!e study of bilingualism presents itself as a complex one. Within various disciplines, such as linguistics, the 
investigation of bilingualism has demonstrated societal bene"ts in academia, the workforce, and cultural relations. 
When identifying advantages in terms of cognitive function, a small body of research has been produced in the "eld 
of neuroscience. !e current study aims to determine whether bilingual participants demonstrate higher cognitive 
functioning by result of their performance on neuropsychological working memory tasks. !irty-two undergraduate 
students from the University of Minnesota-Duluth enrolled in the study. Participants were asked to complete various 
neuropsychological working memory tasks. In conjunction with the tasks, EEG technology was utilized to record 
the live neural activity of participants by use of facial electrodes and a specialized brain cap. Of the 32 participants 
enrolled in the study, 14 presented as bilingual and 18 as monolingual. E#ectively, results indicate di#erences in 
cognitive performance and mental health variables between monolingual and bilingual participants.

Keywords: bilingual, cognitive function, electroencephalogram, neuropsychological

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023104

!e Relationship between Cognitive Function and 
Bilingualism in Young Adults

by Sierra S. Swenson

 Language is the most signi"cant mode of 
communication and expression among human 
beings. With there being over 6,000 distinct 
languages identi"ed by linguists, it is estimated that 
235 million people of the global population are raised 
in bilingual environments (Anderson, 2010; Crystal, 
1997, as cited in Bialystok et al., 2009). Bilingualism 
o#ers several bene"ts in a societal context. Namely, 
an analysis of published research from 2012 to 2019 
illustrates the bene"ts of foreign language skills 
relating to individual and community achievements 
by proposing potential impacts in the development 
of cross-cultural awareness and communicative 
competence (Fox et al., 2019). As for the context 
of bene"ts in cognitive ability, the advantages of 
the bilingual mind have been well documented. 
However, not much research has been conducted 
on the di#erent levels of language pro"ciency of 
acquired bilingualism (Yang, 2017), as these are 
individuals who learn an initial language and then 
an additional language later in life. Previously 
published literature on this topic contributes to 
the advantages of bilingualism; however, whether 
there is a de"nitive di#erence in cognitive function 
remains debated among researchers. 

Distinctions between Bilingualism and 
Monolingualism
 Di#erences between bilingual and monolingual 
individuals are distinct; the number of languages 
they speak determines their classi"cation. While 
monolingualism is easily described as the practice 
of having or using only one language (Khan, 
2011), bilingualism is considered subjective within 
the linguistic research community. No standard 
de"nition of bilingualism has been established, thus 
making it di$cult to directly compare the results of 
di#erent studies (Anderson et al., 2019). According 
to Javan and Ghonsooly (2000), bilingualism can 
be best categorized into two groups: natural, when 
a language is learned from speakers around an 
individual, and acquired when a second language 
is learned within a classroom context with little 
chance to practice outside of the said environment. 
Meanwhile, Hamers & Blanc (2000) contribute to 
the categorization of bilingualism by suggesting 
that it holds dimensionality in its meaning as there 
is no clear nor agreed-upon de"nition. !ey refer to 
bilingualism as the state of a linguistic community in 
which two languages are in contact and can be used 
in the same interaction. Both Javan and Ghonsooly 
(2000) and Hamers and Blanc (2000) allude to the 



!e Relationship between Cognitive Function and Bilingualism in Young Adults

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023105

understanding that bilingualism occurs in the usage 
of a language in societal contexts. Additionally, it 
must be understood that within bilingualism lies the 
concept of bilinguality, the psychological state of an 
individual who has access to more than one linguistic 
code as a means of social communication (Hamers & 
Blanc, 2000). !e authors made a distinction between 
the two by referring to the e#ect of language contact 
on an individual as bilinguality and the e#ect on 
society as a whole as bilingualism (Hamers & Blanc, 
1983; as cited in Hamer & Blanc, 2000). Per the 
previously mentioned de"nitions of bilingualism, 
the current study determined the bilingualism of 
participants using a measure that considers the 
frequency of language use and overall use in social 
contexts. !e overall goal of this measure is to 
determine the bilinguality of participants through 
the e#ects that bilingualism had on their cognitive 
function.
 Regarding bilingualism and monolingualism, 
both possess advantages over the other. For 
instance, the ability to direct one's attention despite 
distractions, results from practices in controlling and 
switching between two activated languages among 
bilinguals, thus strengthening cognitive %exibility 
(Yang, 2017). Meanwhile, "ndings from numerous 
child-language studies indicate that monolingual 
children possess a larger vocabulary learned in a 
single language in comparison to bilingual children, 
who typically possess smaller vocabularies in each 
language (Bialystock, 2009). Additionally, researchers 
suggest linguistic and nonlinguistic processes as 
consequences of bilingualism (Bialystock et al., 2012; 
Kroll et al., 2012). Bialystock and colleagues (2012) 
recognize the consequences of linguistic processes 
as a product of attention problems created by joint 
activation, which is not seen in monolinguals. !e 
attention problems present in bilinguals include 
linguistic dimensions of register, collocation, and 
synonymy of their target language (Bialystock et 
al., 2012). As for consequences in non-linguistic 
processes, Kroll and colleagues (2012) recognize 
the presence of cross-language interactions from 
the parallel activation of the native and secondary 
language. Uncommonly, these interactions are 
observed in the in%uences made by a secondary 
language on a native language (Kroll et al., 2012). 
!e investigation of di#erences between the two 
language groups is of popular interest, speci"cally 

in terms of cognitive ability. Although consequences 
of bilingualism may be present, bilinguals appear to 
gain high levels of skill, associated with executive 
functions recruited during language selection, 
through cross-language competition resolution 
(Kroll et al., 2012).

Understanding Cognitive Function
      When investigating cognitive abilities of mental 
processes, it is important to be speci"c about which 
cognitive abilities are being investigated as there is not 
one single pattern of intellectual functioning (Schaie, 
1994). Cognitive function refers to the performance 
of mental processes including perception, learning, 
memory, understanding, awareness, reasoning, 
judgment, intuition, and language (American 
Psychological Association, 2023). Originally, 
psychometrics addressed how well cognitive 
information processing measures individual 
di#erences through measurements of reaction 
time tasks assessing cognitive ability (Roznowski, 
1993). However, Roznowski and colleagues (2000) 
note that these measurements of human cognitive 
ability have dramatically evolved over decades of 
research on individual di#erences. Advancements in 
psychometrics today consider factors like intellectual 
ability and cognitive attributes such as perception, 
memory, and reasoning (Roznowski et al., 2000). 
Findings from studies assessing cognitive function 
with neuroimaging tools have indicated that 
increases in neural signal complexity are associated 
with greater information processing capacity and 
knowledge representations (Grundy et al., 2017a). 
!is heightened information processing capacity 
could suggest advantages amongst individuals 
who have greater cognitive ability performance. 
Additional studies discussed by Grundy and 
colleagues (2017a) have indicated that bilingualism 
has led to brain reorganization that delays cognitive 
decline in the elderly, including Alzheimer’s disease. 
As mentioned previously, the bilingual mind has 
been well documented in several di#erent areas 
of focus, from social interpersonal interactions to 
di#erences and similarities between language groups 
regarding cognitive abilities. However, research is 
limited on how bilingualism truly a#ects cognitive 
function. 
 !e relationship between levels of neural 
activity and cognitive functioning implores further 



!e Relationship between Cognitive Function and Bilingualism in Young Adults

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023106

investigation into a possible connection with 
bilingualism. Research has shown a greater cognitive 
e$cacy among bilinguals regarding increased brain 
signal complexity, disengagement ability during 
switch tasks, and high working memory capacity 
(Grundy et al., 2017a; Javan & Ghonsooly, 2018; 
Yang, 2017a). In addition, the need to process and 
manage two languages simultaneously requires a 
high function of the brain that holds, manipulates, 
and processes temporary information needed to 
accomplish various tasks at any given moment, 
e#ectively supporting bilingual advantages (Yang, 
2017). Learning and regularly using a second language 
is an intense experience that has the potential to lead 
to a domain-general cognitive adaptation, suggesting 
that the linguistic con%ict could enhance executive 
control (review in Bialystok, 2017; Grundy et al., 
2017c).

Interactions between Bilingualism and Cognitive 
Function
 !e cognitive bene"ts of the bilingualism are 
outstanding regarding various areas of problem-
solving, metacognitive awareness, divergent thinking, 
and attention control (Bialystok et al., 2017; Grundy 
et al., 2017a, b, c; Javan & Ghonsooly, 2018; Yang, 
2017). In a study conducted by Javan & Ghonsooly 
(2018), the constant engagement of the bilingual 
experience was shown through the management of 
two languages and the concentration required to 
communicate e$ciently. !e authors suggest that 
with two simultaneously active language systems 
at their disposal and communicating e$ciently, 
bilingual individuals need to concentrate on the 
target language system and inhibit the interference of 
the non-target one. Similarly, Grundy et al. (2017c) 
found that the ability to manage two languages 
simultaneously produces constant activity to some 
degree by creating a situation in which bilinguals 
must continually manage their attention to the target 
language and avoid interference from the other. 
Results from a separate study further support the 
existence of disengagement between languages, as 
the bilingual participants possessed a greater ability 
to disengage their attention from a previous trial to 
focus their attention on a current trial (Grundy et 
al., 2017b). !eir research has found that bilingual 
individuals generally appear better equipped to 
modulate functional connectivity as compared 

to their monolingual counterparts, speci"cally 
during task-evoked brain activity in brain regions 
involved in error detection, attention, shi&ing, and 
focus (Grundy et al., 2017b). In a culmination of 
the mentioned literature, the collation between 
Javan & Ghonsooly (2018) and Grundy et al. (2017 
b & c) emphasize and de"ne both the experience 
and necessity of disengagement that bilinguals 
demonstrate.

!e Current Study
 !e primary goal of this study is to further 
contribute to the literature in this area of research, 
while simultaneously expanding upon the 
connections between cognitive function and 
bilingualism. As the literature has shown the 
performance of bilingual children and older adults 
in cognitive functioning tasks, this study aims to 
investigate this relationship in young adults. With an 
investigation of the cognitive abilities of monolingual 
and bilingual individuals, the cognitive performance 
of participants during memory tasks was examined 
by factors of speed, accuracy, and electrophysiology. 
!ree hypotheses were tested with the expectation 
that the bilingual participants will demonstrate 
a greater performance of cognitive function as 
compared to the monolingual participants:

1. Di#erences between monolingual and 
bilingual participants will exist in cognitive 
performance.
2. Monolingual and bilingual participants 
will di#er in measures of neurophysiology 
recordings.
3. Monolingual and bilingual participants will 
exhibit a di#erence in mental health variables.

Methods
Participants
 !e participants were 32 (20 male and 12 female) 
undergraduate students from the University of 
Minnesota Duluth (UMD). Of the 32 participants 
in the current sample, 43.8% were classi"ed as 
bilingual. Classi"cation of the experimental 
group was calculated using the Language Social 
Background Questionnaire (Anderson et al., 2019). 
!e demographics of participants were primarily 
Caucasian (78.1%). Other ethnicities represented 
in the study include Hispanic (12.5%) and a 



!e Relationship between Cognitive Function and Bilingualism in Young Adults

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023107

combination of multiple ethnicities (9.4%). !e 
age range of those enrolled in the study was 18-24 
years old. !e sample was composed of 37.5% "rst-
year students, 34.4% second-year students, 15.6% 
third-year students, and 12.5% fourth-year students 
who were all undergraduate students attending the 
University of Minnesota-Duluth. All participants 
were recruited for the experiment via SONA, an 
online research recruitment tool, approved IRB 
%yers on the university's campus, and word of 
mouth. Experimental procedures were conducted 
in ful"llment of an Undergraduate Research 
Opportunity Program (UROP) award and approved 
by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the 
University of Minnesota.

Design and Materials
 Prior to the in-lab session, participants were 
invited to take part in a screening interview to 
determine eligibility for the study. During the 
5–10-minute screening interview, participants 
were asked various demographic questions as well 
as several health-related questions. Eligibility to 
participate in the study were as follows: 18-24 years 
of age, 11-17 years of education, and the pro"cient 
ability to read and speak English,  regardless of 
assigned group. Once screening interviews were 
completed, eligible participants were read the 
consent form to inform them of the study details and 
their rights as a participant. A&er participants were 
Given the chance to read through the consent form 
themselves, those who continued with participation 
signed the document along with the research, 
claiming responsibility. Participants were then 
instructed to complete several questionnaires and 
tasks during the lab session:
      
Language and Social Background Questionnaire 
(LSBQ): !e LSBQ was used to determine which 
group participants would be assigned. !e 
LSBQ assesses the degree of bilingualism of an 
individual through the following three sections: 
Social Background, Language Background, and 
Community Language Use Behavior.

Mental Health Inventory (MHI): !is questionnaire 
measures several domains of mental health including 
anxiety, depression, behavioral control, positive 
a#ect, and general distress. In addition, the MHI 

provides necessary data to determine whether the 
participants are, or are not, sample representatives of 
our target population.

Digit Symbol Substitution Test: !is visual task was 
administered as a measure of cognitive range and 
working memory. !e participants of this study were 
instructed to match symbols to numbers according 
to a key located at the top of their paper. !ey would 
then copy the symbols into spaces below, matching 
them with their coordinating number. 

Trail Making Test A & B: A neuropsychological test 
involving the visual scanning and working memory 
of participants, the TMT requires participants to 
draw a line between 24 consecutive circles that are 
arranged on a page, randomly. !e TMT-A uses only 
numbers, while the TMT-B alternates between both 
numbers and letters. !e performance of participants 
is scored by their speed and accuracy. !is measure 
provides an assessment of complex attention.

Shipley Institute of Living Scale-Revised: !is test 
assesses mental processes through the comparison 
of vocabulary and abstract thinking. !e SILS-V 
consists of 40 questions asking participants to circle 
one word out of four that is most synonymous with 
the target word. !e SILS-A consists of 20 items 
instructing participants to "ll each blank at the end 
of a line with either a letter or number to complete 
the presented pattern.

EEG Visual Oddball Task: !e Visual Oddball Task is 
a computer task that presents sequences of repetitive 
stimuli infrequently interrupted by a deviant 
stimulus. !is task was used to measure speed and 
accuracy among participants.

 Participants’ neurophysiological responses 
were recorded with EEG technology. !e data was 
recorded using a 32-channel ActiCHamp System 
(ActiCHamp Brain Products). Ag/AgCl electrodes 
were placed over prefrontal, frontal, temporal, 
central, occipital, and parietal sites (10/20 montage). 
Brain signals were recorded via BrainVision 
ActiChamp Recorder system so&ware in response 
to task stimuli elicited by E-Prime so&ware. !e 
ground electrode (Fpz) was placed at 10% of nasion 
to inion measurement. Eye blinks were also recorded 



!e Relationship between Cognitive Function and Bilingualism in Young Adults

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023108

by Ag/AgCl electrodes placed above and below the 
right eye (eye blink detection) and near the outer 
canthi of both eyes for horizontal eye movement 
(AntiCHamp, Brain Products, Inc.). Signals were 
processed o'ine using Brain Vision Analyzer 
so&ware. !e EEG recording and its setup took 
less than 30 minutes to complete. Participants were 
talked through the setup process and allowed to ask 
questions if they had them. In the hundreds of EEG 
recordings completed using the ActiCHamp system, 
participants tolerated the EEG setup and subsequent 
EEG recordings well. Importantly, participants 
viewed the Oddball paradigm (E-Prime so&ware) 
on a separate computer screen. Participants did not 
view the EEG recording during the experimental 
session.

Procedure
 !is study utilized Electroencephalogram 
technology to assess the complexity of brain signals 
between monolingual and bilingual participants to 
investigate their cognitive function during memory 
tasks to determine whether there was a signi"cant 
di#erence between the two groups. Before the 
screening visit, participants were instructed to contact 
the laboratory researchers via email. Participants 
consented via a verbal script at the beginning of 
the screening visit. At the end of the verbal script, 
participants indicated voluntary participation or 
indicated they are no longer interested. Screening 
questions were administered online via Qualtrics, 
and the Student Investigator read screening 
questions aloud. Participants typed their responses 
(not visible to the Student Investigator). Screening 
interviews (~15 minutes) were reviewed by the PI 
to determine participant eligibility for the study. 
Eligible participants were invited to participate in 
the laboratory session. A&er consent, they then 
were asked to complete a demographic survey, the 
Language and Social Background Questionnaire, 
and the Mental Health Inventory. Once completed, 
participants moved on to the working memory tasks 
in which brain activity was recorded via an EEG. !e 
working memory tasks included the Digit Span Test, 
Trail Making Test, Shipley Institute of Living Scale-
Revised (Shipley-2), and the Visual Oddball Task. 
A&er, the participants were provided a resource sheet 
and the session ended. Laboratory duration (~60-80 
minutes). Consistent with laboratory protocol, all 

surfaces (e.g. table, keyboard, door handles, etc.) were 
cleaned before and a&er all participant interactions 
by Student Investigator. Disinfecting Clorox wipes, 
or disinfectant Lysol spray were used, according to 
the label instructions. A HEPA air-"ltering unit was 
also used in the laboratory space.

Results
Demographics
 Of the 32 participants used in the sample, 37.5% 
were female and 62.5% were male. !e age range of 
participants was between 18-24, with the average 
age of 19.47 years (SD = 1.565, range = 18-24). Of 
this sample, 37.5% were "rst-year students, 34.4% 
were second-year students, 15.6% were third-year 
students, and 12.5% were fourth-year students.

Hypothesis 1
 !e hypothesis that di#erences between 
Monolingual and Bilingual participants will exist 
on cognitive performance, was assessed using a 
Pearson r Correlation statistical analysis. As shown 
in Figure I, "ndings indicate a greater beta spectral 
power in correlation with quicker reaction time, r = 
-.485, p < .01. In addition, an Independent Samples 
t-test was utilized to compare the performance of 
each group's cognitive measures. Findings suggest 
a non-signi"cant di#erence in the performance of 
Monolingual participants in the TMT-B Accuracy 
measure, p = 0.56.

Figure I. Accuracy of TMT-B in control (monolingual) 
and experimental (bilingual) participants. Fewer 
errors made by participants equated with greater 
accuracy. Group di#erences were not signi"cant, p 
= .56.



!e Relationship between Cognitive Function and Bilingualism in Young Adults

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023109

Hypothesis 2
 !e hypothesis that monolingual and 
bilingual participants will di#er on measures on 
neurophysiology recordings, using an Independent 
Samples t-test, exhibited non-signi"cant "ndings 
during baseline and tasks, p = .216.

Hypothesis 3
 !e hypothesis that monolingual and bilingual 
participants will exhibit a di#erence in mental 
health variables, using an Independent Samples 
t-test, resulted in counterintuitive "ndings. !e 
bilingual participants demonstrated marginally 
higher anxiety scores (M = 14.00, SD = 2.69) as 
compared to monolingual participants (M = 11.22, 
SD = 4.78), t(30) = -1.947, p = .061. Looking at 
factors contributing to anxiety levels, a Chi-square 
statistical analysis was used to analyze sex di#erences, 
and no signi"cance was found. !e percentage of 
participants with greater anxiety scores did not di#er 
by gender, X2(30, N = 32) = .034, p = .854.

Figure II. Self-reported anxiety in control 
(monolingual) and experimental (bilingual) 
participants. Experimental participants had greater 
self-reported anxiety as compared to controls, p = 
.061.

Discussion
Findings
 !e functions and in%uences of the mind have 
been greatly explored, however still, little is known 
regarding its cognitive relationship with language. 
In this study, the prospect of higher cognitive 
functioning as a result of bilingualism was explored. 
With the use of several neuropsychological tasks 
and EEG recordings of brain activity, connections 
between cognitive function and Bilingualism were 
tested. 

 Concerning the "rst hypothesis, "ndings suggest 
a correlation between greater beta spectral power 
and quicker reaction time. Comparisons in task 
performance were statistically tested, and contrary 
to expectations, performance of monolingual 
participants were marginally higher than those of 
bilingual participants in terms of task accuracy with 
the TMT-B, p=0.56. 
 While looking at spectral power di#erences in 
the second hypothesis, a change in beta and alpha 
power during baseline recording was expected. 
Although, "ndings suggest no signi"cant change 
will occur in beta and alpha from the baseline 
recording to tasks between bilingual participants 
versus controls. Statistical analysis showed a greater 
beta spectral power was negatively related to the 
TMT-B speed assessment. E#ectively, the existence 
of covariation of spectral power was demonstrated, 
further suggesting that beta is linked to greater 
attention (Gola et al., 2013). 
 Earlier citations reference the di$culty of 
divided attention tasks for bilingual individuals 
(Bialystock et al., 2012). A possible explanation for 
this could be the result of the anxiety experienced 
by bilingual participants in the current study. !e 
e#ects bilingualism has on anxiety was found to be 
counterintuitive with bilinguals exhibiting higher 
levels of anxiety as compared to monolinguals. 
Several theories could explain this "nding: 
age, race/ethnicity, and bilingual type. More 
speci"cally concerning bilingual type, the constant 
disengagement between the participants’ native and 
target language may be responsible for this in%uence; 
further research is needed in support of this theory. 

Conclusion
 As research has shown bilingualism to promote 
problem-solving, metacognitive awareness, divergent 
thinking, and attention control, results from the 
current study question the notion of bilingualism 
supporting cognitive function. Findings exhibited 
a correlational between cognitive function and 
language groups through cognitive performance on 
neuropsychological tasks and neurophysiological 
recordings of brain activity. Although more research 
is necessary, our "ndings contribute to the limited 
existing literature in hopes of further understanding 
the bilingual experience.



!e Relationship between Cognitive Function and Bilingualism in Young Adults

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023

References
American Psychological Association. (2023). 

Cognitive functioning. In APA dictionary of 
psychology. https://dictionary.apa.org/cognitive-
functioning. 

Anderson, J. A., Mak, L., Keyvani Chahi, A., & 
Bialystok, E. (2019). !e language and social 
background questionnaire: Assessing degree of 
bilingualism in a diverse population. Behavior 
Research Methods, 50(1), abstract. https://doi.
org/10.3758/s13428-017-0867-9

Anderson, S. (2010). How many languages are 
there in the world? [Brochure]. https://www.
linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/how-
many-languages.pdf 

Biggins, C. A., MacKay, S., Clark, W., & Fein, G. 
(1997). Event-related potential evidence 
for frontal cortex e#ects of chronic cocaine 
dependence. Biological Psychiatry, 42(6), 472-485. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0006-3223(96)00425-8

Bialystok, E., Craik, F., Green, D., & Gollan, T. (2009). 
Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the 
Public Interest, 10(3), 89-129.

Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: 
Consequences for mind and brain. Trends in 
Cognitive Sciences, 16(4), 240-250.

Cambridge Cognition. (n.d.). Digit span (DGS).  
Retrieved February 19, 2022, from https://www.
cambridgecognition.com/cantab/cognitive-
tests/memory/digit-span-dgs/

Fox, R., Corretjer, O., & Webb, K. (2019) Bene"ts of 
foreign language learning and bilingualism: An 
analysis of published empirical research 2012-
2019. Foreign Language Annals, 52(4), 699-726. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/%an.12424 

Gola, M., Magnuski, M., Szumska, I., & Wróbel, A. 
(2013). EEG beta band activity is related to 
attention and attentional de"cits in the visual 
performance of elderly subjects. International 
Journal of Psychophysiology, 89(3), 334-341.

Grundy, J. G., Anderson, J. A. E., & Bialystok, E. 
(2017a). Bilinguals have more complex EEG brain 
signals in occipital regions than monolinguals. 
NeuroImage, 159, 280–288. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.07.063

Grundy, J. G., Anderson, J. A. E., & Bialystok, E. 
(2017b). Neural correlates of cognitive processing 
in monolinguals and bilinguals. Annals of the 
New York Academy of Sciences, 1396(1), 183-201. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13333

Grundy, J., Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Friesen, D., Mak, L., 
& Bialystok, E. (2017c). Sequential congruency 
e#ects reveal di#erences in disengagement of 
attention for monolingual and bilingual young 
adults. Cognition, 163, 42-55.

Hamers, J., & Blanc, M. (2000). Bilinguality and 
bilingualism (Second ed.). Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/cbo9780511605796 

iWorx Physiology Lab Experiment: !e 
Electroencephalogram (EEG). Retrieved on 
February 16, 2022, from https://www.iworx.com/
documents/LabExercises/EEG-CorticalArousal.
pdf

Javan, S., & Ghonsooly, B. (2018). Learning a foreign 
language: A new path to enhancement of 
cognitive functions. Journal of Psycholinguistic 
Research, 47(1), 125-138.

Khan, F. (2011). Being monolingual, bilingual or 
multilingual: pros and cons in patients with 
dementia. International Psychiatry: Bulletin of 
the Board of International A"airs of the Royal 
College of Psychiatrists, 8(4), 96-98.

Kroll, J., Dussias, P., Bogulski, C., & Kro#, J. (2012). 
Chapter Seven - Juggling two languages in one 
mind: What bilinguals tell us about language 
processing and its consequences for cognition. 
!e Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 56, 
229-262.

NeuRA. (2019). Trail Making Test. NeuRA. Retrieved 
February 15, 2022, from https://www.neura.edu.
au/apps/trail-making-test/#:~:text=Trails%20
Making%20Test%20(Trai ls)%20is ,as%20
well%20as%20executive%20functioning

110



!e Relationship between Cognitive Function and Bilingualism in Young Adults

Aisthesis      Volume 14,  2023

Roznowski, M. (1993). Measure of cognitive 
processes: !eir stability and other psychometric 
and measurement properties, Intelligence, 17(3), 
361-388.

Roznowski, M., Dickter, D., Hong, S., Sawin, L., & 
Shute, V. (2000). Validity of measures of cognitive 
processes and general ability for learning and 
performance on highly complex computerized 
tutors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 940-
955.

Russell, E. W. (1975). A multiple scoring method for the 
assessment of complex memory functions. 
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 
800-809

Sawaki, R. & Katayama, J. (2007). Di$culty of 
discrimination modulates attentional capture 
for deviant information. Psychophysiology, 
44, 374-382. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-
8986.2007.00506.x

Schaie, K.W. (1994). !e course of adult intellectual 
development. American Psychologist, 49(4), 304-
313. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.49.4.304

Sherman, A., Dickson, J., Gross, D., Hutchins, E., 
Talbot, K., !orsheim, H. (2002). 5. In Principles 
of Psychology: Experimental Foundations 
Laboratory (pp. 60-73). Manual. Retrieved on 
February 16, 2022, from https://teachpsych.org/
page-1604692&sa=D&source=docs&ust=16452
15312555838&usg=AOvVaw0j&O0QYD16YcL9
0xqYY1i 

University of California San Francisco Health. 
(2020, October 6). Visual acuity. Retrieved 
February 17, 2022, from https://www.
ucsfhealth.org/medical-tests/visual-acuity-
test#:~:text=The%20visual%20acuity%20
test%20is,monitors%20showing%20letters%20
or%20images

Yang, E. (2017). Bilinguals’ working memory (WM) 
advantage and their dual language practices. 
Brain Science, 7(12), 86. https://doi.org/10.3390/
brainsci7070086

              

111