Comparing behavioral discrimination and learning abilities in monolinguals, bilinguals and multilinguals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the experiment was to determine whether language learning experience contributes to the development of enhanced speech perception abilities. Monolinguals, bilinguals and multilinguals were compared in their ability to discriminate a non-native contrast behaviorally using an AX task. The experiment was based on a "pre-test-training-post-test" design and performance was tested before and after receiving training on the voiceless aspirated dental/retroflex stop contrast. At post-test, participants were also tested on their ability to transfer training to a similar contrast (i.e., voiceless unaspirated dental/retroflex stop contrast). While no group differences were found at pre-test, analyses of the trained-on contrast at post-test revealed that multilinguals were more accurate than monolinguals and that both the multilingual and bilingual groups were more accurate than a control group that received no training. The results of the experiment not only suggest that multilinguals and bilinguals have enhanced speech perception abilities compared to monolinguals, but they also indicate that bi-/multilingualism helps develop superior learning abilities. This provides support for the idea that learning more than one language has positive effects on the cognitive development of an individual (e.g., Bialystok et al., 2004).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".