Trial reportPloS one2016
Does Speaking Two Dialects in Daily Life Affect Executive Functions? An Event-Related Potential Study.
Trial report in PloS one, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-Analysis Reveals a Bilingual Advantage That Is Dependent on Task and Age.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Pooled it
- Orientation towards the vernacular and style-shifting as language behaviours in speech of first-generation Polish migrant communities speaking Norwegian in Norway.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- The ups and downs of bilingualism: A review of the literature on executive control using event-related potentials.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2023Review
- Investigating the modulation of active preparation and passive dissipation on inhibitory control processes in the language switching paradigm.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Unpacking the multilingualism continuum: An investigation of language variety co-activation in simultaneous interpreters.PloS one · 2023Article
- Bilingualism is always cognitively advantageous, but this doesn't mean what you think it means.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Differences in Brain Functional Networks of Executive Function Between Cantonese-Mandarin Bilinguals and Mandarin Monolinguals.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021Article
- The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience.Psychological bulletin · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Whether using two languages enhances executive functions is a matter of debate. Here, we take a novel perspective to examine the bilingual advantage hypothesis by comparing bi-dialect with mono-dialect speakers' performance on a non-linguistic task that requires executive control. Two groups of native Chinese speakers, one speaking only the standard Chinese Mandarin and the other also speaking the Southern-Min dialect, which differs from the standard Chinese Mandarin primarily in phonology, performed a classic Flanker task. Behavioural results showed no difference between the two groups, but event-related potentials recorded simultaneously revealed a number of differences, including an earlier P2 effect in the bi-dialect as compared to the mono-dialect group, suggesting that the two groups engage different underlying neural processes. Despite differences in the early ERP component, no between-group differences in the magnitude of the Flanker effects, which is an index of conflict resolution, were observed in the N2 component. Therefore, these findings suggest that speaking two dialects of one language does not enhance executive functions. Implications of the current findings for the bilingual advantage hypothesis are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.