Attentional Switching in Bilingual and Monolingual Infants: An Eye Movement Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of switching between two languages may equip bilinguals with enhanced cognitive control abilities. Research has suggested that executive function mechanisms in bilinguals are enhanced as a result of switching between two languages (Norman & Shallice, 1986; Miller & Cohen, 2001). Much research has revealed bilingual advantages in these cognitive control abilities, particularly the capacity to switch attention, during childhood and adulthood. In the current study, using a paradigm called Visual Expectation Cueing Paradigm (Adler et al., 2007), we examined infants’ attentional switching capacities as function of their language environment in order to further understand the effect of exposure to bilingual environment on early visual cognition. Seven-month-old infants, raised in either a monolingual or bilingual environment, viewed stimulus cues presented randomly in a screen’s center, each of which predicted a target appearing on either the left or right side of the screen during a pre-switch phase. During the post-switch phase, infants viewed the same cue and target stimuli but with a cue-target spatial predictability opposite to that experienced during the pre-switch phase. Infants’ anticipatory eye movements were measured to see if infants could inhibit the cue-target spatial predictability learned during the pre-switch phase and switch attention and learn the new cue-target spatial predictability. Results indicated that both bilinguals and monolinguals exhibited equivalent levels of overall anticipatory eye movements. Bilingually-exposed infants’ correct anticipations of the target were significantly higher than monolingually-exposed infants’ during the last 50% of the post-switch phase. This finding suggests that infants exposed to a bilingual environment are better able to control and switch their attentional processing, thereby learning the new predictability pattern. Thus, the bilingual advantage previously exhibited in adults and children, is likely also present in infants who are simply exposed to a bilingual environment. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2015
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".