Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Consequences of bilingualism for language learning

From: Consequences of multilingualism for neural architecture

  Type Region Effect Task Study
ACC Functional ACC/SMA Mono > bi (activation) L2 word learning Bradley et al. [165]
Structural ACC + Correlation: gray matter/L2 vocabulary size (non-training) English vocabulary test Hosoda et al. [77]
Frontal cortex/gyrus Functional R DLPFC Mono > bi (activation) L2 word learning Bradley et al. [165]
Structural IFG + Correlation: gray & white matter/L2 vocabulary size (non-training & training) training > control (gray & white matter) English vocabulary test Hosoda et al. [77]
Frontal lobe Bi > mono (white matter)   Olsen et al. [180]
L IFG Bi only: + correlation: gray matter/improvement of L2 proficiency L2 proficiency Stein et al. [185]
IFG; L MFG Interpreters > control (CT change from T1 to T2) L2 proficiency Mårtensson et al. [139]
Temporal cortex/gyrus Structural STG/R MTG + Correlation: gray matter/L2 vocabulary size (non-training) English vocabulary test Hosoda et al. [77]
L temporal lobule Bi > mono (gray matter); mono ≠ bi (− correlation: bilingualism/effects of aging) Picture naming Abutalebi et al. [181]
Temporal pole Mono ≠ bi (− correlation: cortical thickness/aging; mono only)   Olsen et al. [180]
Temporal lobe Bi > mono (white matter)   Olsen et al. [180]
STG Interpreters > control (CT change from T1 to T2) L2 proficiency Mårtensson et al. [139]
Parietal cortex/gyrus Functional L IPL Bi only: + correlation gray matter/linguistic competence & cognitive control ANT, language competence test Della Rosa et al. [178]
Structural IPL Bi > mono (gray matter); mono ≠ bi (− correlation: RIPL gray matter/age, mono only); higher > lower proficiency (LIPL gray matter); greater > less exposure (RIPL gray matter) Vocabulary/linguistic background measures Abutalebi et al. [78, 179]
pSMG Multi > bi (gray matter density) Lexical decision Grogan et al. [177]
pSMG Bi > mono (gray matter); bi only: (+ correlation: gray matter/L2 proficiency) L2 proficiency Mechelli et al. [170]
Subcortical Functional Putamen Bi ≠ mono (bi right putamen, mono both) Proficiency tests Cherodath et al. [166]
Putamen Bi > mono (activation) L2 word learning Bradley et al. [165]
L CN Mono > bi (activation) L2 word learning Bradley et al. [165]
Structural CN + Correlation: gray matter/L2 vocabulary size (non-training) English vocabulary test Hosoda et al. [77]
Putamen, thalamas, globus pallidus Bi > mono (expansion), correlation between immersion L2 and structure, not proficiency, in sequential bilinguals Proficiency test Pliatsikas et al. [86]
Multiple/other Functional   Bi ≠ mono (bis showed native-like EEG responses at low proficiency of artificial language when monos did not, bis better RT and accuracy, reached proficiency sooner than monos) Learning Brocanto2 language Grey et al. [164]
Structural Frontal/temporal/parietal and occipital/temporal/parietal Bi > mono (write matter connectivity in sub-networks)   García-Pentón et al. [182]
L IFOF, AC-OL Simultaneous bi > mono & sequential bi (white matter; IFOF) Simultaneous bi < mono (white mater, AC-OL)   Mohades et al. [92]
R IFG/caudate + Correlation: white matter connectivity/L2 vocabulary size (non-training and training) training > control English vocabulary test Hosoda et al. [77]
L IFOF Simultaneous bi > monolinguals (white matter)   Mohades et al. [93]
R IFOF, anterior thalamic radiation Mono > bi (white matter) Reading test Cummine and Boliek [98]
Hippocampus Interpreters > control (volume change from T1 to T2) L2 proficiency Mårtensson et al. [139]