Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35712178›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Task-Modulated Oscillation Differences in Auditory and Spoken Chinese-English Bilingual Processing: An Electroencephalography Study.

Yuxuan Zheng, Ian Kirk, Tengfei Chen, Minako O'Hagan, Karen E Waldie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Yuxuan ZhengSchool of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Ian KirkSchool of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Tengfei ChenSchool of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Nanjing Tech University, Nanjing, China.
Minako O'HaganSchool of Cultures Languages and Linguistics, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Karen E WaldieSchool of Psychology, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Neurophysiological research on the bilingual activity of interpretation or interpreting has been very fruitful in understanding the bilingual brain and has gained increasing popularity recently. Issues like word interpreting and the directionality of interpreting have been attended to by many researchers, mainly with localizing techniques. Brain structures such as the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex have been repeatedly identified during interpreting. However, little is known about the oscillation and synchronization features of interpreting, especially sentence-level overt interpreting. In this study we implemented a Chinese-English sentence-level overt interpreting experiment with electroencephalography on 43 Chinese-English bilinguals and compared the oscillation and synchronization features of interpreting with those of listening, speaking and shadowing. We found significant time-frequency power differences in the delta-theta (1-7 Hz) and gamma band (above 30 Hz) between motor and silent tasks. Further theta-gamma coupling analysis revealed different synchronization networks in between speaking, shadowing and interpreting, indicating an idea-formulation dependent mechanism. Moreover, interpreting incurred robust right frontotemporal gamma coactivation network compared with speaking and shadowing, which we think may reflect the language conversion process inherent in interpreting.

Indexed as

bilingualismEEG oscillationsovert interpretingtheta-gamma couplingtime-frequency power

Identifiers

PMID35712178
PMCPMC9197074

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.