What's Up? Together With Each Other We Could Make GSK2118436 Far Better!
e., cognitive maturation). Simon task As summarized in Table ?Table2,2, bilinguals with higher L1/L2 proficiency showed faster RT than those with low L1/L2 proficiency. Analyses on ex-Gaussian parameters that were estimated by RT collapsed across congruent and incongruent trials revealed that the benefit of L1/L2 proficiency in overall RT was due to a reduction in both �� and ��. The Simon effect in RT could be predicted by L2 proficiency (see Figure ?Figure1),1), but not by L1 proficiency. Analyses on ex-Gaussian parameters showed that the benefit of L2 proficiency in the Simon effect was driven by the Simon effect in ��, but not the Simon effect in ��. We obtained similar findings when we fit the regression Megestrol Acetate model for RT, ��, and �� in incongruent trials, after controlling for RT, ��, and �� in congruent trials and other extraneous variables. These analyses yielded significant effects of L2 proficiency for find more RT [beta = ?0.09, t(92) = 1.86, p = 0.035] and �� [beta = ?0.23, t(92) = 3.02, p in congruent and incongruent trials were separately fitted into the regression models, the results were all in the predicted direction and consistent with those reported for overall RT, even though not all of the effects approached significance (e.g., the relationship between L2 proficiency and �� in congruent trials, see Table ?Table22). GSK2118436 Figure 1 Scatterplots for the relationship between dependent measures and bilinguals' L1 or L2 proficiency. (Note: r and R2 are based on Pearson correlation analyses and the model fit of linear regression, respectively. See the main text for a potential complication ... After participants' age was partialled out, the Simon effect in RT and in ��, and RT and �� in incongruent trials were still significantly predicted by L2 proficiency (and L2:L1 ratio), while �� in overall RT was no longer predicted by any L2 proficiency indicator (see Table ?Table4).4). When we fit the regression model for RT, ��, and �� in incongruent trials, after controlling for RT, ��, and �� in congruent trials and other extraneous variables (including participants' age), the results were similar though not all effects remained significant. The analyses yielded significant effects of L2 proficiency for �� [beta = ?0.17, t(92) = 2.27, p = 0.01], but not for RT [beta = ?0.06, t(92) = 1.30, p = 0.10] or �� [beta = 0.06, t(92) = 0.75, p = 0.24], and significant effects of L2:L1 ratio for RT [beta = ?0.08, t(92) = 1.94, p = 0.03] and �� [beta = ?0.21, t(92) = 3.01, p
