Bibliographic record
Abstract
The brain demonstrates a remarkable capacity to undergo structural and functional change in response to experience throughout the lifespan. Evidence suggests that, in many domains of skill acquisition, the manifestation of this neuroplasticity depends on the age at which learning begins. The fact that most skills are acquired late in childhood or in adulthood has proven to be a limitation in studies aimed at determining the relationship between age of acquisition and brain plasticity. Bilingualism, however, provides an optimal model for discerning differences in how the brain wires when a skill is acquired from birth, when the brain circuitry for language is being constructed, versus later in life, when the pathways subserving the first language are already well developed. This review examines some of the existing knowledge about optimal periods in language development, with particular attention to the attainment of native-like phonology. It focuses on the differences in brain structure and function between simultaneous and sequential bilinguals and the compensatory mechanisms employed when bilingualism is achieved later in life, based on evidence from studies using a variety of neuroimaging modalities, including positron emission tomography (PET), task-based and resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and structural MRI. The discussion concludes with the presentation of recent neuroimaging studies that explore the concept of nested optimal periods in language development and the different neural paths to language proficiency taken by simultaneous and sequential bilinguals, with extrapolation to general notions of the relationship between age of acquisition and ultimate skill performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".