The Impact of Bilingualism on the Executive Functions of Autistic Children: A Study of <scp>English–Arabic</scp> Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is evidence to suggest that certain executive functions are impaired in autistic children, contributing to many daily challenges. Regular use of two languages has the potential to positively influence executive functions, though evidence is mixed. Little is known about the impact of bilingualism on the executive functions of autistic children, with only a handful of studies published worldwide to date. This study investigated the impact of bilingualism on sustained attention, interference control, flexible switching and working memory, in Arabic-English autistic children (n = 27) and their typically developing peers (n = 66), aged 5-12 years old. Groups were matched on age, nonverbal IQ and socioeconomic status, and completed a battery of computerized tests. Results showed an advantage for bilingual autistic children relative to their monolingual peers in sustained attention, and equivalent performance between bilingual and monolingual autistic children on all other executive functions. There were no generalized positive effects of bilingualism, and typically-developing children performed better than autistic children on all measures. The findings indicate that bilingualism does not negatively impact the executive function skills of autistic children, and that it might mitigate difficulties in sustained attention. LAY SUMMARY: Contrary to widespread belief, but in line with previous research, this study showed that speaking two languages did not harm thinking skills in autistic children. The thinking skills evaluated in this study included the ability to focus over a period of time, the ability to resist distractions, the ability to move back and forth between tasks, and the ability to use short-term memory. In fact, speaking two languages might help reduce difficulties that autistic children might face when focusing over a period of time.
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 | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".