Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30871228›Full record

ReviewBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2019

Does the Bilingual Advantage in Cognitive Control Exist and If So, What Are Its Modulating Factors? A Systematic Review.

Maurits van den Noort, Esli Struys, Peggy Bosch, Lars Jaswetz, Benoît Perriard, Sujung Yeo, Pia Barisch, Katrien Vermeire, Sook-Hyun Lee, Sabina Lim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

50 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Use of Multiple Languages Provides Cognitive Reserve Amidst Age-Related White Matter Changes.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Maurits van den NoortResearch Group of Pain and Neuroscience, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, Korea. info@mauritsvandennoort.com.ORCID 0000-0003-0383-8733
Esli StruysBrussels Institute for Applied Linguistics, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Esli.Struys@vub.be.
Peggy BoschPsychiatric Research Group, LVR-Klinik Bedburg-Hau, 47511 Bedburg-Hau, Germany. p.bosch@donders.ru.nl.
Lars JaswetzBehavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, 6525 Nijmegen, The Netherlands. L.Jaswetz@psych.ru.nl.
Benoît PerriardDepartment of Medicine, Neurology, University of Fribourg, 1700 Fribourg, Switzerland. benoit.perriard@unifr.ch.
Sujung YeoCollege of Oriental Medicine, Sang Ji University, Wonju 26339, Korea. pinkteeth@hanmail.net.ORCID 0000-0001-9883-6153
Pia BarischInstitute of Experimental Psychology, Heinrich Heine University, 40225 Düsseldorf, Germany. Pia.Barisch@uni-duesseldorf.de.
Katrien VermeireDepartment of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Long Island University (LIU) Brooklyn, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA. katrien.vermeire@liu.edu.
Sook-Hyun LeeResearch Group of Pain and Neuroscience, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, Korea. sh00god@khu.ac.kr.
Sabina LimResearch Group of Pain and Neuroscience, Kyung Hee University, Seoul 130-701, Korea. lims@khu.ac.kr.ORCID 0000-0003-0509-6681

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recently, doubts were raised about the existence of the bilingual advantage in cognitive control. The aim of the present review was to investigate the bilingual advantage and its modulating factors. We searched the Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and ERIC databases for all original data and reviewed studies on bilingualism and cognitive control, with a cut-off date of 31 October 2018, thereby following the guidelines of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocol. The results of the 46 original studies show that indeed, the majority, 54.3%, reported beneficial effects of bilingualism on cognitive control tasks; however, 28.3% found mixed results and 17.4% found evidence against its existence. Methodological differences seem to explain these mixed results: Particularly, the varying selection of the bilingual participants, the use of nonstandardized tests, and the fact that individual differences were often neglected and that longitudinal designs were rare. Therefore, a serious risk for bias exists in both directions (i.e., in favor of and against the bilingual advantage). To conclude, we found some evidence for a bilingual advantage in cognitive control; however, if significant progress is to be made, better study designs, bigger data, and more longitudinal studies are needed.

Indexed as

bilingual advantagebilingualismcognitive controlindividual differenceslongitudinal studiesmethodology

Identifiers

PMID30871228
PMCPMC6466577

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.