A recent New York Times piece reported on research regarding the effects of bilingual environments on the language development of children.
may explain replication difficulties of effects of bilingual cognitive advantages (e.g., [ 18]; for a recent review, see [ 5]).
Concerning age, the findings on the so-called bilingual advantage in such EFs are still controversial, and we perceived a lack of studies on the effects of bilingualism regarding middle-aged adults, as compared to the considerably high number of studies and robust findings on the bilingual advantage among other age groups, such as children and elderly people.
While this is consistent with prior studies showing more cerebellar activation with lower proficiency (Liu et al. 2010), it is not discussed further here as our focus was on differences between bilinguals and monolinguals rather than the effect of proficiency within bilinguals.
This second factor was the combination of 2 different nested factors: the effect of monolinguals versus bilinguals performing the English paradigm (Group 1 vs. Groups 2a, 2b, 2c) and the effect of performing the paradigm in L1 (Group 1 and Group 2c in Greek) versus L2 Groupp 2a and 2b).
Future studies are now required to compare the effect of phonemic and semantic fluency in bilingual versus monolingual participants and to determine whether gray matter density in the caudate nuclei provides a differential marker for relative recovery in a L1 or L2.
In Oceanside, as in many districts in the state, the elimination of bilingual education has been accompanied by other changes, making its effect hard to gauge with precision.
Our findings address the main two proposed reasons for null effects in the bilingual literature: use of single tasks and a "peak advantage" of bilingual young adults (Bialystok, Martin, & Viswanathan, 2005; Paap & Greenberg, 2013).
The bilingual L1 lexical disadvantage hypothesis (i.e. reduced frequency hypothesis, relating to processing differences between monolinguals and the bilingual L1) predicted a negative shift in peak interference and facilitation effects for bilinguals in their L1 compared to monolinguals due to reduced frequency of use.
