Estimates of functional cerebral hemispheric differences in monolingual and bilingual people who stutter: Visual hemifield paradigm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inter-relationship of stuttering and bilingualism to functional cerebral hemispheric processing was examined on a dual-task paradigm. Eighty native German (L1) speakers, half of whom were sequential bilinguals (L2 = English), were recruited. The participants (mean age = 38.9 years) were organised into four different groups according to speech status and language ability: 20 bilinguals who stutter (BWS), 20 monolinguals who stutter (MWS), 20 bilinguals who do not stutter (BWNS), and 20 monolinguals who do not stutter (MWNS). All participants completed a dual-task paradigm involving simultaneous speaking and finger tapping. No performance differences between BWS and BWNS were found. In contrast, MWS showed greater dual-task interference compared to BWS and MWNS, as well as greater right- than left-hand disruption. A prevailing finding was that bilingualism seems to offset deficits in executive functioning associated with stuttering. Cognitive reserve may have been reflected in the present study, resulting in a bilingual advantage.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".