Real-Time Conversation Comprehension in Younger and Older Adults: The Effects of Noise, Visual Speech, Speaker Switch, and Context.

Only 26% of the older adult participants had pure-tone audiometry; two participants with self-reported hearing difficulties were included, so it is unclear how much of the age-related pattern reflects peripheral hearing rather than central processing. The older adult sample was highly educated (18 of 19 had tertiary qualifications) and drawn from a university research register, so they are not representative of the broader older population and may have been more motivated to perform well. The authors explicitly describe the study as exploratory and preliminary, noting that procedures need to be made more rigorous. The category monitoring task requires participants to actively scan for category members, which may encourage a more systematic listening strategy than natural conversation and may not fully reflect everyday listening. Sample sizes are small (23 younger, 19 older), limiting the power to detect moderate age differences, particularly in the switch-cost and surprisal analyses where interactions were not significant.

Funded by the Australian Research Council (grant DP 200102188). The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.

Do not conclude that older adults are categorically worse at following conversations than younger adults. The main age effect was not significant for either response time or accuracy, and the one significant age interaction showed older adults benefiting more from seeing the speaker, not less. The pairwise switch-cost pattern (older adults showing significant costs, younger adults not) is descriptive only, as the age × switch interaction did not reach significance (p =.743 overall; p =.133 in the early-window analysis), so you cannot attribute a specific switch-cost deficit to older age on the basis of this study.