Bilingualism and Healthy Aging: Onset Age of Bilingualism as a Predictor of Older Adult Theory of Mind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The ability to understand and speak more than one language (i.e., bilingualism) may protect against age-related cognitive deterioration (Abutalebi et al., 2015). While there is mounting evidence suggesting that bilingualism confers advantages in domain-general cognitive abilities in late adulthood (see Bialystok, 2017, for a review), few studies have investigated the influences of bilingualism on socio-cognitive abilities such as theory of mind (ToM) in the normal aging process. Thus, in this study, we examine how bilingualism factors (i.e., onset age of bilingualism, language balance, and diversity in language use) are associated with individual differences in ToM in healthy older adult bilinguals aged 58-79 (N=44). ToM abilities were assessed using the Theory-of-Mind Task Battery (Hutchins et al., 2008), where participants viewed vignettes and answered questions about the protagonists’ cognitive and affective mental states. All participants completed a self-report language background questionnaire and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) test as a measure of general cognitive ability. Results revealed that better ToM was negatively correlated with participants’ chronological age (r=-.43, p=.004) and the onset age of second-language acquisition (r=-.41, p=.006), but not language balance and diversity (ps>.40). Partial regression analyses showed that earlier onset age of bilingualism predicted better ToM performance (β=-.40, p=.009), even after controlling for age, education, and general cognitive ability. These findings suggest that bilingual language experience, particularly earlier exposure to a second language, may provide benefits to older adults in preserving their ability to understand others’ mental states, acting as a cognitive reserve against age-related declines in socio-cognitive functions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".