Does bilingualism help memory? Competing effects of verbal ability and executive control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractTwo studies are reported that explore the effect of bilingualism on memory performance. Following previous reports of a bilingual advantage in executive control that sometimes shows a greater advantage in older adults, we compared younger and older monolinguals and bilinguals on a memory paradigm that yielded separate measures of familiarity and recollection. As expected, there were no consistent effects in familiarity, but there were age and language differences in recollection, a measure reflecting executive control. Younger adults were superior to older adults on this measure, but there was minimal support for a bilingual advantage in the younger group. Older bilingual adults did show such an advantage, especially on non-verbal tasks. The results provide some initial evidence for the interrelations among processing abilities, types of material, bilingualism, and aging in assessments of memory performance.Keywords: bilingualismmemoryexecutive controlaging AcknowledgementsThe research reported in this paper was funded by Grant MOP57842 from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to EB and FIMC. We thank Eric de Sa, Johanna Lake, Sandra Oziel, and Kingston Chui for their help with data collection, Julia Spaniol, Xiaojia Feng, and Gigi Luk in materials preparation, and all the individuals who participated in the study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".