Dataset Information

Bilingual disadvantages are systematically compensated by bilingual advantages across tasks and populations.

ABSTRACT: Bilingualism is linked to both enhanced and hampered performance in various cognitive measures, yet the extent to which these bilingual advantages and disadvantages co-occur is unclear. To address this gap, we perform a systematic review and two quantitative analyses. First, we analyze results from 39 studies, obtained through the PRISMA method. Less than 50% of the studies that show up as results for the term "bilingual disadvantage" report exclusively a disadvantage, that shows bilinguals performing worse than monolinguals in a task. A Bayesian analysis reveals robust evidence for bilingual effects, but no evidence for differences in the proportion of advantages and disadvantages, suggesting that when results from different cognitive domains such as executive functions and verbal fluency are analyzed together, bilingual effects amount to a zero-sum game. This finding was replicated by repeating the analysis, using the datasets of two recent meta-analyses. We propose that the equilibrium we observe between positive and negative outcomes may not be accidental. Contrary to widespread belief, advantageous and disadvantageous effects are not stand-alone outcomes in free variation. We reframe them as the connatural components of a dynamic trade-off, whereby enhanced performance in one cognitive measure is offset by an incurred cost in another domain.

SUBMITTER: Dentella V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10808122 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bilingual disadvantages are systematically compensated by bilingual advantages across tasks and populations.

Dentella Vittoria V Masullo Camilla C Leivada Evelina E

Scientific reports 20240124 1

Bilingualism is linked to both enhanced and hampered performance in various cognitive measures, yet the extent to which these bilingual advantages and disadvantages co-occur is unclear. To address this gap, we perform a systematic review and two quantitative analyses. First, we analyze results from 39 studies, obtained through the PRISMA method. Less than 50% of the studies that show up as results for the term "bilingual disadvantage" report exclusively a disadvantage, that shows bilinguals perf ...[more]

PMID: 38267616

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-reported measures are increasingly recognized as important predictors of clinical outcomes in peritoneal dialysis (PD). We sought to understand associations between patient-reported perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of PD and clinical outcomes. METHODS:In this cohort study, 2760 PD patients in the Peritoneal Dialysis Outcomes and Practice Patterns Study (PDOPPS) completed a questionnaire on their PD experience, between 2014 and 2017. In this questionnaire, PDOPPS patients rated 17 aspects of their PD experience on a 5-category ordinal scale, with responses scored from - 2 (major disadvantage) to + 2 (major advantage). An advantage/disadvantage score (ADS) was computed for each patient by averaging their response scores. The ADS, along with each of these 17 aspects, were used as exposures. Outcomes included mortality, transition to hemodialysis (HD), patient-reported quality of life (QOL), and depression. Cox regression was used to estimate associations between ADS and mortality, transition to HD, and a composite of the two. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to estimate cross-sectional associations of ADS with QOL and depression. RESULTS:While 7% of PD patients had an ADS < 0 (negative perception of PD), 59% had an ADS between 0 and < 1 (positive perception), and 34% had an ADS ≥1 (very positive perception). Minimal association was observed between mortality and the ADS. Compared with a very positive perception, patients with a negative perception had a higher transition rate to HD (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21, 2.30). Among individual items, "space taken up by PD supplies" was commonly rated as a disadvantage and had the strongest association with transition to HD (HR = 1.28; 95% CI 1.07, 1.53). Lower ADS was strongly associated with worse QOL rating and greater depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:Although patients reported a generally favorable perception of PD, patient-reported disadvantages were associated with transition to HD, lower QOL, and depression. Strategies addressing these disadvantages, in particular reducing solution storage space, may improve patient outcomes and the experience of PD.

Project description:BackgroundDifferent approaches have been used in case-control studies to estimate maternal exposure to medications and the risk of birth defects. However, the performance of these approaches and how they affect the odds ratio (OR) estimates have not been evaluated using birth-defect surveillance programmes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the scope and limitations of three case-control approaches to assess the teratogenic risk of birth defects in mothers exposed to antiepileptic medications, insulin, or acetaminophen.Methodology/principal findingsWe studied 110,814 non-malformed newborns and 58,514 live newborns with birth defects registered by the Latin American Collaborative Study of Congenital Anomalies (ECLAMC) between 1967 and 2008. Four controls were randomly selected for each case in the same hospital and period, and three different control groups were used: non-malformed newborns (HEALTHY), malformed newborns (SICK), and a subgroup of SICK, only-exposed cases (OECA). Associations were evaluated using OR and Pearson's chi-square (P<0.01). There were no concordance correlations between the HEALTHY and OECA designs, and the average OR differences ranged from 3.0 to 11.5 for the three evaluated medicines. The overestimations observed for HEALTHY design were increased as higher OR values were given, with a high and statistically significant correlation between the difference and the mean. On the contrary, the concordance correlations obtained between the SICK and OECA designs were quite good, with no significant differences in the average risks.ConclusionsThe HEALTHY design estimates the true population OR, but shows a high rate of false-positive results presumably caused by differential misclassification bias. This bias decreases with the increase of the proportion of exposed controls. SICK and OECA odds ratios cannot be considered a direct estimate of the true population OR except under certain conditions. However, the SICK and OECA designs could provide practical information to generate hypotheses about potential teratogens.

Dataset Information

Bilingual disadvantages are systematically compensated by bilingual advantages across tasks and populations.

Publications

Bilingual disadvantages are systematically compensated by bilingual advantages across tasks and populations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets