ArticleJournal of cognition2026
Age-Related Differences in Naming Latency Variability.
Article in Journal of cognition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Variability in naming latencies is expected to increase with age on multiple levels, but few studies have examined whether this is indeed the case. In the present study, we tested whether performance variability increases with age by comparing young and older adults in the amount of naming latency variability between participants, across items, and within participants across trials and days. We additionally used estimates of performance variability for power analyses to determine how samples (i.e., participants/items) should be adjusted to achieve sufficient power in studies comparing latencies across age groups. We tested older adults (aged 65-75) on two occasions (7-16 days apart) and compared their naming latencies with those of young adults (aged 18-35) tested in another study using the same procedures. We replicated the age-related slowing in naming latencies reported by some authors. We found greater between-item variability in older participants, no evidence for or against an age-related increase in between-participant variability, and evidence for no increases in participant variability across trials with age. Moreover, variability across days was greater in the young than the older adult group. We discuss the relevance of these findings for designing future studies as well as for better understanding mixed findings in past studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.