Uncovering the effects of bilingual language control on rational decisions: An <scp>ERP</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of research suggests that the language in which bilinguals make decisions affects the rationality of such decisions. Furthermore, bilinguals constantly confront cross-language interference that requires complex language control processes to resolve this competition. However, the relationship between language control and decision-making is unclear. In the current study, we analyze electrophysiological and behavior data elicited from two groups of Chinese-English bilinguals. One group was trained in intensive language switching and then completed the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the other group completed the two tasks in the reverse order. We found that bilinguals who first received language switching training significantly scored higher on the IGT, with the score positively correlating with L1 and L2 switch costs. More importantly, training with language switching first led to an N2 component for L1 switching costs that negatively correlated with both loss feedback-related negativity and the P3 component. These effects did not emerge among the group of bilinguals who performed the IGT first. Taken together, the findings suggest that bilinguals are assisted in making rational decisions by language control on feedback evaluation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".