ERP differences between monolinguals and bilinguals: The role of linguistic distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A growing body of research suggests that bilingualism may afford benefits to certain aspects of cognitive functioning. Inconsistent findings may arise because of methodological differences within and across studies. One limitation is that studies often compare linguistically similar languages. The present study recorded brain activity (event-related potentials; ERPs) while English monolinguals, English–French bilinguals, and Arabic–English bilinguals completed an n-back task and a delayed matching-to-sample task. Group ERP differences were observed in the absence of behavioral differences. In the delayed matching-to-sample task, monolinguals exhibited smaller N2 amplitude compared to both bilingual groups, and smaller P3b amplitude compared to English–French bilinguals. In the n-back, English–French bilinguals displayed larger P3b amplitudes than monolinguals and Arabic–English bilinguals. P3b amplitude did not differ between Arabic–English bilinguals and monolinguals in either task. These results suggest that conflicting findings across studies may be due in part to the linguistic distance between the languages under study.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".