Poster project

Yinan Xu, Jose M. Ceballos, and Chantel S. Prat Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Method

References

● Participant: ○ LEAP-Q: Language Balanced Group (LangBalGroup)

31 Imb-NE, 39 Bal, and 18 Imb-E ● Linear Mixed Effect Model:

RT ~ (Condition * LangBalGroup) / EnglishProficiencyScore + (1 | Subject)

Future Research

○ 2 way interaction between Condition and Language Balance Group (p= .0006*** )

○ 3 way interaction between Condition, Language Balance Group, and EnglishProficiencyScore (p= .0055** )

○ Biased-Subordinate condition: Imb-E slowed down by 21.911 ms from control condition (p= .0017 **)

○ Biased-Subordinate condition: Bal slowed down by 8.399 ms from control condition (p= .066 ·)

A more balanced language use may train the basal ganglia, by frequently switching and inhibiting still-active signals, thus facilitate human language processing, in this case semantic

ambiguity resolution.

Hypothesis

■ 103 bilingual Subjects (age 18-45) from UW research pool;

■ 4 pseudo-randomized orders 1) LEAP-Q

• Current English Use =(Listening%+Reading%)/2 • Imbalanced English dominant (Imb-E):

66%~100%; Balanced(Bal): 33%~66%; Imbalanced Non-English dominant (Imb-NE): 0%~33%

3) ART • Control for reading competence

Sensitivity to

Semantic Ambiguity

Task (SSA)

Language Experience & Proficiency

Questionnaire (LEAP-Q)

Author Recognition

Test (ART)

Results Conclusion

Fig.1 Response time for Dominant, Balanced, and Subordinate conditions across all 3 language groups.

Fig.2 Response time for Dominant, Balanced, and Subordinate conditions across only Balanced and Imbalanced language

groups.

Introduction

Bilingualism

Inhibitory Control

view

Reinforcement learning

/ Database

view

Basal Ganglia

(BG)

Balanced code-

switching

Imbalanced English-

Dominant Use

•

Semantic Ambiguity

Resolution (SAR): “Co-activation” (Duffy

et al., 1988)

e.g., “Co-activation”

• Caudate activation in SAR (Bergman, et al., 1998).

• Role in Bilingual language output

• (Aglioti, et al., 1993; 1996).

Aglioti, S., & Fabbro, F. (1993). Paradoxical selective recovery in a bilingual aphasic following subcortical lesions. Neuroreport: An International Journal for the Rapid Communication of Research in Neuroscience.

Bergman, H., Feingold, A., Nini, A., Raz, A., Slovin, H., Abeles, M., & Vaadia, E. (1998). Physiological aspects of information processing in the basal ganglia of normal and parkinsonian primates. Trends Neurosc, 21, 32–38.

Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 429–446.

Hervais-Adelman, A. G., Moser-Mercer, B., & Golestani, N. (2011). Executive control of language in the bilingual brain: integrating the evidence from neuroimaging to neuropsychology. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 234.

Stocco, A., Yamasaki, B., Natalenko, R., & Prat, C. S. (2012). Bilingual brain training: A neurobiological framework of how bilingual experience improves executive function. International Journal of Bilingualism, 0(0), 1–26.

• Frequent use of language translates into Individual differences in executive functioning, which leads balanced bilinguals to show similar ambiguity effect across words of varying frequencies

v Late Integration: SAR processes or lexical activation are held in Balanced bilinguals, until much later in the comprehension process:

more dynamic in changing inputs

• Results observed among balanced bilinguals suggest a favor towards the control view of the BG functioning in SAR

• Importantly, differences in ambiguity resolution ≠ advantage or drawback, but only a reflection on the variety of the executive control of language in the multilingual brain.

Other aspects of bilingualism, such as the age of acquisition and language distance, might shed further light on how bilingual experiences relate to BG functioning, which then results in IDs in executive functioning.

(Fig. 1) ➢ Slow down in Bal &

Imb-NE during biased-Dom condition.

➢ Small RT in balanced condition observed in Balanced bilinguals.

(Fig. 2) ➢ Same trend for

Imbalanced bilinguals. ➢ Similar ambiguity

effect for Balanced bilinguals, irrespective of frequency of occurrence.

Biased-Dom More frequent meaning Money bank

Biased-Sub Less frequent meaning River bank

Bal Balanced meaning Bat Control No ambiguous words

2) SSA Condition Acronyms & Examples:

: Respond Time (RT) : Evaluate successfulness in ambiguity resolution