The Difference between Monolingual and Bilingual Stutterers: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is a comprehensive review regarding group differences of brain structures, cognitive process, and emotional responses between monolingual people who stutter (MWS) and bilingual people who stutter (BWS). Until now, researchers have been examining MWS and BWS separately, yet the compare between these two groups of people is lacking. In this work, the overview of MWS and BWS are introduced, different types and traits of stutter between MWS and BWS are compared, and the differences between brain structure, executive force, motor control, and cognitive reserve are investigated and synthesized based on previous studies. Both MWS and BWS have executive deficits in speech motor control, while BWS seem to be classified as having greater potential in language inhibitory and switching, thus transferring to general executive control. The conclusions are that BWS generally experience increased neural connectivity due to larger volume of grey and white matter than MWS, and thus gaining cognitive control abilities. Further research is warranted for the bilingual advantage and the exact etiology for stuttering.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".