ArticleNeuropsychologia2026
Neural signatures of word learning: How individual differences shape ERPs and oscillations in the early stages of learning a new language.
Article in Neuropsychologia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A critical component of the language learning process is language control i.e., the management of lexical competition and interference from the existing language. However, how these mechanisms are engaged in early-stage learning remains unclear, particularly regarding individual differences in executive function--more specifically inhibitory control (IC) and working memory (WM)--and prior bilingual experience. This study employed a pre/post short-term longitudinal design, where participants completed 10 days of Dutch language learning. Using Event-Related Potentials (ERPs) and Time-Frequency Representations (TFRs), we examined neurophysiological signatures of novel word learning and the role of IC, WM, and bilingual experience. ERP results revealed N400 reductions at post-test, marking successful lexical integration. Greater Bilingual experience predicted greater N400 reductions for noncognates, suggesting more efficient integration for words with shared representations. In contrast, stronger IC was linked to smaller N400 reductions for noncognates, indicating greater cognitive effort in managing novel lexical competition. TFR analyses showed increased theta power for cognates, suggesting enhanced memory encoding, while noncognates elicited greater alpha suppression, suggesting heightened IC demands. However, individual differences did not significantly modulate these effects, as neither bilingual experience nor IC predicted alpha or theta power at post-test, suggesting that the oscillatory dynamics supporting lexical learning were driven by task demands rather than individual variability. Together, these findings indicate that bilingual experience may facilitate lexical integration, whereas IC may play a critical role in managing interference during word retrieval. The results support models of adaptive language control and highlight the dynamic interplay between linguistic experience, executive function, and lexical competition in word learning.
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.