MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460382672 · doi:10.1075/lab.15056.sul

Executive control processes in verbal and nonverbal working memory

2016· article· en· W2460382672 on OpenAlexaff
Margot D. Sullivan, Yolanda Prescott, Devora Goldberg, Ellen Bialystok

Bibliographic record

VenueLinguistic Approaches to Bilingualism · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking memoryPsychologyNonverbal communicationTask (project management)Cognitive psychologyExecutive functionsControl (management)VocabularyNeuroscience of multilingualismStroop effectCognitionDevelopmental psychologyLinguisticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Studies across the lifespan have revealed modifications in executive control (EC) from bilingualism, but studies of working memory (WM), a key aspect of EC, have produced varied results. Healthy older ( M = 71.0 years) and younger participants ( M = 21.1 years) who were monolingual or bilingual, performed working memory tasks that varied in their demands for EC. Tasks included a star counting task, a flanker task, and a nonverbal recent probe memory task. Bilinguals performed similarly to monolinguals on the star counting task after controlling for differences in vocabulary. Monolinguals were faster than bilinguals on the flanker task with only age group differences significant for the WM manipulation. Bilinguals were faster than monolinguals on the nonverbal recent probe memory task, particularly for the condition that included proactive interference. The interpretation is that better bilingual performance in nonverbal working memory tasks is linked to the need for executive control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.262
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.073 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLinguistic Approaches to BilingualismSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207