Bilingualism Affects Infant Cognition: Insights From New and Open Data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bilingualism has been hypothesized to shape cognitive abilities across the lifespan. Here, we examined the replicability of a seminal study that showed monolingual–bilingual differences in infancy (Kovács & Mehler, 2009a) by collecting new data from 7-month-olds and 20-month-olds and reanalyzing three open datasets from 7- to 9-month-olds (D’Souza et al., 2020; Kalashnikova et al., 2020, 2021). Infants from all studies (N = 222) were tested in an anticipatory eye-tracking paradigm, where they learned to use a cue to anticipate a reward presented on one side of a screen during Training, and the opposite side at Test. To correctly anticipate the reward at Test, infants had to update their previously learned behavior. Across four out of five studies, a fine-grained analysis of infants’ anticipations showed that bilinguals were better able to update the previously learned response at Test, which could be related to bilinguals’ weaker initial learning during Training. However, in one study of 7-month-olds, we observed the opposite pattern: bilinguals performed better during Training, and monolinguals performed better at Test. These results show that bilingualism affects how infants process information during learning. We also highlight the potential of open science to advance our understanding of language development.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 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 it