handbook of psycholinguistics. Oxford University Press.
[24]	Gathercole S. E., & Baddeley A. D . (2014). Working memory and language. Psychology Press.
[25]	Glosser G., & Deser T . (1992). A comparison of changes in macrolinguistic and microlinguistic aspects of discourse production in normal aging. Journal of Gerontology, 47(4), 266-272. doi: 10.1093/geronj/47.4.p266 URL pmid: 1624704
[26]	Golden C. J., & Freshwater S. M . (1978). STROOP color and word test. Chicago: Stoelting.
[27]	Harley T . (2008). The psychology of language: From data to theory, 3rd Edn., Psychology Press.
[28]	Hasher L., & Zacks R. T . (1988). Working memory, comprehension, and aging: A review and a new view. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 22, 193-225.
[29]	Howard D. V . (1980). Category norms: A comparison of the Battig and Montague (1969) norms with the responses of adults between the ages of 20 and 80. Journal of Gerontology, 35(2), 225-231. doi: 10.1093/geronj/35.2.225 URL pmid: 7410780
[30]	Huijbers W., Papp K. V., LaPoint M., Wigman S. E., Dagley A., Hedden T., .. Sperling R. A . (2016). Age-related increases in tip-of-the-tongue are distinct from decreases in remembering names: A functional MRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 27(9), 4339-4349. doi: 10.1093/cercor/bhw234 URL pmid: 27578492
[31]	Ito T., Tiede M., & Ostry D. J . (2009). Somatosensory function in speech perception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(4), 1245-1248. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0810063106 URL pmid: 19164569
[32]	James L. E., & Burke D. M . (2000). Phonological priming effects on word retrieval and tip-of-the-tongue experiences in young and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1378-1391. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.6.1378 URL pmid: 11185771
[33]	Jones G. V., & Langford S . (1987). Phonological blocking in the tip of the tongue state. Cognition, 26(2), 115-122. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(87)90027-8 URL pmid: 3652647
[34]	Just M. A., & Carpenter P. A . (2013). Cognitive processes in comprehension. Psychology Press.
[35]	Kemper S . (1992 Language and aging. In F. I. M. Craik & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 213-270). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[36]	Kemper S . (1992b). Adults' sentence fragments: Who, what, when, where, and why. Communication Research, 19(4), 444-458.
[37]	Kemper S., Greiner L. H., Marquis J. G., Prenovost K., & Mitzner T. L . (2001). Language decline across the life span: Findings from the nun study. Psychology and Aging, 16(2), 227-239. URL pmid: 11405311
[38]	Kemper S., Herman R. E., & Lian C . (2003). Age differences in sentence production. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(5), P260-P268.
[39]	Kemper S., Herman R. E., & Liu C. J . (2004). Sentence production by younger and older adults in controlled contexts. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 59(5), 220-224.
[40]	Kliegl R., Grabner E., Rolfs M., & Engbert R . (2004). Length, frequency, and predictability effects of words on eye movements in reading. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 16(1-2), 262-284.
[41]	Levelt W. J. M . (1989). Speaking: From intention to articulation-" A bradford book" MIT Press From intention to articulation.-" A bradford book.". MIT Press.
[42]	Li X. Q., & Yang Y. F . (2005). The influence of correspondence between accent and information structure on discourse comprehension. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 37(1), 34-40.
	[ 李晓庆, 杨玉芳 (2005). 重读与信息结构对语篇理解加工的影响. 心理学报, 37(1), 34-40.]
[43]	Lindenberger U., & Baltes P. B . (1997). Intellectual functioning in old and very old age: Cross-sectional results from the Berlin aging study. Psychology and Aging, 12(3), 410-432. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.12.3.410 URL pmid: 9308090
[44]	Liu Y. Y., Hao M. L., Li P., & Shu H . (2011). Timed picture naming norms for Mandarin Chinese. Plos One, 6(1), e16505. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016505 URL pmid: 21298065
[45]	MacKay D. G., & Abrams L . (1998). Age-linked declines in retrieving orthographic knowledge: Empirical, practical, and theoretical implications. Psychology and Aging, 13(4), 647-662. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.13.4.647 URL pmid: 9883464
[46]	MacKay D. G., Abrams L., & Pedroza M. J . (1999). Aging on the input versus output side: Theoretical implications of age-linked asymmetries between detecting versus retrieving orthographic information. Psychology and Aging, 14(1), 3-17. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.14.1.3 URL pmid: 10224628
[47]	Madden D. J . (1988). Adult age differences in the effects of sentence context and stimulus degradation during visual word recognition. Psychology and Aging, 3(2), 167-172. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.3.2.167 URL pmid: 3268255
[48]	Madden D. L., Sale M. V., & Robinson G. A . (2018). Improved conceptual generation and selection with transcranial direct current stimulation in older adults. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 41(1), 43-57. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2018.1491529 URL pmid: 30014766
[49]	Margrett J. A., Martin P., Woodard J. L., & Poon L. W . (2016). Cognitive and linguistic processes among oldest old persons. Cognition, Language and Aging, 193-220.
[50]	Martin R. C., Shelton J. R., & Yaffee L. S . (1994). Language processing and working memory: Neuropsychological evidence for separate phonological and semantic capacities. Journal of Memory and Language, 33(1), 83-111.
[51]	Mayer M . (1969). Frog, where are you? New York: Dial Press.
[52]	Miles S., & Chapman R. S . (2002). Narrative content as described by individuals with Down syndrome and typically developing children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45(1), 175-189. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/013) URL pmid: 14748647
[53]	Montgomery J. W . (1995). Sentence comprehension in children with specific language impairment: The role of phonological working memory. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 38(1), 187-199.
[54]	Morrison C. M., Hirsh K. W., Chappell T., & Ellis A. W . (2002). Age and age of acquisition: An evaluation of the cumulative frequency hypothesis. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 14(4), 435-459. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2006.03.007 URL pmid: 16777041
[55]	Nasreddine Z. S., Phillips N. A., Bédirian V., Charbonneau S., Whitehead V., Collin I., .. Chertkow H . (2005). The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: A brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(4), 695-699. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x URL pmid: 15817019
[56]	Nation K., Adams J. W., Bowyer-Crane C. A., & Snowling M. J . (1999). Working memory deficits in poor comprehenders reflect underlying language impairments. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 73(2), 139-158. doi: 10.1006/jecp.1999.2498 URL pmid: 10328862
[57]	Park D. C., Lautenschlager G., Hedden T., Davidson N. S., Smith A. D., & Smith P. K . (2002). Models of visuospatial and verbal memory across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging, 17(2), 299-320. URL pmid: 12061414
[58]	Payne B . (2014). The effects of verbal working memory training on language comprehension in older adulthood (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
[59]	Pickering M. J., & Garrod S . (2007). Do people use language production to make predictions during comprehension? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(3), 105-110. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.12.002 URL pmid: 17254833
[60]	Pickering M. J., & Garrod S . (2013). An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(4), 329-347. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X12001495 URL pmid: 23789620
[61]	Poon L. W., & Fozard J. L . (1978). Speed of retrieval from long-term memory in relation to age, familiarity, and datedness of information. Journal of Gerontology, 33(5), 711-717. doi: 10.1093/geronj/33.5.711 URL pmid: 299560
[62]	Psychology Software Tools, Inc. [E-Prime 3.0]. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.pstnet.com
[63]	Rastle K. G., & Burke D. M . (1996). Priming the tip of the tongue: Effects of prior processing on word retrieval in young and older adults. Journal of Memory and Language, 35(4), 586-605. doi: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.6.1378 URL pmid: 11185771
[64]	Rayner K., Reichle E. D., Stroud M. J., Williams C. C., & Pollatsek A . (2006). The effect of word frequency, word predictability, and font difficulty on the eye movements of young and older readers. Psychology and Aging, 21(3), 448-465. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.21.3.448 URL pmid: 16953709
[65]	Reuterlorenz P. A., & Sylvester C. Y. C .(2005). The Cognitive Neuroscience of Working Memory and Aging (pp. 186-217). Oxford University Press.
[66]	Salthouse T. A . (1993). Speed and knowledge as determinants of adult age differences in verbal tasks. Journal of Gerontology, 48(1), 29-36. doi: 10.1093/geronj/48.1.p29 URL pmid: 8418147
[67]	Salthouse T. A . (1994). The aging of working memory. Neuropsychology, 8(4), 535-543. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(1996)8:4&lt;535::AID-AJHB13&gt;3.0.CO;2-N URL pmid: 28557079
[68]	Salthouse T. A . (1996). The processing-speed theory of adult age differences in cognition. Psychological Review, 103(3), 403-428. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.103.3.403 URL pmid: 8759042
[69]	Saur D., Kreher B. W., Schnell S., Kümmerer D., Kellmeyer P., Vry M. S., .. Weiller C . (2008). Ventral and dorsal pathways for language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(46), 18035-18040. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0805234105 URL pmid: 19004769
[70]	Schaie K. W . (1994). The course of adult intellectual development. American psychologist, 49(4), 304-313. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.49.4.304 URL pmid: 8203802
[71]	Schaie K. W. (1996). Intellectual development in adulthood: The Seattle longitudinal study. Cambridge University Press.
[72]	Schriefers H., Meyer A. S., & Levelt W. J. M . (1990). Exploring the time course of lexical access in language production: Picture-word interference studies. Journal of Memory and Language, 29(1), 86-102. doi: 10.1016/0749-596X(90)90011-N URL
[73]	Shafto M. A., Burke D. M., Stamatakis E. A., Tam P. P., & Tyler L. K . (2007). On the tip-of-the-tongue: Neural correlates of increased word-finding failures in normal aging.[J] ournal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(12), 2060-2070. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2007.19.12.2060 URL pmid: 17892392
[74]	Shafto M. A., & Tyler L. K . (2014). Language in the aging brain: The network dynamics of cognitive decline and preservation. Science, 346(6209), 583-587. doi: 10.1126/science.1254404 URL pmid: 25359966
[75]	Shalom D. B., & Poeppel D . (2008). Functional anatomic models of language: Assembling the pieces. The Neuroscientist, 14(1), 119-127. doi: 10.1177/1073858407305726 URL pmid: 17911215
[76]	Shtyrov Y . (2010). Automaticity and attentional control in spoken language processing: Neurophysiological evidence. The Mental Lexicon, 5(2), 255-276.
[77]	Sommers M. S., & Danielson S. M . (1999). Inhibitory processes and spoken word recognition in young and older adults: the interaction of lexical competition and semantic context. Psychology and Aging, 14(3), 458-472. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.14.3.458 URL pmid: 10509700
[78]	Stine-Morrow E. A. L., Ryan S., Sandra Leonard J . (2000). Age differences in on-line syntactic processing. Experimental Aging Research, 26(4), 315-322. doi: 10.1080/036107300750015714 URL pmid: 11091938
[79]	Strain E., Patterson K., & Seidenberg M. S . (1995). Semantic effects in single-word naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21(5), 1140-1154.
[80]	Swanson H. L . (1999). What develops in working memory? A life span perspective. Developmental Psychology, 35(4), 986-1000. doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.35.4.986 URL pmid: 10442867
[81]	Taler V., Aaron G. P., Steinmetz L. G., & Pisoni D. B . (2010). Lexical neighborhood density effects on spoken word recognition and production in healthy aging. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 65(5), 551-560. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbq039 URL pmid: 20542997
[82]	Taylor J. K., & Burke D. M . (2002). Asymmetric aging effects on semantic and phonological processes: Naming in the picture-word interference task. Psychology and Aging, 17(4), 662-676. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.17.4.662 URL pmid: 12507362
[83]	Thornton R., & Light L. L . (2006). Twelve - Language comprehension and production in normal aging. In Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 261-287). Academic Press.
[84]	Tyler L. K., Cobb H., & Graham N . (1992). Spoken language comprehension: An experimental approach to disordered and normal processing The MIT Press An experimental approach to disordered and normal processing. The MIT Press.
[85]	United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2019). World Population Prospects 2019: Highlights.
[86]	Valente A., & Laganaro M . (2015). Ageing effects on word production processes: An ERP topographic analysis. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 30(10), 1259-1272.
[87]	Verhaeghen P . (2003). Aging and vocabulary score: A meta- analysis. Psychology and Aging, 18(2), 332-339. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.18.2.332 URL pmid: 12825780
[88]	Waters G. S., & Caplan D . (1996). The capacity theory of sentence comprehension: critique of Just and Carpenter (1992). Psychological Review, 103(4), 761-772. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.103.4.761 URL pmid: 8888653
[89]	Waters G. S., & Caplan D . (2001). Age, working memory, and on-line syntactic processing in sentence comprehension. Psychology and Aging, 16(1), 128-144. doi: 10.1037/0882-7974.16.1.128 URL pmid: 11302362
[90]	Wechsler D . (1997). WAIS-3: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale: Administration and Scoring Manual. Psychological Corporation.
[91]	White K. K., & Abrams L . (2002). Does priming specific syllables during tip-of-the-tongue states facilitate word retrieval in older adults? Psychology and Aging, 17(2), 226-235. URL pmid: 12061408
[92]	Yang Q., & Zhang Q. F . (2015). Aging of word frequency, syllable frequency and phonological facilitation effects in Chinese speech production. Journal of Psychological Science, 38(6), 1303-1310.
	[ 杨群, 张清芳 . (2015). 口语产生中词频效应, 音节频率效应和语音促进效应的认知年老化. 心理科学, 38(6), 1303-1310.]
[93]	Zhang H-C., & Xu J.-P .(2003) . Modern psychology and education statistics. Beijing: Beijing Normal University Press.
	张厚粲, 徐建平 . (编).(2003). 现代心理与教育统计学. 北京: 北京师范大学出版社.
[94]	Zhang Q. F., & Yang Y. F . (2003). The determiners of picture naming latency. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 35(4), 447-454.
	[ 张清芳, 杨玉芳 . (2003). 影响图画命名时间的因素. 心理学报, 35(4), 447-454.]
[95]	Zhang R . (2017). A study of the comprehension of Chinese garden path sentences (Unpublished master’s dissertation). Tianjin Normal University.
	[ 张蕊 . (2017). 汉语花园路径句理解的研究(硕士学位论文). 天津师范大学.]

任务	青年组(n = 103)		老年组(n = 108)		t	p	95% CI	Cohen's d	指标
任务	M	SD	M	SD	t	p	95% CI	Cohen's d	指标
数字判断	622.81	95.68	728.31	111.45	-7.36	<0.001	[77.25, 133.75]	1.02	反应时(ms)
颜色判断	444.95	69.34	535.35	83.69	-8.56	<0.001	[69.58, 111.22]	1.18	反应时(ms)
数字广度正背	7.36	1.18	5.57	1.22	10.78	<0.001	[1.46, 2.11]	1.49	分数
数字广度倒背	7.42	1.53	4.81	1.22	13.67	<0.001	[2.24, 2.99]	1.89	分数
STROOP	74.75	88.52	128.41	113.37	-3.84	<0.001	[26.11, 81.19]	0.53	反应时(ms)
词汇理解	737.85	224.24	1284.78	631.07	-8.46	<0.001	[419.13, 674.73]	1.15	反应时(ms)
句子理解	0.76	0.08	0.58	0.09	15.13	<0.001	[0.15, 0.20]	2.11	准确率
语篇理解	0.82	0.08	0.66	0.08	14.53	<0.001	[0.13, 0.18]	2.00	准确率
词汇产生	69.39	14.95	35.26	10.63	19.03	<0.001	[30.59, 37.67]	2.63	分数
句子产生	12.03	2.92	8.47	2.94	8.85	<0.001	[2.77, 4.36]	1.22	分数
语篇产生	17.64	2.20	11.25	4.70	12.77	<0.001	[5.41, 7.39]	1.74	分数

任务	青年组(n = 103)		老年组(n = 108)		t	p	95% CI	Cohen's d	指标
任务	M	SD	M	SD	t	p	95% CI	Cohen's d	指标
数字判断	622.81	95.68	728.31	111.45	-7.36	<0.001	[77.25, 133.75]	1.02	反应时(ms)
颜色判断	444.95	69.34	535.35	83.69	-8.56	<0.001	[69.58, 111.22]	1.18	反应时(ms)
数字广度正背	7.36	1.18	5.57	1.22	10.78	<0.001	[1.46, 2.11]	1.49	分数
数字广度倒背	7.42	1.53	4.81	1.22	13.67	<0.001	[2.24, 2.99]	1.89	分数
STROOP	74.75	88.52	128.41	113.37	-3.84	<0.001	[26.11, 81.19]	0.53	反应时(ms)
词汇理解	737.85	224.24	1284.78	631.07	-8.46	<0.001	[419.13, 674.73]	1.15	反应时(ms)
句子理解	0.76	0.08	0.58	0.09	15.13	<0.001	[0.15, 0.20]	2.11	准确率
语篇理解	0.82	0.08	0.66	0.08	14.53	<0.001	[0.13, 0.18]	2.00	准确率
词汇产生	69.39	14.95	35.26	10.63	19.03	<0.001	[30.59, 37.67]	2.63	分数
句子产生	12.03	2.92	8.47	2.94	8.85	<0.001	[2.77, 4.36]	1.22	分数
语篇产生	17.64	2.20	11.25	4.70	12.77	<0.001	[5.41, 7.39]	1.74	分数

组别	任务	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
青年组	1. 数字判断	-
	2. 颜色判断	0.64^***	-
	3. 数字广度正背	0.29^**	0.04	-
	4. 数字广度倒背	0.28^**	0.16	0.56^***	-
	5. STROOP	0.24^*	0.27^**	0.15	0.26^**	-
	6. 词汇理解	0.56^***	0.49^***	0.08	0.1	0.32^**	-
	7. 句子理解	0.27^**	0.12	0.19	0.22^*	0.22	0.22^*	-
	8. 语篇理解	0.07	0.04	0.04	0.18	0.13	0.1	0.21^*	-
	9. 词汇产生	0.27^**	0.21^*	0.22^*	0.09	0.2^*	0.35^***	0.38^***	0.08	-
	10. 句子产生	0.10	-0.05	0.03	0.11	0.03	0.03	0.09	-0.28^**	0.16	-
	11. 语篇产生	0.13	0.11	-0.17	0.02	-0.06	-0.06	0.06	-0.05	0.26^**	0.18
老年组	1. 数字判断	-
	2. 颜色判断	0.64^***	-
	3. 数字广度正背	0.11	0.03	-
	4. 数字广度倒背	0.08	0.08	0.48^***	-
	5. STROOP	0.24^*	0.16	0.00	0.02	-
	6. 词汇理解	0.16	0.19^*	0.12	0.17	-0.04	-
	7. 句子理解	0.01	0.20^*	0.02	0.07	0.03	0.14	-
	8. 语篇理解	0.28^**	0.21^*	0.11	0.21^*	-0.01	0.15	0.16	-
	9. 词汇产生	0.06	0.11	0.26^**	0.22^*	-0.03	0.33^***	0.08	0.13	-
	10. 句子产生	0.10	0.16	0.11	0.26^**	0.11	0.06	0.18	0.09	0.21^*	-
	11. 语篇产生	0.28^**	0.23^*	0.04	0.14	0.06	0.19	0.24^*	0.27^**	0.14	0.28^**

组别	任务	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
青年组	1. 数字判断	-
	2. 颜色判断	0.64^***	-
	3. 数字广度正背	0.29^**	0.04	-
	4. 数字广度倒背	0.28^**	0.16	0.56^***	-
	5. STROOP	0.24^*	0.27^**	0.15	0.26^**	-
	6. 词汇理解	0.56^***	0.49^***	0.08	0.1	0.32^**	-
	7. 句子理解	0.27^**	0.12	0.19	0.22^*	0.22	0.22^*	-
	8. 语篇理解	0.07	0.04	0.04	0.18	0.13	0.1	0.21^*	-
	9. 词汇产生	0.27^**	0.21^*	0.22^*	0.09	0.2^*	0.35^***	0.38^***	0.08	-
	10. 句子产生	0.10	-0.05	0.03	0.11	0.03	0.03	0.09	-0.28^**	0.16	-
	11. 语篇产生	0.13	0.11	-0.17	0.02	-0.06	-0.06	0.06	-0.05	0.26^**	0.18
老年组	1. 数字判断	-
	2. 颜色判断	0.64^***	-
	3. 数字广度正背	0.11	0.03	-
	4. 数字广度倒背	0.08	0.08	0.48^***	-
	5. STROOP	0.24^*	0.16	0.00	0.02	-
	6. 词汇理解	0.16	0.19^*	0.12	0.17	-0.04	-
	7. 句子理解	0.01	0.20^*	0.02	0.07	0.03	0.14	-
	8. 语篇理解	0.28^**	0.21^*	0.11	0.21^*	-0.01	0.15	0.16	-
	9. 词汇产生	0.06	0.11	0.26^**	0.22^*	-0.03	0.33^***	0.08	0.13	-
	10. 句子产生	0.10	0.16	0.11	0.26^**	0.11	0.06	0.18	0.09	0.21^*	-
	11. 语篇产生	0.28^**	0.23^*	0.04	0.14	0.06	0.19	0.24^*	0.27^**	0.14	0.28^**

任务	预测变量	青年组			老年组
任务	预测变量	步骤 1	步骤 2	步骤 3	步骤 1	步骤 2	步骤 3
词汇理解	性别	0.073 (0.084)	0.078 (0.069)	0.057 (0.071)	0.253 (0.244)	0.322 (0.243)	0.345 (0.239)
	年龄	0.746 (0.963)	1.092 (0.787)	1.220 (0.759)	0.036 (0.494)	0.062 (0.499)	0.010 (0.484)
	受教育年限	-0.085 (0.137)	-0.163 (0.113)	-0.232 (0.111)^*	0.099 (0.110)	0.021 (0.113)	-0.026 (0.111)
	数字判断		0.214 (0.057)^***	0.216 (0.056)^***		0.086 (0.154)	0.070 (0.152)
	颜色判断		0.096 (0.058)	0.083 (0.056)		0.189 (0.159)	0.142 (0.155)
	数字广度正背		-0.019 (0.053)	-0.082 (0.054)		0.055 (0.157)	-0.023 (0.155)
	数字广度倒背		-0.036 (0.051)	-0.002 (0.050)		0.247 (0.199)	0.197 (0.198)
	STROOP		0.092 (0.043)^*	0.063 (0.042)		-0.095 (0.107)	-0.073 (0.104)
	词汇产生			0.160 (0.054)^**			0.677 (0.233)^**
	句子产生			-0.004 (0.039)			-0.109 (0.138)
	语篇产生			-0.202 (0.081)^*			0.144 (0.125)
		R2 = 0.012	ΔR2 = 0.372^***	ΔR2 = 0.071^*	R2 = 0.017	ΔR2 = 0.072	ΔR2 = 0.088^*
句子理解	性别	0.366 (0.133)^**	0.331 (0.13)^*	0.226 (0.134)	-0.086 (0.151)	-0.034 (0.151)	0.026 (0.151)
	年龄	-0.140 (1.527)	-0.047 (1.478)	-0.213 (1.43)	-0.436 (0.305)	-0.301 (0.310)	-0.249 (0.306)
	受教育年限	-0.018 (0.218)	-0.050 (0.212)	-0.087 (0.210)	0.051 (0.068)	0.017 (0.070)	-0.014 (0.070)
	数字判断		0.220 (0.107)^*	0.185 (0.106)		-0.156 (0.096)	-0.190 (0.096)
	颜色判断		-0.10 (0.109)	-0.125 (0.106)		0.252 (0.099)^*	0.227 (0.098)^*
	数字广度正背		0.023 (0.099)	-0.048 (0.102)		0.008 (0.097)	0.020 (0.098)
	数字广度倒背		0.086 (0.096)	0.126 (0.094)		0.062 (0.124)	0.000 (0.125)
	STROOP		0.121 (0.080)	0.081 (0.079)		0.017 (0.066)	0.013 (0.066)
	词汇产生			0.327 (0.101)^**			0.003 (0.148)
	句子产生			-0.001 (0.074)			0.079 (0.088)
	语篇产生			-0.073 (0.153)			0.164 (0.079)^*
		R2 = 0.076^*	ΔR2 = 0.116^*	ΔR2 = 0.087^*	R2 = 0.030	ΔR2 = 0.065	ΔR2 = 0.056
语篇理解	性别	0.049 (0.145)	0.019 (0.149)	-0.095 (0.152)	0.030 (0.146)	0.064 (0.142)	0.110 (0.144)
	年龄	0.018 (1.666)	0.179 (1.684)	0.308 (1.618)	0.023 (0.296)	-0.001 (0.291)	0.023 (0.291)
	受教育年限	-0.034 (0.237)	-0.038 (0.242)	-0.147 (0.237)	0.200 (0.066)^**	0.158 (0.066)^*	0.138 (0.067)^*
	数字判断		0.037 (0.122)	0.097 (0.120)		0.188 (0.090)^*	0.159 (0.091)
	颜色判断		-0.034 (0.124)	-0.114 (0.120)		0.027 (0.093)	0.013 (0.093)
	数字广度正背		-0.085 (0.113)	-0.163 (0.115)		-0.008 (0.091)	-0.008 (0.093)
	数字广度倒背		0.177 (0.109)	0.240 (0.107)^*		0.209 (0.116)	0.181 (0.119)
	STROOP		0.081 (0.091)	0.062 (0.089)		-0.050 (0.062)	-0.046 (0.062)
	词汇产生			0.155 (0.114)			0.078 (0.140)
	句子产生			-0.279 (0.084)^**			-0.025 (0.083)
	语篇产生			-0.106 (0.173)			0.140 (0.075)
		R2 = 0.002	ΔR2 = 0.047	ΔR2 = 0.115^**	R2 = 0.084^*	ΔR2 = 0.112^*	ΔR2 = 0.032