Second language learning in older adults modulates Stroop task performance and brain activation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Numerous studies have highlighted cognitive benefits in lifelong bilinguals during aging, manifesting as superior performance on cognitive tasks compared to monolingual counterparts. Yet, the cognitive impacts of acquiring a new language in older adulthood remain unexplored. In this study, we assessed both behavioral and fMRI responses during a Stroop task in older adults, pre- and post language-learning intervention. Methods: A group of 41 participants (age:60-80) from a predominantly monolingual environment underwent a four-month online language course, selecting a new language of their preference. This intervention mandated engagement for 90 minutes a day, five days a week. Daily tracking was employed to monitor progress and retention. All participants completed a color-word Stroop task inside the scanner before and after the language instruction period. Results: We found that performance on the Stroop task, as evidenced by accuracy and reaction time, improved following the language learning intervention. With the neuroimaging data, we observed significant differences in activity between congruent and incongruent trials in key regions in the prefrontal and parietal cortex. These results are consistent with previous reports using the Stroop paradigm. We also found that the amount of time participants spent with the language learning program was related to differential activity in these brain areas. Specifically, we found that people who spent more time with the language learning program showed a greater increase in differential activity between congruent and incongruent trials after the intervention relative to before. Discussion: Future research is needed to determine the optimal parameters for language learning as an effective cognitive intervention for aging populations. We propose that with sufficient engagement, language learning can enhance specific domains of cognition such as the executive functions. These results extend the understanding of cognitive reserve and its augmentation through targeted interventions, setting a foundation for future investigations.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".