Morphological and phonological processing in English monolingual, Chinese-English bilingual, and Spanish-English bilingual children: An fNIRS neuroimaging dataset

Sun, Xin; Zhang, Kehui; Marks, Rebecca A.; Karas, Zachary; Eggleston, Rachel L.; Nickerson, Nia; Yu, Chi‐Lin; Wagley, Neelima; Hu, Xiao‐Su; Caruso, Valeria C.; Chou, Tai‐Li; Satterfield, Teresa; Tardif, Twila; Kovelman, Ioulia

doi:10.1016/j.dib.2022.108048

Cited by 8 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During the testing sessions, participants completed a battery of behavioral language and literacy assessments in English for monolinguals and in English and Chinese for bilinguals (see below). The full description of each task and a complete list of stimuli can be assessed from previous publications (Sun, Marks, et al, 2022; Sun, Zhang, Marks, Karas, et al, 2022). In Chinese, we used mostly experimental language assessments that were designed to match the English tasks, except for the Chinese receptive vocabulary.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In contrast, morphological skills appear to be more language‐specific than PA skills due to the lexical and grammatical characteristics of individual languages (Chung et al, 2019). Behavioral evidence that supports these theoretical assumptions shows stronger associations (or correlations) between bilingual children's phonological than MA skills, especially in children learning structurally distinct languages such as English and Chinese (Sun, Zhang, Marks, Karas, et al, 2022). From the neurological perspective, skills that are more practiced and automated, tend to incur less activation, especially in the frontal lobe, than the skills that are more effort demanding.…”

Section: Cross‐linguistic Differences In Theoretical Models Of Word P...mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Phonological and morphological literacy skills in English and Chinese: A cross‐linguistic neuroimaging comparison of Chinese–English bilingual and monolingual English children

Zhang

Sun

et al. 2023

Human Brain Mapping

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the course of literacy development, children learn to recognize word sounds and meanings in print. Yet, they do so differently across alphabetic and character‐based orthographies such as English and Chinese. To uncover cross‐linguistic influences on children's literacy, we asked young Chinese–English simultaneous bilinguals and English monolinguals (N = 119, ages 5–10) to complete phonological and morphological awareness (MA) literacy tasks. Children completed the tasks in the auditory modality in each of their languages during functional near‐infrared spectroscopy neuroimaging. Cross‐linguistically, comparisons between bilinguals' two languages revealed that the task that was more central to reading in a given orthography, such as phonological awareness (PA) in English and MA in Chinese, elicited less activation in the left inferior frontal and parietal regions. Group comparisons between bilinguals and monolinguals in English, their shared language of academic instruction, revealed that the left inferior frontal was less active during phonology but more active during morphology in bilinguals relative to monolinguals. MA skills are generally considered to have greater language specificity than PA skills. Bilingual literacy training in a skill that is maximally similar across languages, such as PA, may therefore yield greater automaticity for this skill, as reflected in the lower activation in bilinguals relative to monolinguals. This interpretation is supported by negative correlations between proficiency and brain activation. Together, these findings suggest that both the structural characteristics and literacy experiences with a given language can exert specific influences on bilingual and monolingual children's emerging brain networks for learning to read.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cross‐linguistic Differences In Theoretical Models Of Word P...mentioning

confidence: 96%

Phonological and morphological literacy skills in English and Chinese: A cross‐linguistic neuroimaging comparison of Chinese–English bilingual and monolingual English children

Zhang

Sun

et al. 2023

Human Brain Mapping

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All bilingual participants were exposed to Chinese or Spanish at home from birth by at least one parent who was a native speaker of the language. Bilingual parents also completed an hour-by-hour language usage survey in which they reported children’s language input and output throughout a typical week (Sun et al, 2022b ). The survey showed that Spanish–English bilingual children on average used Spanish for 40% ( SD = 11%) time of a typical week and the proportion of Chinese usage for Chinese–English bilingual children was 47% ( SD = 11%).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of the COVID-19 disruption on the language and literacy development of monolingual and heritage bilingual children in the United States

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children who speak one language at home and a different language at school may be at higher risk of falling behind in their academic achievement when schooling is disrupted. The present study examined the effects of COVID-19-related school disruptions on English language and literacy development among monolingual and bilingual children in the US. All children attended English-only schools that implemented varied forms of virtual and hybrid schooling during the pandemic. Pre-COVID-19 and during-COVID-19 examinations were conducted with 237 children ( M ( SD ) age = 7.78 (1.54) at Time 1) from relatively high SES homes, including 95 monolinguals, 75 Spanish–English and 67 Chinese–English bilinguals. The findings revealed different impacts of COVID-19 school disruptions on the present bilingual and monolingual participants. Specifically, between Time 1 and Time 2, monolingual children made age-appropriate improvements in all literacy measurements. Relative to monolinguals, both bilingual groups showed greater gains in vocabulary but lower gains in reading comprehension. Moreover, across groups, children’s independent reading practices during COVID-19 were positively associated with children’s literacy growth during the pandemic-related schooling disruptions. Taken together, these findings inform theoretical perspectives on learning to read in linguistically diverse children experiencing COVID-19-related schooling disruptions. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11145-022-10388-x.

show abstract

“…• A few studies mention personalized approaches to inclusive fNIRS setup, especially cap interfacing and design, a critical element to achieve quality optical contact. Sun et al mounts light sources and detectors on a custom silicone cap to maintain contact (See supplemental figure 2) (27). The same group at the University of Michigan uses crochet hooks with LED lights to gently move hair during the optimization process before inserting optodes.…”

Section: Engineering Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demographic Reporting and Phenotypic Exclusion in fNIRS

Kwasa

Peterson

Richardson

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) promises to be a leading non-invasive neuroimaging method due to its portability and low cost. However, concerns are rising over its inclusivity of all skin tones and hair types (Parker and Ricard 2022, Webb et al 2022). Functional NIRS relies on direct contact of light-emitting optodes to the scalp, which can be blocked more by longer, darker, and especially curlier hair. Additionally, NIR light can be attenuated by melanin, which is accounted for in neither fNIRS hardware nor analysis methods. Recent work has shown that overlooking these considerations in other modalities like EEG leads to the disproportionate exclusion of individuals with these phenotypes - especially Black people - in both clinical and research literature (Bradford et al 2022, Choy 2020). In this article, we sought to determine if (1) biomedical optics developers and researchers report fNIRS performance variability between skin tones and hair textures, (2a) fNIRS neuroscience practitioners report phenotypic and demographic details in their articles, and thus, (2b) is a similar pattern of participant exclusion found in EEG also present in the fNIRS literature. We present a literature review of top Biomedical Optics and Human Neuroscience journals, showing that demographic and phenotypic reporting is unpopular in both fNIRS development and neuroscience applications. We conclude with a list of recommendations to the fNIRS community including examples of Black researchers addressing these issues head-on, inclusive best practices for fNIRS researchers, and recommendations to funding and regulatory bodies to achieve an inclusive neuroscience enterprise in fNIRS and beyond.

show abstract

Morphological and phonological processing in English monolingual, Chinese-English bilingual, and Spanish-English bilingual children: An fNIRS neuroimaging dataset

Cited by 8 publications

References 7 publications

Phonological and morphological literacy skills in English and Chinese: A cross‐linguistic neuroimaging comparison of Chinese–English bilingual and monolingual English children

Phonological and morphological literacy skills in English and Chinese: A cross‐linguistic neuroimaging comparison of Chinese–English bilingual and monolingual English children

Impacts of the COVID-19 disruption on the language and literacy development of monolingual and heritage bilingual children in the United States

Demographic Reporting and Phenotypic Exclusion in fNIRS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About