ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
Brain Mechanisms of Lexicality in Bilingual Emotion Processing.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding how native speakers and second language (L2) learners process language differently is fundamental to theories of language acquisition, comprehension, and use. A central debate in this literature concerns the inconsistent findings in emotional prosody processing between native speakers and L2 learners, partly attributable to stimulus lexicality: some studies use real words, whereas others use pseudowords. To resolve this discrepancy, we measured fMRI responses in 15 native speakers and 15 L2 learners while they listened to Mandarin real-word and pseudoword stimuli. Both groups engaged in overlapping auditory, cognitive, and affective regions, including the auditory cortex, inferior frontal cortex, superior temporal cortex, and the temporoparietal junction. However, the two groups showed distinct responses depending on lexicality: native speakers showed stronger recruitment of temporal regions for pseudowords, whereas L2 learners showed greater frontoparietal activation for real words. These patterns were consistent across positive and negative prosody conditions. Furthermore, among L2 learners, higher proficiency was associated with greater frontal activation for real words, but not pseudowords. Together, these findings demonstrate that the differences between native speakers and L2 learners depend critically on stimulus lexicality, highlighting the role of lexicality in bilingual emotion processing.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.