4.7 Article

Dynamic Effects of Immersive Bilingualism on Cortical and Subcortical Grey Matter Volumes

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.886222

关键词

bilingualism; neuroplasticity; grey matter; volume; immersion; dynamic; non-linear

资金

  1. State Research Agency of the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MCIN/AEI) [PID2019-105077RJ-I00]
  2. Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports [FPU 17/00698]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the non-linear effects of bilingual experiences on regional grey matter volume in the brain. The results show a non-linear relationship between bilingualism score and inferior frontal gyrus volume, as well as linear increases in putamen and cerebellum volumes as a function of bilingualism score.
Bilingualism has been shown to induce neuroplasticity in the brain, but conflicting evidence regarding its specific effects in grey matter continues to emerge, probably due to methodological differences between studies, as well as approaches that may miss the variability and dynamicity of bilingual experience. In our study, we devised a continuous score of bilingual experiences and we investigated their non-linear effects on regional GM volume in a sample of young healthy participants from an immersive and naturalistic bilingual environment. We focused our analyses on cortical and subcortical regions that had been previously proposed as part of the bilingual speech pipeline and language control network. Our results showed a non-linear relationship between bilingualism score and grey matter volume of the inferior frontal gyrus. We also found linear increases in volumes of putamen and cerebellum as a function of bilingualism score. These results go in line with predictions for immersive and naturalistic bilingual environments with increased intensity and diversity of language use and provide further evidence supporting the dynamicity of bilingualism's effects on brain structure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据