The paradoxical associations between language and executive control in monolinguals and bilinguals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigated whether differences in executive control exist between bilinguals and monolinguals who share a dual-language context. We compared functional monolingual and bilingual groups’ cognitive performance and the correlation between self-reported and objective linguistic variables and cognitive outcomes. Group comparisons revealed no significant differences between functional monolinguals and bilinguals on inhibition, task switching and updating of information. However, distinct correlational patterns were observed within groups. In functional monolinguals, participants with lower bilingualism scores showed better task-specific inhibition (Color–Word part of the Stroop task) and a better ability to monitor for conflicts (Digits Forward task). In contrast, bilinguals with higher degrees of bilingualism showed better overall inhibition outcomes (Stroop effect). Findings are discussed in terms of the importance of adopting more comprehensive methodological approaches to study bilingualism as a heterogeneous phenomenon, considering the diversity within each group and the cultural and linguistic context in which the bilingual experience takes place.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".