Home › Research › Mild cognitive impairment
Multilingualism and ageing: Cognitive and affective trajectories in the Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing
Maurice OR, Jones C, Pliatsikas C, Sheehan A, Harris CB.. Research Square, 2026-10-06
Topic: Brain imaging, connectivity and assessment
This study aimed to address these limitations by examining whether multilingual experience is associated with longitudinal ageing trajectories across objective and subjective measures spanning cognitive, affective, linguistic, and non-linguistic domains. Results Multilingual status was associated with domain-specific differences in longitudinal ageing trajectories. Overall, multilingual status was not associated with a consistent advantage in objective cognitive performance or slower age-related decline. Instead, monolinguals generally demonstrated higher performance on cognitive measures, including the Boston Naming Test. Conclusions Results support a reserve-modulation perspective, whereby multilingual experience may selectively contribute to adaptive regulation and resilience over time, rather than broadly conferring superior cognitive performance in ageing. Although multilingualism was not globally protective against cognitive decline, being multilingual was associated with a range of costs and benefits for cognition and affect over time. Together, these findings highlight the dynamic and asymmetric nature of the effects of multilingualism for social-cognitive resilience in ageing.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Maurice, O. R., Jones, C., Pliatsikas, C., Sheehan, A., & Harris, C. B. (2026). Multilingualism and ageing: Cognitive and affective trajectories in the Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Research Square. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-11186040/v1
Vancouver
Maurice OR, Jones C, Pliatsikas C, Sheehan A, Harris CB. Multilingualism and ageing: Cognitive and affective trajectories in the Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Research Square. 2026. doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-11186040/v1.
BibTeX
@article{maurice2026-99d51892,
author = {Maurice, O. R. and Jones, C. and Pliatsikas, C. and Sheehan, A. and Harris, C. B.},
title = {{Multilingualism and ageing: Cognitive and affective trajectories in the Australian Longitudinal Study of Ageing}},
journal = {Research Square},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.21203/rs.3.rs-11186040/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-11186040/v1}
}
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
- This study aimed to address these limitations by examining whether multilingual experience is associated with longitudinal ageing trajectories across objective and subjective measures spanning cognitive, affective, linguistic, and non-linguistic domains.
- Results Multilingual status was associated with domain-specific differences in longitudinal ageing trajectories.
- Overall, multilingual status was not associated with a consistent advantage in objective cognitive performance or slower age-related decline.
- Instead, monolinguals generally demonstrated higher performance on cognitive measures, including the Boston Naming Test.
- Conclusions Results support a reserve-modulation perspective, whereby multilingual experience may selectively contribute to adaptive regulation and resilience over time, rather than broadly conferring superior cognitive performance in ageing.
Study details
- Study designcross-sectional
- Participants193
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 39 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. Scored zero for effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on 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 and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 24 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 39 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Research Square) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 4 / 12 | A snapshot of people at one point in time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 2 / 4 | 193 participants |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 24 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 24 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 39 out of 100. |
| Total | 39 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 Mild cognitive impairment
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.