Home › Research › Risk factors
Bilingualism: Pathway to Cognitive Reserve
Ellen Bialystok. Trends in cognitive sciences, 2021-03-23
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
Cognitive reserve is characterized by a dissociation between cognitive level and brain structure, thereby reducing the impact of deteriorating brain structure on cognitive function. Cognitive reserve is therefore a promising approach to maintaining cognitive function and protecting against symptoms of dementia. The present paper evaluates evidence supporting the claim that bilingualism contributes to cognitive reserve. Four types of evidence are presented: (i) brain and cognitive function in healthy aging, (ii) age of onset of symptoms of dementia, (iii) relation between clinical level and neuropathology for patients, and (iv) rate of cognitive decline in later stages of dementia. In all cases, bilinguals revealed patterns that were consistent with the interpretation of protection from cognitive reserve when compared with monolinguals.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Bialystok, E. (2021). Bilingualism: Pathway to Cognitive Reserve. Trends in cognitive sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.003
Vancouver
Bialystok E. Bilingualism: Pathway to Cognitive Reserve. Trends in cognitive sciences. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.003. PMID: 33771449.
BibTeX
@article{bialystok2021-33771449,
author = {Bialystok, Ellen},
title = {{Bilingualism: Pathway to Cognitive Reserve}},
journal = {Trends in cognitive sciences},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.003},
pmid = {33771449},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2021.02.003}
}
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
- In all cases, bilinguals revealed patterns that were consistent with the interpretation of protection from cognitive reserve when compared with monolinguals.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Risk factors, ranked →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
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 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Trends in cognitive sciences) |
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 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 33771449) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.