Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39285132›Full record

ArticlePsychonomic bulletin & review2025

L1 production following brief L2 exposure: Evidence for cross-talk across comprehension and production.

Tamar Degani, Hamutal Kreiner, Mathieu Declerck

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2025. 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

3 authors.

Tamar DeganiDepartment of Communication Sciences & Disorders, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel. tdegani@research.haifa.ac.il.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2604-8523
Hamutal KreinerRuppin Academic Center, Kfar Monash, Israel.
Mathieu DeclerckVrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek FWOAL1029Israel Science Foundation 1341/14
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Language control allows bilinguals to fluently shift between their languages. Here, we tested whether comprehension and production tasks initiate language control processes to the same extent, and whether these processes operate over specific concepts or globally. Seventy Hebrew-English bilinguals completed an L1 picture-naming production task in the first and third blocks, and either a reading aloud (word production) or an animacy judgment (word comprehension) task in their L2 in the second block. Further, concepts were either repeated across blocks or not. Results showed more filled pauses in the third block relative to the first block. Additionally, the size of this blocked-language order effect was similar following word production and word comprehension tasks in the L2, suggesting that production and comprehension tasks were similarly efficient in instigating control processes. Finally, both recurring and new concepts were affected, suggesting that mostly global language control is at play. These findings provide constraining evidence for fully understanding the scope of bilingual language control.

Indexed as

ComprehensionMultilingualismSpeechAdultFemaleHumansMalePsycholinguisticsReadingYoung AdultBlocked-language order effectL2 after-effectLanguage comprehensionLanguage controlLanguage production

Identifiers

PMID39285132
PMCPMC12000200

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.