, 1998 and Tanenhaus et al , 1995) Managing this competition

, 1998 and Tanenhaus et al., 1995). Managing this competition

Pexidartinib is critical to spoken-word comprehension because a word cannot be properly understood and processed until a target has been selected. Although both monolinguals (e.g., Allopenna et al., 1998 and Tanenhaus et al., 1995) and bilinguals (e.g., Marian and Spivey, 2003a and Marian and Spivey, 2003b) experience lexical competition during spoken-language comprehension, behavioral evidence suggests that it may be managed differently by the two groups ( Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011). Specifically, enhanced executive control abilities (e.g., Bialystok, 2006, Bialystok, 2008, Costa et al., 2008, Martin-Rhee and Bialystok, 2008 and Prior Ipilimumab mw and MacWhinney, 2009; but

see Hilchey and Klein, 2011 and Paap and Greenberg, 2013) may aid bilinguals’ ability to suppress incorrect lexical items. As a result, bilinguals’ management of phonological competition may be more efficient than monolinguals’, not only as indexed by eye-movements ( Bartolotti and Marian, 2012 and Blumenfeld and Marian, 2011), but also neurally. Bilingualism has already been shown to result in functional and structural changes to the human brain. For example, learning a second language leads to increased grey matter density in the left inferior parietal cortex (Mechelli et al., 2004) and affects how language processing regions (specifically left inferior frontal cortex) are recruited (Kovelman, Baker, & Petitto, 2008). Even for non-language based tasks, bilingualism can affect the neural underpinnings of attentional processes such as ignoring irrelevant visual information (Bialystok et al., 2005 and Luk et al., 2010).1 Although controlling interference in the non-linguistic visual domain manifests in different cortical patterns in monolinguals than in bilinguals (Abutalebi et al., 2012, Bialystok et al., very 2005, Gold et al., 2013 and Luk et al., 2010), and though controlling competition has been

tied to bilinguals’ management of phonological competition (Blumenfeld & Marian, 2011), potential differences in the neural resources that monolinguals and bilinguals recruit to manage language coactivation have never been explored. Past research has shown that native English speakers activate a number of frontal and temporal language regions in response to phonological competition (Righi, Blumstein, Mertus, & Worden, 2010). Specifically, Righi and colleagues found that phonological competition manifested in activation of left supramarginal gyrus (SMG), a region involved in phonological processing (e.g., Gelfand & Bookheimer, 2003). They also found activation of left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG), which the authors argue plays a role in processing lexical competition that arises at the phonological level.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>