Estimates of functional cerebral hemispheric differences in monolingual and bilingual people who stutter: Visual hemifield paradigm
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it