Home › Research › Risk factors
Bilingualism and Dementia: Cognitive Reserve to Linguistic Competency
Mario F Mendez. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 2019
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Despite the large number of elderly bilinguals at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia worldwide, significant questions remain about the relationship between speaking more than one language and later cognitive decline. Bilingualism may impact on cognitive and neural reserve, time of onset of dementia symptoms and neuropathology, and linguistic competency in dementia. This review indicates increased cognitive reserve from executive (monitoring, selecting, inhibiting) control of two languages and increased neural reserve involving left frontal and related areas for language control. Many, but not all, studies indicate a delay in dementia symptom onset but worse hippocampal and mesiotemporal atrophy among bilinguals versus monolinguals with AD. In contrast, bilinguals do worse on language measures, and bilinguals with AD or dementia have difficulty maintaining and monitoring their second language. Together, these studies suggest that early-acquired and proficient bilingualism increases reserve through frontal-predominant executive control, and these executive abilities compensate for early dementia symptoms, delaying their onset but not the neuropathology of their disease. Finally, as executive control decreases further with advancing dementia, there is increasing difficulty inhibiting the dominant first language and staying in the second language. These conclusions must be interpreted with caution, given the problems inherent in this type of research; however, they do recommend more work on the pre-dementia neuroprotective effects and the dementia-related language impairments of bilingualism.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Mendez, M. F. (2019). Bilingualism and Dementia: Cognitive Reserve to Linguistic Competency. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190397
Vancouver
Mendez MF. Bilingualism and Dementia: Cognitive Reserve to Linguistic Competency. Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD. 2019. doi:10.3233/jad-190397. PMID: 31381516.
BibTeX
@article{mendez2019-31381516,
author = {Mendez, Mario F},
title = {{Bilingualism and Dementia: Cognitive Reserve to Linguistic Competency}},
journal = {Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD},
year = {2019},
doi = {10.3233/jad-190397},
pmid = {31381516},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3233/jad-190397}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Despite the large number of elderly bilinguals at risk for Alzheimer's disease (AD) and dementia worldwide, significant questions remain about the relationship between speaking more than one language and later cognitive decline.
- Many, but not all, studies indicate a delay in dementia symptom onset but worse hippocampal and mesiotemporal atrophy among bilinguals versus monolinguals with AD.
- Together, these studies suggest that early-acquired and proficient bilingualism increases reserve through frontal-predominant executive control, and these executive abilities compensate for early dementia symptoms, delaying their onset but not the neuropathology of their disease.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 39/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2019 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 31381516) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 22 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 22 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Risk factors
Also tagged “reserve”
208 studies in the library carry the topic tag “reserve”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 208 tagged studies.