Presentation

Search Abstracts | Symposia | Slide Sessions | Poster Sessions

Bilingualism modulates domain-general functional connectivity: insights from resting-state electroencephalogram

Poster Session C, Friday, October 25, 4:30 - 6:00 pm, Great Hall 3 and 4

Christos Pliatsikas^1,2, Alex Sheehan¹, Doug Saddy¹; ¹School of Psychology and Clinical Language Sciences, University of Reading, ²Universidad Nebrija, Spain

Bilingualism impacts cognition, brain structure, and function. This is expressed as effects in behavioural tasks in the language and executive control domains(1–3),changes to brain structure in regions associated with language and executive control(4–6), and alterations to brain function and connectivity in resting-state electroencephalography(EEG) studies(7–9). These findings include increased posterior activity compared to monolinguals, increased interhemispheric connectivity, and increased long-distance communication as the bilingual experience increases. The Bilingual Anterior to Posterior and Subcortical Shift(BAPSS) model suggests that these patterns indicate that bilinguals rely less on frontal regions and more on posterior and subcortical regions as experience increases(10). The aim of this study was to determine how degree of bilingualism interacts with domain-general task demands to impact whole-brain functional connectivity. The study used a novel task-driven resting-state EEG paradigm, using the short-term variability of resting-state connectivity to measure the patterns of connectivity pre- and post- a cognitively demanding task. We used the Language and Social Background Questionnaire(LSBQ) to assess demographics and degree of bilingualism(11). We used a serial reaction-time artificial grammar learning task designed to assess hierarchical structure representation and implicit statistical learning. This is a very generalised higher cognitive ability so is considered to be cognitive domain-general, with bilinguals having been found to perform better than monolinguals(12). We used a binary Lindenmayer grammar which follows the Fibonacci sequence(13), presented to participants as red or blue circles to which they must respond indicating which colour they were just shown(14). We analysed the data using Generalised Additive Models, modelling the LSBQ composite score against connection strength between multiple regions of interest. The connectivity patterns were then compared to assess any differences between the at-rest and post-task states. Pre-task, level of bilingualism showed a significant relationship with the connectivity strength between long-distance(e.g.,frontal-parietal), inter-hemispheric, and intra-hemispheric connections – a total of 4 significant connections affected by level of bilingualism. Our post-task recordings yielded 10 significant bilingualism-modulated connections – involving multiple long-distance (e.g.,parietal to frontal; central to occipital), inter-hemispheric, left temporal, and medial occipital region connections. Crucially, the post-task connectivity analysis revealed new bidirectional interhemispheric temporal connections, and an increase in the number of total connections to occipital and left temporal areas. These findings are compatible with the BAPSS model, indicating that linguistic experience affects the brain regions recruited to complete the task at hand – involving greater occipital, temporal, and interhemispheric connectivity, particularly during task-based cognition. We propose that this is due to the increased control demands in bilingualism, leading to increased efficiency of automatic monitoring processes, and thus greater strength of functional connections in regions enlisted for these demands. The clustering of connections around the left temporal region post-task is particularly unexpected. This suggests strong language network activation despite no language being present in the task.   1.Calvo&Bialystok,Cognition,130,278–288(2014). 2.Akhtar&Menjivar,Chapter 2,Advances in Child Development and Behavior,vol.42,41–78(2012). 3.Prior&Macwhinney.Biling.Lang.Cogn.,13, 253–262(2010). 4.Pliatsikas,Biling.Lang.Cogn.23,459–471(2020). 5.Korenar et al.(in prep),https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1017465/v1 (2021). 6.Olsen et al.,Brain Res.,1612, 128–139(2015). 7.Grundy et al.,NeuroImage,159,280–288(2017). 8.Bice et al.,Neurobiol.Lang.,1,288–318(2020). 9.Pereira Soares et al.,Brain Lang.,223,105030(2021). 10.Grundy et al.,Ann.N.Y.Acad.Sci.,1396,183–201(2017). 11.Anderson et al.,Behav.Res.Methods,50,250–263(2018). 12.Vender et al.,Front.Psychol.10,(2019). 13.Krivochen,ArXiv210401363 Cs(2021). 14.Schmid et al.(in prep),https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fp5zb (2022).

Topic Areas: Multilingualism,