Population Fifty one right-handed healthy male and female children, aged 96–141 months (mean: 114, SD: 11) and subdivided into three groups (19 bilinguals from birth [2L1], 18 second language learners [L2L], and 14 monolinguals [1L1]) were scanned. All subjects had French or Dutch as first language and the second language of the bilinguals was restricted to Romance or Germanic languages, two branches of the Indo-European language family. Download Free Alton Ellis Greatest Hits Rar here. The three groups had very similar age and gender distributions (see Table ).

Dual Boxing Programs L2l. Stop Slumping At Your Desk—With This Genius. Amiga Computing Issue 069 1994 Jan. COMMODORES NEW DUAL SYNC MONITOR 1942 MONITOR This new monitor. A mineraloid is a mineral-like substance that does not demonstrate crystallinity. Mineraloids possess chemical. Three groups of 8–11-year-old children – bilinguals from birth (2L1), second language learners (L2L), and a control group of monolinguals (1L1) – were. In view of this extensive training in solving language conflict situations some researchers have expressed the possibility of a bilingual advantage in.

None of the children had any sign of linguistic, neurological or psychiatric disorder and all had normal eyesight. Initial group information The linguistic background, socioeconomic status, handedness (Edinburgh Handedness Inventory), second language manner of acquisition, and the level of proficiency of all the participants were initially assessed by a detailed questionnaire that was filled out by their parents. For all bilinguals, frequent use of both languages was reported; 2L1s acquired both languages from birth at home while L2Ls acquired the second language after the age of 3–5 at school. Proficiency was reported by the parents. Only highly proficient children were included in the study.

Verbal auditory discrimination and verbal fluency tests were applied to all subjects in order to assess language reception and production at the semantic level. Listening-comprehension and sentence-construction tests were used to assess these two factors at the syntactic level. Bilinguals underwent these tests in both languages, followed by a bilingual test. In the latter, participants were asked to translate words and sentences from the first language (L1) to the second (L2) and vice versa. They also had to assess the grammatical correctness of the given sentences, possibly containing interference errors from L1 into L2 or vice versa. Children who scored below 50 percent ( n = 3) on one of these tests were excluded from the experiment. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University Hospital of Brussels (UZ-Brussel, Belgium) and informed consent was obtained from all parents.

As children are naturally inclined to move in the scanner, adequate preparation and a child-friendly atmosphere were provided in order to increase their motivation (Wilke et al. It was possible to frequently communicate with the children between the scans and they were monitored throughout the experiment via a closed circuit camera system. Parents could follow the proceedings in the scanning room if they wanted. Stimuli The fMRI paradigm consisted of an S–S (numerical Stroop), and an S–R (color Simon) conflict task (Egner et al.

All children were thoroughly instructed and asked to undergo a short demo session outside the scanner in order to avoid possible misunderstanding of the tasks. In addition, at the beginning of each run, a short instruction was projected on the screen to remind the participants of the nature of the task. During the scans, the stimulus information was projected on a screen situated outside the scanner and observed via two mirrors mounted on the head coil. The participants held a response box in each hand and were instructed to press a button on these boxes with their thumbs when appropriate.

Reaction times (RT) and accuracy (correct/incorrect) were recorded. The instructions emphasized the importance of both accuracy and speed. The order and exact timing of stimulus presentation were controlled using E-prime (E-studio Psychology Software Tools, software release 2.0 Pittsburgh, PA). The timing was generated using efMRI, an fMRI design simulator developed by Chris Rorden (software version 9, see ).

It was based on a counterbalanced stochastic design, intended to maximize the statistical efficiency while minimizing subject habituation and carry over effects (Henson ). Simon task S–R conflicts were studied using an adaptation of the color Simon task (see Fig. Red or green squares projected on a black background were shown to the children.

The width of the squares was 10% of the width of the screen. The center of the squares was positioned vertically on the center line of the screen and horizontally at 15% and 85% of its width. Stimuli were classified into two categories: (1) congruent (a red square presented on the right or a green square on the left) and (2) incongruent (a red square shown on the left or a green square on the right). The rapid event-related paradigm lasted 6 min 30 sec and delivered 156 stimuli, 75 of them were congruent, and 81 incongruent.

The stimuli were applied with a jittered interstimulus interval (ISI) of 2.2 ± 0.56 sec (maximum ISI = 3.18 s, minimum ISI = 1.19 sec) and a total duration of 6 min and 30 sec. A black background with a centered white fixation cross was projected for 300 ms as the interstimulus rest condition. Stroop task S–S conflicts were assessed using a numerical comparison task.

For each trial, two Arabic digits were simultaneously shown to the children and they had to decide which digit was numerically larger, ignoring the physical size of the digits. The stimuli were classified into three categories (Kaufmann et al. ): (1) congruent (physical and numerical comparison leading to the same conclusion [e.g., 3 4]), (2) incongruent (physical and numerical comparison leading to different conclusions [e.g., 3 4]), (3) neutral (the stimuli differ only in numerical size [e.g., 3 4]). The neutral trials were added to increase the statistical power. Eight digits were used to create the digit pairs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9. The digits were presented in white Arial font on a black background. The two font sizes used were 32 and 58 points.

The stimuli were positioned vertically on the center line of the screen and horizontally at 25% and 75% of its width (Fig. Stimulus presentation for the Stroop task.

Subjects had to press the button corresponding to the side where the numerically larger number was shown. Left column: neutral trials; middle column: congruent trials and right column: incongruent trials. The paradigm included 130 stimuli (43 congruent, 43 incongruent, 44 neutral) and lasted 6 min 30 sec.

The stimuli were applied with a jittered ISI (2.7 ± 0.58 sec, maximum ISI = 3.76 sec, minimum ISI = 1.78 sec). At the beginning of each trial a centered white fixation cross on a black background was projected for 300 ms. Image acquisition All scans were performed using a Philips Achieva 3T MR system (software release 2.5) with an eight channel SENSE head coil. BOLD-sensitive T2*-weighted fMRI images were acquired using a spin-echo, echo-planar sequence (EPI) comprising 130 dynamics. Other imaging parameters were: TR/TE=3000 ms/35 ms, FOV = 212 × 230 × 98.5 mm 3 covering 22 oblique axial 4 mm slices with 0.5 mm gap and matrix size of 104 × 105, total scan duration = 402 sec. Each subject underwent a T1 weighted 3D anatomical scan with following properties: TR/TE = 12 ms/3.75 ms, FOV = 200 × 200 × 200 mm 3, 100 axial 2 mm slices, 1 × 1 mm 2 in plane resolution, total scan duration = 6 min and 30 sec.

Behavioral data analysis The accuracy of the responses (success rate or percentage of correct responses) and the response times (RT) were logged and compared between the groups (ANOVA). This analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 20.0). In addition, in emulation of other authors (Fan et al.; Schulte et al. ) the RTs were transformed in “congruency effect” data (Liu and Michigan ). This meant that, for each participant, the average RT for the congruent trials of a task was subtracted from the average RT for the incongruent trials yielding a sensitive parameters referred to as “congruency effects”.

This congruency effect parameter is used to quantify both the Simon effect (Fan et al. ) and the Stroop effect (Hintzman et al. For the latter the differences “incongruent-neutral” and “neutral-congruent” were also calculated. The congruency effects were compared between the three language groups using an ANOVA. The significance level was set at P. Image data pre-processing Image preprocessing and analysis were performed using the SPM8 software (Wellcome Department of Cognitive Neurology, London, UK) running in MATLAB 7.12. The image files were converted from the Philips PAR/REC format to the Nifti format using r2agui (v2.6; ).

The fMRI volumes of each individual were motion-corrected by realigning them to the first volume of the time series using a rigid-body registration using a least-squares approach. The images were latency-corrected to the 11th slice in each volume. The high-resolution anatomical scan of each subject was coregistered to the realigned functional images. An age and gender-matched customized pediatric T1-template and tissue priors for gray matter, white matter, and cerebrovascular fluid (CSF) were constructed using the Template-O-Matic (TOM) toolbox (Wilke et al. TOM creates the template on the basis of the data of 404 healthy 5–18-year-old children acquired in a NIH MRI study (Evans ). This template was used instead of the adult brain templates available in SPM and takes into account the developmental changes in size and the shape characteristic of pediatric brains (Wilke et al.

The anatomical image of each subject was normalized to the aforementioned template using a nonlinear transformation (Friston et al. The transformation parameters were applied to the corresponding coregistered functional images. The normalized functional images were spatially smoothed using a Gaussian kernel of 8 × 8×8 mm 3 FWMH. Fixed effects level A design matrix based on the information about the conditions and the onsets of the trials was constructed.

The time course describing the experimental design was convolved with the canonical hemodynamic response (HRF) function and its time and dispersion derivatives (Hopfinger et al.; Calhoun et al. ) in order to model the event-related activity using a 2nd-order Taylor expansion of the response (Friston et al.; Henson ). The realignment parameters were included as regressors. The data were high-pass filtered with a cutoff of 1/128 Hz to eliminate low-frequency noise. Three incongruent–congruent contrast maps (one for each of the convolutions: HRF, time derivative, and dispersion derivative) were calculated for both the Simon and Stroop tasks of each subject. This contrast generalizes the concept of congruency effect introduce earlier. Congruency effects are defined only by subtracting the congruent trials from the incongruent trials for both tasks (Fan et al.; Schulte et al.

Random effects level A repeated- measures one-way ANOVA of the three contrast maps was used to estimate the main effect of the group for both the Simon and Stroop tasks. A repeated-measures 3 × 3 ANOVA, was applied for both the Simon and Stroop tasks. The factors in the analysis were “group” (1L1, L2L, and 2L1) and “basis functions” (HRF, time derivative, and dispersion derivative)(Henson and Penny ). A combined uncorrected P-values of 0.001 and a minimum cluster size of 910 mm 3 (33 voxels) for Simon task and 740 mm 3 (28 voxels) for Stroop task was determined using the AlphaSim toolbox () (Bennett et al.; Ni et al.

Retrieval of anatomical positions In the normalization step, an age/gender-matched customized T1-template was constructed using the TOM toolbox. In order to obtain an anatomical label for the activated regions, the activation pattern was overlaid on this pediatric template. Because of the significant differences to be expected between the adult brains depicted in the available automated brain atlases and that of children, these atlases could not be used to look up the anatomical description of the activated regions. The anatomical position of the activities was, therefore, estimated using the graphical information provided by the anatomy textbooks (Scarabino and Salvolini ).

Response times (in ms) and accuracy scores (in%) for the three groups in the Simon and Stroop tasks The mean reaction times (RTs) were based exclusively on the correct responses. The mean RTs of the Simon task were analyzed with a repeated measures ANOVA with Condition type (2 levels) as a within-subjects factor and Group (3 levels) as a between-subjects factor. The results did not reveal a significant main effect of Group, F(2, 44) = 1.75, P = 0.47, but there was a significant main effect of Condition type, F(1, 44) = 46.58, P.

Post hoc t-test results comparing the congruence effects between groups for the two tasks. P-values for the relevant t-tests are listed For the RTs of the Stroop task, a repeated measures ANOVA (again with Condition type as a within-subjects factor, and Group as a between-subject factor) did not reveal a significant main effect of Group, F(2, 41) = 0.64, P = 0.80.

However, a main effect of Condition type was found F(2, 41) = 55.51, P. Reaction times and congruity effect on reaction times for Simon and Stroop tasks and for different conditions. In the Simon task, the average accuracy over the groups was 95.0% (SD: 2.9; range: 88.0–100.0%) for congruent trials and 93.1% (SD: 5.5; range: 77.7–100%) for incongruent trials. For the Stroop task, it was 97.9% (SD: 2.5; range: 86.3–100%) for congruent trials, 89.3% (SD: 6.2; range: 72.0–97.6%) for incongruent trials, and 97.8% (SD: 2.9; range: 86.3–100%) for neutral trials (see ). As for the RTs, the mean accuracy rates were analyzed with a repeated measures ANOVA with Condition Type as the within-subjects factor, and Group as the between-subjects factor.

For the Simon Task, this revealed a significant main effect of Group, F(2, 44) = 5.76, P L2Ls ( P = 0.02), and also between 2L1s >L2Ls ( P. Between-group comparison for the incongruent- congruent contrast in the Simon task The 3 × 3 ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of the linguistic group in the Simon task in the inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) ( F (2,108) = 10.32, P. L2L versus 1L1 group comparison of the activation pattern for the incongruent–congruent contrast in the Simon task. A number of brain regions showed significantly greater incongruent versus congruent contrast in bilingual participants compared to monolinguals. The activation pattern expected for stimulus–response conflict was confirmed in all the three comparisons.

The superior temporal gyrus (STG) exhibited a significantly different congruency effect in all the three comparisons and showed a bilaterally increased activation in 2L1s compared to 1L1s. A significantly larger congruency effect was observed in 2L1s compared to L2Ls in the caudate body ( T = 5.92). When comparing L2L and 1L1, following brain regions showed a higher congruency effect: caudate body ( T = 8.11), left and right post cingulate gyrus ( T = 7.1, T = 7.13), STG ( T = 7.87), and middle frontal gyrus ( T = 7.44). 2L1s compared to 1L1 showed a significantly higher congruency effect in the STG ( T = 10.65), posterior cingulate gyrus ( T = 8.32), cingulate gyrus ( T = 7.07), thalamus ( T = 7.07), Middle frontal gyrus ( T = 6.65), middle temporal gyrus ( T = 6.36), and precuneus ( T = 4.05).

Between-group comparison for the incongruent– congruent contrast in the Stroop task The numerical Stroop task produced a significant congruency effect differences in multiple areas in bilingual brains compared to monolinguals. The 3 × 3 ANOVA yielded a significant main effect of the group factor in the caudate head ( F (2,108) = 12.77, P. Discussion This study has collected behavioral and neuroimaging data for stimulus–stimulus (numeric Stroop task) and stimulus–response (Simon task) conflict tasks. The subjects consisted of bilinguals from birth (2L1), L2 learners (L2L), and monolingual (1L1) children. This group composition aimed to study if different ways of managing languages could affect nonverbal conflict resolution during a crucial period of human brain development. The 2L1s acquired their two languages concurrently in early childhood, using them interchangeably for the same communicative functions.

L2Ls acquired their second language after the first, in an educational setting, between the age of three and five, resulting in an operative separation between the languages. We aimed to monitor the impact of handling more than one language and also of the age of acquisition (AOA) of the second language on the cognitive skill of children which is still under development. Behavioral results In this study, we have controlled for socioeconomic status and ethnicity.

Overall, reaction times for the different trial types and accuracy scores showed similar results for all groups. As the reaction times and accuracy may be affected by confounding variables such as anxiety, fatigue, stress, experience on computer games, illness, distraction, etc., we have quantified the congruency effect by subtracting the reaction times for congruent trials from the RT for incongruent trials(Fan et al.; Schulte et al. [In the Stroop task, two other quantities were also calculated Incongruent-Neutral and Neutral-Congruent see Fig..] Significant differences between all groups in both tasks were found for this new quantity: bilinguals showed higher congruency effects than monolinguals. In the Stroop task, the size of the congruency effects appeared to be related to the degree of exposure to language conflict situations. 2L1s showed higher congruency effects, possibly because the operative overlap of their languages creates more potential for language conflict.

In the Simon task, the opposite pattern was seen in the bilingual groups, with the L2Ls showing higher congruency effects. It is unclear why L2Ls show higher congruency effects in an S–S conflict task, given the fact that they have to deal with less conflict in managing the languages they use.

Our results are not in line with the presence of a behavioral advantage of bilingualism throughout life. This absence of an advantage (or even the existence of a disadvantage) at some stages is, however not surprising. It was reported earlier that the many language conflicts encountered by bilinguals may slow down lexical access (Gollan and Kroll ). In a review paper, Hichey and Klein, have assessed the bilingual advantage in conflict resolution using nonlinguistic inhibitory tasks (Hilchey and Klein ). They concluded that while a bilingual advantage has been seen in a few cases, it is subject to many factors and cannot be generalized. It is possible that the reduced performance in nonverbal conflict processing observed here in bilingual children is only temporary and that they catch up with their monolingual peers at a later age.

To confirm this hypothesis, further studies are required in tracing the development of conflict processing in bilingual children and young adults in an extended longitudinal research design. Role of the age of acquiring L2 Although it had been well-established that conflict processing is different in bilinguals and monolinguals, a question that remained unanswered is whether the age of exposure to L2 affects the cognitive impact of bilingualism in children. So far, all studies on bilingual children include only 2L1s (Bialystok et al.; Carlson and Meltzoff ) and research on bilingual cognitive-controlled-processing seems to have overlooked the possible impact of the age of L2 acquisition.

Including 2L1s and L2Ls in our study allows a novel comparison between bilingual children that differ on the age of L2 acquisition. Our findings provide preliminary evidence that the age of being exposed to L2 does indeed influence brain activation during nonverbal conflict tasks. In particular, increased activation in the caudate head during Stroop tasks in 2L1s compared to L2L suggests differential performance in high-conflict situations in 2L1s. This level of conflict in bilinguals arises at the stage of word identification and was shown to be different between sequential and simultaneous bilinguals of primary-school age (van Heuven et al. Moreover, during the Simon task (response-based conflict) we could establish important differences between the two groups of bilinguals in terms of their relationship with 1L1s. In L2Ls compared to 1L1s, additional activation spots were found in the caudate body and posterior cingulate. Both regions have been reported to be activated during the response-based language conflicts (van Heuven et al.

) and our finding may imply that L2Ls compared to monolinguals recruit additional language conflict processing regions in the brain during nonverbal conflict tasks. These results, together with the behavioral difference between the two bilingual groups noted in this study, provide evidence for the impact of age of L2 acquisition on primary school children's cognitive skills. Conclusion This study provides first evidence of the effect of language background on two types of conflict resolution in the brains of bilingual children. In bilingual children compared to monolingual controls matched for age, gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background, the behavioral data showed higher congruency effects: reaction times were found to be lengthened and accuracy to be decreased by general cognitive conflict. Although this finding contradicts earlier studies which pointed at a bilingual advantage in conflict resolution, our neuroimaging data also showed a more extensive conflict-related brain activity in bilingual groups in brain regions typically related to language control. Barry Harris Jazz Workshop Pdf Printer.

The higher behavioral congruency effect is thus matched by the recruitment of brain regions that are generally used by bilinguals to solve language conflict situations. This coupling of a behavioral disadvantage to the recruitment of extra, language-related, brain areas supports the hypothesis that the specialization of bilinguals in dealing with language conflicts hampers the way they can deal with nonverbal conflict, at least at early stages in life. The results obtained here are contradictory to the common hypothesis of a bilingual advantage in adults, reported in literature (Morton and Harper ) and pave the way for the assumption that the conflict processing mechanism may be different in bilingual children and adults.