No CrossRef data available.
Exploring nuance in both experience and adaptation: Commentary on Titone and Tiv (2022)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2022
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
- Type
- Peer Commentaries
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Abutalebi, J, Della Rosa, PA, Green, DW, Hernandez, M, Scifo, P, Keim, R, Cappa, SF and Costa, A (2012). Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitoring. Cerebral cortex, 22(9), 2076–2086. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bhr287CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abutalebi, J and Green, DW (2016). Neuroimaging of language control in bilinguals: neural adaptation and reserve. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 19(4), 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728916000225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, JAE, Grundy, JG, Grady, CL, Craik, FIM and Bialystok, E (2021). Bilingualism contributes to reserve and working memory efficiency: Evidence from structural and functional neuroimaging. Neuropsychologia, 163(September), 108071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2021.108071CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beatty-Martínez, AL, Navarro-Torres, CA, Dussias, PE, Bajo, MT, Guzzardo Tamargo, RE and Kroll, JF (2020). Interactional context mediates the consequences of bilingualism for language and cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(6), 1022–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000770Google ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E and Craik, FIM (2022). How does bilingualism modify cognitive function? Attention to the mechanism. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 0123456789. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-022-02057-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bice, K and Kroll, JF (2019). English only? Monolinguals in linguistically diverse contexts have an edge in language learning. Brain and Language, 196(December 2018), 104644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104644CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dash, T, Berroir, P, Joanette, Y and Ansaldo, AI (2019). Alerting, orienting, and executive control: The effect of bilingualism and age on the subcomponents of attention. Frontiers in Neurology, 10(OCT), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fneur.2019.01122CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLuca, V, Rothman, J, Bialystok, E and Pliatsikas, C (2019). Redefining bilingualism as a spectrum of experiences that differentially affects brain structure and function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(15), 7565–7574.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLuca, V, Rothman, J, Bialystok, E and Pliatsikas, C (2020a). Duration and extent of bilingual experience modulate neurocognitive outcomes. NeuroImage, 204, 116222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeLuca, V, Segaert, K, Mazaheri, A and Krott, A (2020b). Understanding bilingual brain function and structure changes? U bet! A unified bilingual experience trajectory model. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 56(May), 100930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedeli, D, Del Maschio, N, Sulpizio, S, Rothman, J and Abutalebi, J (2021). The bilingual structural connectome: Dual-language experiential factors modulate distinct cerebral networks. Brain and Language, 220(May), 104978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2021.104978CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, DW and Abutalebi, J (2013). Language control in bilinguals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013.796377CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grundy, JG, Anderson, JAE and Bialystok, E (2017). Neural correlates of cognitive processing in monolinguals and bilinguals. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1396(1), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13333CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kałamała, P, Szewczyk, J, Chuderski, A, Senderecka, M and Wodniecka, Z (2020). Patterns of bilingual language use and response inhibition: A test of the adaptive control hypothesis. Cognition, 204(October 2019), 104373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104373CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kałamała, P, Walther, J, Zhang, H, Diaz, M, Senderecka, M and Wodniecka, Z (2022). The use of a second language enhances the neural efficiency of inhibitory control: An ERP study. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(1), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921000389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroll, JF, Dussias, PE, Bogulski, CA and Kroff, JRV (2012). Juggling two languages in one mind. What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. In Psychology of Learning and Motivation – Advances in Research and Theory (Vol. 56). Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-394393-4.00007-8Google Scholar
Luk, G, Anderson, JAE, Craik, FIM, Grady, CL and Bialystok, E (2010). Distinct neural correlates for two types of inhibition in bilinguals: Response inhibition versus interference suppression. Brain and Cognition, 74(3), 347–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2010.09.004CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luo, D, Kwok, VPY, Liu, Q, Li, W, Yang, Y, Zhou, K, Xu, M, Gao, J.-H and Tan, LH (2019). Microstructural plasticity in the bilingual brain. Brain and Language, 196(July), 104654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2019.104654CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navarro, E and Conway, ARA (2021). Adult bilinguals outperform monolinguals in theory of mind. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 74(11), 1841–1851. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218211009159CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pliatsikas, C (2020). Understanding structural plasticity in the bilingual brain: The Dynamic Restructuring Model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 23(2), 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728919000130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salig, LK, Valdés Kroff, JR, Slevc, LR and Novick, JM (2021). Moving From Bilingual Traits to States: Understanding Cognition and Language Processing Through Moment-to-Moment Variation. Neurobiology of Language, 2(4), 487–512. https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00046CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stocco, A, Yamasaki, BL, Natalenko, R and Prat, CS (2014). Bilingual brain training: A neurobiological framework of how bilingual experience improves executive function. International Journal of Bilingualism, 18(1), 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367006912456617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulpizio, S, Del Maschio, N, Del Mauro, G, Fedeli, D and Abutalebi, J (2020). Bilingualism as a gradient measure modulates functional connectivity of language and control networks. NeuroImage, 205(July 2019), 116306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.116306CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Titone, DA and Tiv, M (2022). Rethinking multilingual experience through a Systems Framework of Bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728921001127Google Scholar
Yamasaki, BL and Prat, CS (2021). Predictors and consequences of individual differences in cross-linguistic interactions: A model of second language reading skill. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 24(1), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728920000279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamasaki, BL, Stocco, A and Prat, CS (2018). Relating individual differences in bilingual language experiences to executive attention. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 33(9), 1128–1151. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2018.1448092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Target article
You have
Access
The keynote article by Titone and Tiv (Reference Titone and Tiv2022) represents a key step forward in characterizing and quantifying bilingual experience, and how this may be leveraged to examine neurocognitive outcomes. The framework takes a novel multi-leveled approach to capturing and describing language experience. The first level handles the direct language use dynamics of a given individual or ego-driven language dynamics. Beyond the individual or ego is the level of interpersonal language dynamics – that is, the dynamic situations of interaction one is faced with. These interactions are guided (at least in part) by ecological/societal language dynamics – overarching trends and conditions at the community and societal level which set parameters on the nature of language dynamics and interaction in the ego's environment. Finally, although not directly discussed within the paper, temporal dynamics – that is, dynamic shifts and trends of language experience across time – of language use sit at the outermost level. Bilingual experience is truly a multidimensional spectrum with a number of experiences that condition its outcomes and the framework proposed by the authors provides a basis for better capturing the levels of social context which condition an individual's opportunities for engagement. However, neurocognitive adaptations to these experiences are also a multidimensional spectrum and these too need to be better linked to the dynamicity of bilingual language experience.
Bilingual experience consists of a series of cognitive demands all revolving around the management and control of multiple active competing systems (Green & Abutalebi, Reference Green and Abutalebi2013; Kroll, Dussias, Bogulski & Kroff, Reference Kroll, Dussias, Bogulski and Kroff2012). Variation in language experience requires differential degrees of associated cognitive demands and requires the brain to adapt both functionally and structurally to be maximally effective at handling them. Given the complexity of (bilingual) language experience, the range of potential neurocognitive adaptations to it is also large (Bialystok & Craik, Reference Bialystok and Craik2022). Indeed, a growing body of research indicates a specificity in neural and/or cognitive adaptation to specific language experiences (Beatty-Martínez, Navarro-Torres, Dussias, Bajo, Guzzardo Tamargo & Kroll, Reference Beatty-Martínez, Navarro-Torres, Dussias, Bajo, Guzzardo Tamargo and Kroll2020; DeLuca, Rothman, Bialystok & Pliatsikas, Reference DeLuca, Rothman, Bialystok and Pliatsikas2019; Fedeli, Del Maschio, Sulpizio, Rothman & Abutalebi, Reference Fedeli, Del Maschio, Sulpizio, Rothman and Abutalebi2021; Luo, Kwok, Liu, Li, Yang, Zhou, Xu, Gao & Tan, Reference Luo, Kwok, Liu, Li, Yang, Zhou, Xu, Gao and Tan2019; Sulpizio, Del Maschio, Del Mauro, Fedeli & Abutalebi, Reference Sulpizio, Del Maschio, Del Mauro, Fedeli and Abutalebi2020).
Contextualizing and unpacking the complexities and dynamics of language experience is crucial to understand the bases for neural and cognitive adaptations to bilingualism. The Systems Framework proposed by the authors is an important step forward to doing just that. However, our understanding of neurocognitive adaptations to language experiences, particularly beyond the individual level as outlined in the Systems framework, also needs to be developed. The goal of this commentary, then, is to highlight how some approaches might also be applied to further the understanding of the relationship between neurocognitive outcomes and bilingual experiences. Specifically, I briefly outline how future research might ideally: 1) employ empirical approaches that more holistically assess the relationship between experiences and contexts and outcomes and 2) develop and merge theoretical frameworks to predict and interpret neurocognitive adaptations in relation to this multidimensional experience.
Empirical approaches assessing adaptations to experience
One way to better assess the adaptations to language experience is in the empirical approaches used in future research. Two directions would ideally be taken. First, multiple measures (both cognitive and neural) would be ideal to more fully assess the range of neurocognitive outcomes. Accompanying this, different statistical approaches will allow us to more holistically assess the numerous relationships between dynamics in language experience and neurocognitive adaptations.
The incorporation of multiple measures can be done in several ways. One approach is to use multiple measures which tap into different cognitive functions (Yamasaki, Stocco & Prat, Reference Yamasaki, Stocco and Prat2018), and include less commonly used measures such as theory of mind tasks (Navarro & Conway, Reference Navarro and Conway2021), which tap into cognitive processes which may also be affected by distinct levels of bilingual experience beyond the ego-driven as discussed in the Systems framework. It is pertinent to note that not all cognitive tasks will necessarily show effects at the level of behavior, and as such the incorporation of neural measures as a complementary method are also encouraged. Including a neural measure (EEG, MRI, etc.) would allow us to see multiple levels of adaptation or effects. Indeed, neural effects of (bilingual) language experience have been shown even in the absence of behavioral effects – both for direct (ego-centric) measures of bilingual language use (Abutalebi, Della Rosa, Green, Hernandez, Scifo, Keim, Cappa & Costa, Reference Abutalebi, Della Rosa, Green, Hernandez, Scifo, Keim, Cappa and Costa2012; Dash, Berroir, Joanette & Ansaldo, Reference Dash, Berroir, Joanette and Ansaldo2019; DeLuca, Rothman, Bialystok & Pliatsikas, Reference DeLuca, Rothman, Bialystok and Pliatsikas2020a; Kałamała, Walther, Zhang, Diaz, Senderecka & Wodniecka, Reference Kałamała, Walther, Zhang, Diaz, Senderecka and Wodniecka2022) and non-direct language exposure (Bice & Kroll, Reference Bice and Kroll2019).
The incorporation of multiple experience and outcome measures also requires more sophisticated statistical modeling to assess the number of potential relationships that exist between these, and how they manifest. Multivariate approaches will be key in unpacking the relationships between diverse language experiences and neurocognitive outcomes. Two examples of such approaches have already been successfully applied within previous bilingualism research. Data-driven approaches such as partial least squares (PLS) are such an example (Anderson, Grundy, Grady, Craik & Bialystok, Reference Anderson, Grundy, Grady, Craik and Bialystok2021; Luk, Anderson, Craik, Grady & Bialystok, Reference Luk, Anderson, Craik, Grady and Bialystok2010). A benefit of PLS is that it is able to take into account several input and outcome variables and derive latent factors that explain meaningful relationships between these variables. To test more theoretically specific relationships and their combined effects, structural equation modeling (SEM) is also an ideal method (Kałamała, Szewczyk, Chuderski, Senderecka & Wodniecka, Reference Kałamała, Szewczyk, Chuderski, Senderecka and Wodniecka2020; Yamasaki & Prat, Reference Yamasaki and Prat2021). With SEM, the key advantage is to directly test theoretical and hypothesized relationships between multiple experiences and outcomes.
It should be noted that no single study would likely have sufficient numbers of participants and measures to test the range of predicted relationships between experience and outcomes. As such, developments in theoretical frameworks linking neurocognitive adaptations to language experiences will also be highly useful.
Neurocognitive models of bilingual adaptation
Methodological developments, such as those described above, would ideally be joined by theoretical approaches that consider the mechanism of adaptation and can also take into account the greater nuance in neurocognition relative to language experience.
A number of models have been proposed which attempt to describe the nature of neurocognitive adaptation to specific aspects of bilingual experience and the associated cognitive demands. Several of these have focused on relating specific experiences (e.g., duration of use, switching, intensity of use, etc.) to neurocognitive adaptations required to meet the associated cognitive demands with these experiences. Duration-based approaches such as the Dynamic Restructuring Model (Pliatsikas, Reference Pliatsikas2020), Bilingual Anterior to Posterior and Subcortical Shift framework (Grundy, Anderson & Bialystok, Reference Grundy, Anderson and Bialystok2017), and Conditional Routing Model (Stocco, Yamasaki, Natalenko & Prat, Reference Stocco, Yamasaki, Natalenko and Prat2014) note a shifting in reliance from frontal to subcortical structures that indicate increased efficiency in handling ongoing cognitive demands from bilingual experience. Alternatively, the Adaptive Control Hypothesis (Abutalebi & Green, Reference Abutalebi and Green2016; Green & Abutalebi, Reference Green and Abutalebi2013) takes an approach of intensity of engagement within specific communicative contexts and the reinforcement of specific networks and circuits commensurate to the degree of engagement. In a similar line of argument, a proposal by Salig and colleagues (Salig, Valdés Kroff, Slevc & Novick, Reference Salig, Valdés Kroff, Slevc and Novick2021) makes a distinction of mental states and traits – with engagement of cognitive resources deployed in a moment-to-moment basis depending on environmental and conversational context. Finally, the Unified Bilingual Experience Trajectories framework (DeLuca, Segaert, Mazaheri & Krott, Reference DeLuca, Segaert, Mazaheri and Krott2020b) has attempted to combine the predictions of several of the above models and extend these predictions across multiple potential neurocognitive outcomes. The notion of the cognitive demands associated with bilingual experience have also been challenged. A recent proposal by Bialystok and Craik (Reference Bialystok and Craik2022) calls for a spectrum approach to conceptualizing the requirements of specific cognitive demands (attentional control) and thus the mechanism by which neurocognitive adaptations would manifest.
On their own, any one of these models or proposals can account for some degree of the variability that is now captured by the Systems framework offered by the authors. However, none of the existing models on bilingual neurocognition either account for the range of language experiences outlined in the systems framework (particularly those beyond language interactions of the individual) and/or make predictions for the range of functional and structural adaptations. Neurocognitive models in the future will thus need to consider and take into account further levels of language dynamics as those outlined in the Systems Framework, but crucially also further outline and make predictions regarding the mechanisms of adaptation.
Conclusions
The Systems Framework for Bilingualism represents the next step forward in conceptualizing and capturing the manifold levels and aspects of bilingual experience for many subfields of bilingualism research. While this framework is absolutely a welcome addition, our understanding of the connections to neurocognitive outcomes needs to catch up. Through both empirical and theoretical advancements, the task thus rests with the field to advance our understanding of these relationships.