| Literature DB >> 31736852 |
Tanya Dash1,2, Pierre Berroir1,3, Yves Joanette1,2, Ana Inés Ansaldo1,2.
Abstract
Life-long experience of using two or more languages has been shown to enhance cognitive control abilities in young and elderly bilinguals in comparison to their monolingual peers. This advantage has been found to be larger in older adults in comparison to younger adults, suggesting that bilingualism provides advantages in cognitive control abilities. However, studies showing this effect have used a variety of tasks (Simon Task, Stroop task, Flanker Task), each measuring different subcomponents of attention and raising mixed results. At the same time, attention is not a unitary function but comprises of subcomponents which can be distinctively addressed within the Attention Network Test (ANT) (1, 2). The purpose of this work was to examine the neurofunctional correlates of the subcomponents of attention in healthy young and elderly bilinguals taking into account the L2 age of acquisition, language usage, and proficiency. Participants performed an fMRI version of the ANT task, and speed, accuracy, and BOLD data were collected. As expected, results show slower overall response times with increasing age. The ability to take advantage of the warning cues also decreased with age, resulting in reduced alerting and orienting abilities in older adults. fMRI results showed an increase in neurofunctional activity in the frontal and parietal areas in elderly bilinguals when compared to young bilinguals. Furthermore, higher L2 proficiency correlated negatively with activation in frontal area, and that faster RTs correlated negatively with activation in frontal and parietal areas. Such a correlation, especially with L2 proficiency was not present in young bilinguals and provides evidence for a bilingual advantage in the alerting subcomponent of attention that characterizes elderly bilinguals' performance. This study thus provides extra details about the bilingual advantage in the subcomponent of attention, in older bilinguals. Consequently, speaking more than one language impacts cognition and the brain later in life.Entities:
Keywords: aging; attention network task; bilingualism; neuroimaging; subcomponents of attention
Year: 2019 PMID: 31736852 PMCID: PMC6831726 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2019.01122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Demographic, neuropsychological, and language measures of both the groups.
| Age | 32.6 (0.7) | 73.9 (0.6) | −41.6 | 0.00 |
| Education | 18.7 (0.7) | 16.8 (0.6) | 1.8 | 0.087 |
| Gender | Female = 9 | Female = 11 | ||
| MoCA | 29.2 (0.1) | 28.61 (0.2) | 1.9 | 0.095 |
| TMT A | 16.8 (0.7) | 30.09 (1.9) | −6.4 | 0.00 |
| TMT B | 39.7 (2.3) | 60.02 (5.3) | −3.5 | 0.00 |
| OBT_RT | 751.3 (34.1) | 931.5 (40.7) | −3.4 | 0.00 |
| OBT_Acc | 0.9 (0.007) | 0.8 (0.01) | 1.7 | 0.098 |
| L2: Percent exposure | 26.5 (3.4) | 18.3 (2.8) | 1.7 | 0.08 |
| L2: AoA-Speaking | 7.4 (0.7) | 8.3 (0.7) | −0.9 | 0.36 |
| L2: AoA-Reading | 10.7 (0.9) | 12.9 (1.1) | −1.4 | 0.15 |
| L2: LP-Speaking (Max:10) | 7.3 (0.3) | 6.2 (0.4) | 1.8 | 0.07 |
| L2: LP-Reading (Max:10) | 7.9 (0.3) | 7.2 (0.3) | 1.6 | 0.12 |
| L2 LexTale (%) | 80.5 (2.3) | 81.9 (2.1) | −0.4 | 0.66 |
| L2 BNT (Max:60) | 48.8 (1.4) | 46.2 (1.3) | 1.3 | 0.19 |
| L2 RC (Max:11) | 5.9 (0.4) | 6.2 (0.43) | −0.5 | 0.60 |
| L2 Discourse (Max:18) | 17.02 (0.1) | 16.7 (0.3) | 0.7 | 0.43 |
| L2 Composite LP scores (%) | 77.5 (0.01) | 77.2 (0.01) | 0.1 | 0.89 |
SE, Standard error; MoCA, Montreal Cognitive Assessment; TMT, Trial Making Test; OBT, One back Test; RT, Response time; Acc, Accuracy; LP, Language Proficiency; L2, Second Language; AoA, Age of Acquisition; BNT, Boston Naming Test; RC, Reading Comprehension;
, significant.
Figure 1Schematic of attention network test (1). This figure illustrates the time course of the warning cues and the flanker condition.
Mean RT (and SD) and accuracy (and SD) for each condition during ANT behavioral performance.
| Congruent | YA | 97.5 (0.7) | 98.5 (0.7) | 98.2 (0.7) |
| OA | 97.6 (1.1) | 97.6 (0.8) | 98.5 (0.8) | |
| Incongruent | YA | 91.4 (1.8) | 91.6 (1.6) | 95.2 (1.2) |
| OA | 93.2 (2.5) | 94.2 (1.9) | 96 (1.2) | |
| Congruent | YA | 631.11 (74.9) | 604.23 (71.3) | 536.45 (60.9) |
| OA | 846.37 (161.2) | 821.75 (157.5) | 787.12 (139.0) | |
| Incongruent | YA | 698.38 (82.2) | 678.56 (85.83) | 601.77 (91.6) |
| OA | 887.35 (145.01) | 887.42 (152.6) | 828.79 (159.74) | |
YA, Young Adults; OA, Older Adults.
Figure 2Mean response time and accuracy for each condition on the attention network task. OA, Older adults; YA, Young adults.
Results from the random-effects analyses for the alerting, orienting, and executive control condition, for young and older adults.
| OA∩YA” | Fusiform gyrus | WB | BA 37 | Rt | 42 | −56 | −14 | 899 |
| WB | BA 37 | Lt | −40 | −62 | −6 | 703 | ||
| Precentral gyrus | WB | BA 6 | Lt | −46 | 2 | 34 | 82 | |
| WB | BA 6 | Rt | 46 | 4 | 40 | 138 | ||
| OA > YA | VLPFC | WB | BA 10 | Lt | −26 | 50 | −10 | 24 |
| IFG | ROI | BA 47 | Lt | −33 | 31 | −3 | ||
| OA∩YA” | Visual association area | WB | BA 18 | Lt | −10 | −98 | 4 | 413 |
| WB | BA 18 | Rt | 10 | −96 | 8 | 153 | ||
| WB | BA 18 | Lt | −20 | −78 | −10 | 115 | ||
| WB | BA 18 | Rt | 18 | −76 | −14 | 139 | ||
| OA>YA | Superior parietal gyrus | WB | BA 39 | Rt | 42 | −50 | 28 | 29 |
| Young adults | WB | BA 19 | Lt | −4 | −86 | 36 | 28 | |
| Older adults | Isthmus of CG | WB | BA 30 | Lt | −22 | −50 | 6 | 20 |
Reverse contrast showed no effect.
Conjunction and disjunction analysis did not result in any effect.
“Survived cluster level FEW. k > 20. IFG, Inferior frontal gyrus; VLPFC, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex; CG, Cingulate gyrus; WB, Whole Brain; ROI, Region of Interest.
Figure 3(A) Significant blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signal increase related to the alerting contrast (Alert cue – No cue) in both the groups together (OA n YA) revealed bilateral activation in the fusiform gyrus (BA 37) and pre-SMA (BA 6). (B) Significant blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signal increase related to the alerting contrast in the Older bilinguals in comparison to young bilinguals (OA > YA) revealed activation in the ventrolateral PFC (BA 10). Statistical parametric maps overlaid on the average T1-weighted anatomy of all subjects (p < 0.001 and K > 20).
Figure 5Significant blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signal for (A) young bilinguals and (B) older bilinguals for the executive control contrast (Incongruent – Congruent). Statistical parametric maps overlaid on the average T1-weighted anatomy of all subjects (p < 0.001 and K > 20).
Figure 4(A) Significant blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signal increase related to the orienting contrast (Spatial cue – alert cue) in both the groups together (OA n YA) revealed bilateral activation in the visual association areas (BA 18). (B) Significant blood-oxygen-level dependent (BOLD) signal increase related to the orienting contrast in the Older bilinguals in comparison to young bilinguals (OA > YA) revealed activation in the superior parietal gyrus (BA 39). Statistical parametric maps overlaid on the average T1-weighted anatomy of all subjects (p < 0.001 and K > 20).
Combined factor analysis of both the groups for the ANT behavioral performance.
| Factor 1 | Response time | 49.06% | 0.971 | 0.973 | 0.969 | 0.971 | 0.968 | 0.964 |
| Factor 2 | Accuracy for incongruent conditions | 20.15% | 0.822 | 0.846 | 0.761 | |||
| Factor 3 | Accuracy for congruent conditions | 10.90% | 0.825 | 0.595 | 0.463 | |||
Combined factor analysis of both the groups for the measure of bilingualism.
| Factor 1 | L2 naming, vocabulary and reading comprehension | 45.85% | 0.919 | 0.767 | 0.656 | 0.95 | Single factor | 52.87% | 0.710 | −0.481 | −0.660 | 0.835 | 0.881 |
| Factor 2 | L2 discourse production | 27.25% | 0.917 | ||||||||||