Retracted: The Effect of Bilingualism on Older Adults’ Inhibitory Control: A Meta-Analysis
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The effect bilingualism has on older adults' inhibitory control has been extensively investigated, yet there is continued controversy regarding whether older adult bilinguals show superior inhibitory control compared with monolinguals. The objective of the current meta-analysis was to examine the reliability and magnitude of the bilingualism effect on older adults' inhibitory control as measured by the Simon and Stroop tasks. In addition, we examined whether individual characteristics moderate the bilingual advantage in inhibition, including age (young-old vs old-old), age of second language acquisition, immigrant status, language proficiency, and frequency of language use. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A total of 22 samples for the Simon task and 14 samples for the Stroop task were derived from 28 published and unpublished articles (32 independent samples, with 4 of these samples using more than 1 task) and were analyzed in 2 separate meta-analyses. RESULTS: Analyses revealed a reliable effect of bilingualism on older adults' performance on the Simon (g = 0.60) and Stroop (g = 0.27) tasks. Interestingly, individual characteristics did not moderate the association between bilingualism and older adults' inhibitory control. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The results suggest there is a bilingual advantage in inhibitory control for older bilinguals compared with older monolinguals, regardless of the individual characteristics previously thought to moderate this effect. Based on these findings, bilingualism may protect inhibitory control from normal cognitive decline with age.
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 | 0.010 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".