Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30245660›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2018

Exploiting Language Variation to Better Understand the Cognitive Consequences of Bilingualism.

Andrea A Takahesu Tabori, Emily N Mech, Natsuki Atagi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Why not both? Rethinking categorical and continuous approaches to bilingualism.The international journal of bilingualism : cross-disciplinary, cross-linguistic studies of language behavior · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. The Simon effect in bilingual language brokers: A role for emotion and proficiency.The international journal of bilingualism : cross-disciplinary, cross-linguistic studies of language behavior · 2021
    Article
  11. Bilingualism: A Neurocognitive Exercise in Managing Uncertainty.Neurobiology of language (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Andrea A Takahesu TaboriDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, United States.
Emily N MechDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, United States.
Natsuki AtagiDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Within the past decade, there has been an explosion of research investigating the cognitive consequences of bilingualism. However, a controversy has arisen specifically involving research claiming a "bilingual advantage" in executive function. In this brief review, we re-examine the nature of the "bilingual advantage" and suggest three themes for future research. First, there must be a theoretical account of how specific variation in language experience impacts aspects of executive function and domain general cognition. Second, efforts toward adequately characterizing the participants tested will be critical to interpreting results. Finally, designing studies that employ converging analytical approaches and sensitive methodologies will be important to advance our knowledge of the dynamics between bilingual language experience and cognition.

Indexed as

bilingual advantagebilingualismcognitive controlexecutive functionindividual differences

Identifiers

PMID30245660
PMCPMC6137614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.