Monolinguals and bilinguals respond differently to a delayed matching-to-sample task: An ERP study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous research examining whether bilinguals exhibit enhanced working memory (WM) compared to monolinguals has yielded mixed results. This inconsistency may be due to lack of sensitivity in behavioral and neuropsychological measures. The current study aimed to investigate the effects of bilingualism on WM by focusing on brain activity patterns (event-related potentials) in monolinguals and bilinguals during a WM task. We recorded brain activity while participants (26 monolingual English speakers and 28 English–French bilinguals) performed a delayed matching-to-sample task. Although performance measures were similar, electrophysiological differences were present across groups. Bilinguals exhibited larger P3b amplitudes than monolinguals, and smaller negative slow wave and N2b amplitudes during retrieval. These results suggest that bilinguals may have more cognitive resources available in WM to allocate to task completion, and that task completion may be less effortful for bilinguals than for monolinguals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".