The current study investigated how Alzheimer's disease (AD) affects production of speech errors in reading-aloud. Twelve Spanish-English bilinguals with AD and 19 matched controls read-aloud 8 paragraphs in four conditions (a) English-only, (b) Spanish-only, (c) English-mixed (mostly English with 6 Spanish words), and (d) Spanish-mixed (mostly Spanish with 6 English words). Reading elicited language intrusions (e.g., saying la instead of the), and several types of within-language errors (e.g., saying their instead of the). Patients produced more intrusions (and self-corrected less often) than controls, particularly when reading non-dominant language paragraphs with switches into the dominant language. Patients also produced more within-language errors than controls, but differences between groups for these were not consistently larger with dominant versus non-dominant language targets. These results illustrate the potential utility of speech errors for diagnosis of AD, suggest a variety of linguistic and executive control impairments in AD, and reveal multiple cognitive mechanisms needed to mix languages fluently. The observed pattern of deficits, and unique sensitivity of intrusions to AD in bilinguals, suggests intact ability to select a default language with contextual support, to rapidly translate and switch languages in production of connected speech, but impaired ability to monitor language membership while regulating inhibitory control.

OBJECTIVE: The present study investigated cognitive mechanisms underlying the ability to stop autocorrect errors elicited by unexpected words in a read-aloud task, and the utility of autocorrection for predicting Alzheimers disease (AD) biomarkers. METHOD: Cognitively normal participants (total n = 85; n = 64 with cerebrospinal fluid [CSF] biomarkers) read aloud six short paragraphs in which 10 critical target words were replaced with autocorrect targets, for example, The player who scored that final [paint] for the local team reported [him] experience. Autocorrect targets either replaced the most expected/dominant completion (i.e., point) or a less expected/nondominant completion (i.e., basket), and within each paragraph half of the autocorrect targets were content words (e.g., point/paint) and half were function words (e.g., his/him). Participants were instructed to avoid autocorrecting. RESULTS: Participants produced more autocorrect errors in paragraphs with dominant than with nondominant targets, and with function than with content targets. Cognitively normal participants with high CSF Tau/Aβ42 (i.e., an AD-like biomarker profile) produced more autocorrect total errors than those below the Tau/Aβ42 threshold, an effect also significant with dominant-function targets alone (e.g., saying his instead of him). A logistic regression model with dominant-function errors and age showed errors as the stronger predictor of biomarker status (sensitivity 83%; specificity 85%). CONCLUSIONS: Difficulty stopping autocorrect errors is associated with biomarkers indicating preclinical AD, and reveals promise as a diagnostic tool. Greater vulnerability of function over content words to autocorrection in individuals with AD-like biomarkers implicates monitoring and attention (rather than semantic processing) in the earliest of cognitive changes associated with AD risk. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).