↓ Skip to main content

Brain Responses before and after Intensive Second Language Learning: Proficiency Based Changes and First Language Background Effects in Adult Learners

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
66 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Brain Responses before and after Intensive Second Language Learning: Proficiency Based Changes and First Language Background Effects in Adult Learners
Published in
PLOS ONE, December 2012
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0052318
Pubmed ID
Authors

Erin Jacquelyn White, Fred Genesee, Karsten Steinhauer

Abstract

This longitudinal study tracked the neuro-cognitive changes associated with second language (L2) grammar learning in adults in order to investigate how L2 processing is shaped by a learner's first language (L1) background and L2 proficiency. Previous studies using event-related potentials (ERPs) have argued that late L2 learners cannot elicit a P600 in response to L2 grammatical structures that do not exist in the L1 or that are different in the L1 and L2. We tested whether the neuro-cognitive processes underlying this component become available after intensive L2 instruction. Korean- and Chinese late-L2-learners of English were tested at the beginning and end of a 9-week intensive English-L2 course. ERPs were recorded while participants read English sentences containing violations of regular past tense (a grammatical structure that operates differently in Korean and does not exist in Chinese). Whereas no P600 effects were present at the start of instruction, by the end of instruction, significant P600s were observed for both L1 groups. Latency differences in the P600 exhibited by Chinese and Korean speakers may be attributed to differences in L1-L2 reading strategies. Across all participants, larger P600 effects at session 2 were associated with: 1) higher levels of behavioural performance on an online grammaticality judgment task; and 2) with correct, rather than incorrect, behavioural responses. These findings suggest that the neuro-cognitive processes underlying the P600 (e.g., "grammaticalization") are modulated by individual levels of L2 behavioural performance and learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Thailand 2 2%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Malaysia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Puerto Rico 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 105 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 25%
Researcher 17 15%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 7%
Other 24 21%
Unknown 13 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 45 38%
Psychology 24 21%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Neuroscience 8 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 20 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 January 2013.
All research outputs
#6,833,284
of 24,843,842 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#92,348
of 215,151 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,908
of 292,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#1,462
of 4,836 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,843,842 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 215,151 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 292,175 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4,836 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.