First- and second-language phonological representations in the mental lexicon

Performance-based studies on the psychological nature of linguistic competence can conceal significant differences in the brain processes that underlie native versus nonnative knowledge of language. Here we report results from the brain activity of very proficient early bilinguals making a lexical decision task that illustrates this point. Two groups of SpanishCatalan early bilinguals (Spanish-dominant and Catalan-dominant) were asked to decide whether a given form was a Catalan word or not. The nonwords were based on real words, with one vowel changed. In the experimental stimuli, the vowel change involved a Catalan-specific contrast that previous research had shown to be difficult for Spanish natives to perceive. In the control stimuli, the vowel switch involved contrasts common to Spanish and Catalan. The results indicated that the groups of bilinguals did not differ in their behavioral and event-related brain potential measurements for the control stimuli; both groups made very few errors and showed a larger N400 component for control nonwords than for control words. However, significant differences were observed for the experimental stimuli across groups: Specifically, Spanish-dominant bilinguals showed great difficulty in rejecting experimental nonwords. Indeed, these participants not only showed very high error rates for these stimuli, but also did not show an error-related negativity effect in their erroneous nonword decisions. However, both groups of bilinguals showed a larger correctrelated negativity when making correct decisions about the experimental nonwords. The results suggest that although some aspects of a second language system may show a remarkable lack of plasticity (like the acquisition of some foreign contrasts), first-language representations seem to be more dynamic in their capacity of adapting and incorporating new information. &

Assigning and combining probabilities in single-case designs: A second study

The present study builds on a previous proposal for assigning probabilities to the outcomes computed using different primary indicators in single-case studies. These probabilities are obtained comparing the outcome to previously tabulated reference values and reflect the likelihood of the results in case there was no intervention effect. The current study explores how well different metrics are translated into p values in the context of simulation data. Furthermore, two published multiple baseline data sets are used to illustrate how well the probabilities could reflect the intervention effectiveness as assessed by the original authors. Finally, the importance of which primary indicator is used in each data set to be integrated is explored; two ways of combining probabilities are used: a weighted average and a binomial test. The results indicate that the translation into p values works well for the two nonoverlap procedures, with the results for the regression-based procedure diverging due to some undesirable features of its performance. These p values, both when taken individually and when combined, were well-aligned with the effectiveness for the real-life data. The results suggest that assigning probabilities can be useful for translating the primary measure into the same metric, using these probabilities as additional evidence on the importance of behavioral change, complementing visual analysis and professional's judgments.