Poster project

Sheet1

	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Format-	0	3	6	9	12	15
Clear/to-the-point	🙁	Way too many words… paragraphs don't belong on posters, no room for figures, writing had to be small and difficult to see, very difficult to follow. Clear they don't understand the main point of the article.	Pretty wordy, leaving very little space for figures, but still easy(ish) to follow.	Could have gotten the point across with less words, but still okay/not too overbearing.	A little wordy in parts with tmi, but still pretty concise in most parts.	CLEAR/TO-THE-POINT!!! The student clearly understood the main points of the article and was able to effectively simplify it for a poster.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Format-	0	4	8	12	16	20
Follows instructions	🙁	Format is hard to follow, looks sloppy, and was clearly thrown together in a second without using proper formatting.	Kind of sloppy/thrown together and parts of formatting didn't follow directions (wasn't 48"x36", title/authors/affiliations were incorrect, etc.).	Decently organized and relatively easy to follow, but the formatting didn't follow directions for the most part (wasn't 48"x36", title/authors/affiliations were incorrect, etc.).	Only ONE of the following is true: format was slightly off, kind of difficult to follow a few times, not super organized, could be slightly easier to look at.	Perfect formatting, all sections are present (though not necessarily sectioned), easy to follow, organized logically, looks nice, effort was clearly made.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Format-	0	2	4	6	8	10
References	No reference section.	Included reference for current paper, but no other citations.	Missing the reference for the current paper, but others are listed in-text and in reference section.	All references are listed (including the current paper), but missing in-text citations.	All references are listed (including the current paper), but not in the proper format.	All references are listed, in-text citations are included in the intro, and references are in AMA format (in-text citations are superscript numbers, references are in order of appearance on poster, and the citation is similar to APA format).
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Intro-	0	4	8	12	16	20
Background/gap	Both the background and gap in literature were missing.	Attempted to write a section with background/gap, but it didn't make sense and they clearly didn't understand the point of the study.	Either the background info or the gap in the literature was missing.	The background info/gap were both present, but it was kind of unclear/confusing to the poster viewer.	Background info/gap is present, but they included WAY too much unnecessary information.	Both the background and gap in the knowledge were present, easy to understand, and to-the-point.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Intro-	0	3	6	9	12	15
Research question	Absent.	The research question and/or hypotheses were very unclear and made a substantial jump from the background info/gap (showing that they really didn't understand the logical reason for the study).	The research question and/or hypotheses were present, but made a substantial jump from the background info/gap (showing that they really didn't understand the logical reason for the study).	The research question and/or hypotheses were present, but kind of confusing to the poster viewer.	The research question and/or hypotheses were present and clear, but didn't really match the background info/gap (showing that they didn't fully understand the logical reason for the study).	Research question and/or hypotheses were present, clear, and were a logical next step to the background/gap in knowledge.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Method-	0	3	6	9	12	15
Task	Task was never explained.	Clearly didn't understand the task.	Didn't explain the task/participants/etc. well and clearly didn't fully understand the methods of the study.	Didn't explain the task/participants/etc. well, leaving the viewer confused.	Clearly understood the task, but maybe left out important information about the participants/etc.	Clearly understood and relayed the study's tasks, participants, etc. and conveyed that to the poster viewer very well.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Method-	0	3	6	9	12	15
Figure(s)	No task figures.	Figures aren't clear/easy to understand and the location doesn't match the flow of poster. Maybe missing legends, titles, pieces, etc.. Clear that they just screenshotted and pasted them on the poster without actually looking at them.	Figures aren't clear/easy to understand. Maybe missing legends, titles, pieces, etc.	Present, but kind of unclear and doesn't logically match the flow of the poster.	Present, but kind of unclear/confusing to the poster viewer.	Nice, clear figures present in a logical location on the poster.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Results-	0	2	4	6	8	10
Statistics	No statistics present	WAY too many unimportant stats were listed. Usually something like a participant demographics chart that isn't needed to tell the story. It's very clear they didn't understand the necessary stats to tell the story.	Too many unimportant stats are listed for a poster and it's clear that they don't really understand the stats they listed.	Only important stats are present, but are in a weird position/don't match the flow of the poster. "Which stats are these??"	Stats are present in a logical spot, but were way more than necessary for the study's story.	Only the important stats are listed, very simply. No words need to accompany the stats. They can just be listed on or near the graph that represents them.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Results-	0	2	4	6	8	10
Graph(s)	No graphs are present.	Figures aren't clear/easy to understand and the location doesn't match the flow of poster. Maybe missing legends, titles, axes, pieces, etc.. Clear that they just screenshotted and pasted them without actually looking at them.	Figures aren't clear/easy to understand. Maybe missing legends, titles, axes, pieces, etc..	Present, but kind of unclear and doesn't logically match the flow of the poster.	Present, but kind of unclear or doesn't logically match the flow of the poster.	Nice, clear graphs present in a logical location.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Conclusion-	0	4	8	12	16	20
Explain results	Absent.	Attempted, but made no sense. Clear they don't understand what the results actually mean or how they relate to research question.	Attempted, but was more of a results-in-words section (simply reiterating significant findings, etc.). Clear they don't fully understand what the results actually mean or how they relate to research question.	Conclusion is present, but kind of confusing.	Conclusion is present and made sense, but they included WAY too much unnecessary info for a poster.	Conclusion is present, clear, to-the-point, and shows that they understand what the results mean and why it is important for the literature/gap/research question.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Conclusion-	0	2	4	6	8	10
Limitations	Absent.	Attempt was made, but also not really. Clear they don't know what a limitation is.	Attempt was made, but it didn't make any sense.	Attempt was made, but it wasn't really an actual limitation.	Limitations are present, but are confusing.	Limitations are clear, to-the-point, and make logical sense.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Conclusion-	0	2	4	6	8	10
Future directions	Absent.	Attempt was made, but it didn't make any sense.	Attempt was made, but it didn't make much sense.	Attempt was made, but it wasn't isn't something that would be a logical follow-up to the study.	Future directions are present, but are confusing.	Future directions are clear, to-the-point, and make logical sense.
	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:	Points:
Presentation	0	16	32	48	64	80
	No recorded presentation	Spectrum	Spectrum	Presentation uploaded incorrectly (i.e., was a powerpoint instead of a video), but otherwise perfect	Spectrum	Presentation was clear, concise, highlighted the main points effectively, was around 5 minutes long (or shorter, as long as the info was sufficient)

Age of Acquisition and

English Proficiency are related

to right thalamus and left

nucleus accumbens volumes

Subcortical Volume is Related to Early Learning of a Second Language Yinan Xu; My V.H. Nguyen; Arturo E. Hernandez

Introduction ❖Situational communicative environment → select the appropriate language →

structural adaptations of subcortical brain regions that are key for language control ❖Dynamic Restructuring Model: structural changes vary depending on the amount of

second language practice and exposure. ❖ROI: ❖Basal Ganglia (caudate, putamen, nucleus accumbens) ❖Thalamus ❖Cerebellum

Method ❖8 combined MRI data (215 bilingual + 145 monolingual) ❖A series of analyses were run between volume and SES, AoA, language proficiency for

all sample, monolingual, and bilingual.

Results ❖Monolingual: no English proficiency (L1) effect ❖BILINGUAL ❖No Spanish proficiency (L1) effect ❖English AoA ~ English proficiency* (r = -.43; p < .001) ❖Volume ~ English proficiency * (right thalamus, p = .004; left accumbens, p = .004) ❖Volume ~ English AoA * (right thalamus, p = .02; left accumbens, p = .014) ❖ALL SAMPLE ❖Volume ~ English proficiency* + SES* ❖English proficiency significant (right thalamus, p = .04; left accumbens, p = .04) ❖SES significant (left thalamus, p = .02; right thalamus, p = .02)

Discussion ❖L1 proficiency is unrelated to subcortical volume in both groups ❖Bilingual: Early L2 AoA and greater proficiency are related to greater volume at the

right thalamus and left nucleus accumbens. ❖ Increase in nucleus accumbens volume → dopamine production → cognitive flexibility

English proficiency

English Age of Acquisition

Yinan Xu, Jose M. Ceballos, and Chantel S. Prat Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Institute for Learning and Brain Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Method

References

● Participant: ○ LEAP-Q: Language Balanced Group (LangBalGroup)

31 Imb-NE, 39 Bal, and 18 Imb-E ● Linear Mixed Effect Model:

RT ~ (Condition * LangBalGroup) / EnglishProficiencyScore + (1 | Subject)

Future Research

○ 2 way interaction between Condition and Language Balance Group (p= .0006*** )

○ 3 way interaction between Condition, Language Balance Group, and EnglishProficiencyScore (p= .0055** )

○ Biased-Subordinate condition: Imb-E slowed down by 21.911 ms from control condition (p= .0017 **)

○ Biased-Subordinate condition: Bal slowed down by 8.399 ms from control condition (p= .066 ·)

A more balanced language use may train the basal ganglia, by frequently switching and inhibiting still-active signals, thus facilitate human language processing, in this case semantic

ambiguity resolution.

Hypothesis

■ 103 bilingual Subjects (age 18-45) from UW research pool;

■ 4 pseudo-randomized orders 1) LEAP-Q

• Current English Use =(Listening%+Reading%)/2 • Imbalanced English dominant (Imb-E):

66%~100%; Balanced(Bal): 33%~66%; Imbalanced Non-English dominant (Imb-NE): 0%~33%

3) ART • Control for reading competence

Sensitivity to

Semantic Ambiguity

Task (SSA)

Language Experience & Proficiency

Questionnaire (LEAP-Q)

Author Recognition

Test (ART)

Results Conclusion

Fig.1 Response time for Dominant, Balanced, and Subordinate conditions across all 3 language groups.

Fig.2 Response time for Dominant, Balanced, and Subordinate conditions across only Balanced and Imbalanced language

groups.

Introduction

Bilingualism

Inhibitory Control

view

Reinforcement learning

/ Database

view

Basal Ganglia

(BG)

Balanced code-

switching

Imbalanced English-

Dominant Use

•

Semantic Ambiguity

Resolution (SAR): “Co-activation” (Duffy

et al., 1988)

e.g., “Co-activation”

• Caudate activation in SAR (Bergman, et al., 1998).

• Role in Bilingual language output

• (Aglioti, et al., 1993; 1996).

Aglioti, S., & Fabbro, F. (1993). Paradoxical selective recovery in a bilingual aphasic following subcortical lesions. Neuroreport: An International Journal for the Rapid Communication of Research in Neuroscience.

Bergman, H., Feingold, A., Nini, A., Raz, A., Slovin, H., Abeles, M., & Vaadia, E. (1998). Physiological aspects of information processing in the basal ganglia of normal and parkinsonian primates. Trends Neurosc, 21, 32–38.

Duffy, S. A., Morris, R. K., & Rayner, K. (1988). Lexical ambiguity and fixation times in reading. Journal of Memory & Language, 27, 429–446.

Hervais-Adelman, A. G., Moser-Mercer, B., & Golestani, N. (2011). Executive control of language in the bilingual brain: integrating the evidence from neuroimaging to neuropsychology. Frontiers in psychology, 2, 234.

Stocco, A., Yamasaki, B., Natalenko, R., & Prat, C. S. (2012). Bilingual brain training: A neurobiological framework of how bilingual experience improves executive function. International Journal of Bilingualism, 0(0), 1–26.

• Frequent use of language translates into Individual differences in executive functioning, which leads balanced bilinguals to show similar ambiguity effect across words of varying frequencies

v Late Integration: SAR processes or lexical activation are held in Balanced bilinguals, until much later in the comprehension process:

more dynamic in changing inputs

• Results observed among balanced bilinguals suggest a favor towards the control view of the BG functioning in SAR

• Importantly, differences in ambiguity resolution ≠ advantage or drawback, but only a reflection on the variety of the executive control of language in the multilingual brain.

Other aspects of bilingualism, such as the age of acquisition and language distance, might shed further light on how bilingual experiences relate to BG functioning, which then results in IDs in executive functioning.

(Fig. 1) ➢ Slow down in Bal &

Imb-NE during biased-Dom condition.

➢ Small RT in balanced condition observed in Balanced bilinguals.

(Fig. 2) ➢ Same trend for

Imbalanced bilinguals. ➢ Similar ambiguity

effect for Balanced bilinguals, irrespective of frequency of occurrence.

Biased-Dom More frequent meaning Money bank

Biased-Sub Less frequent meaning River bank

Bal Balanced meaning Bat Control No ambiguous words

2) SSA Condition Acronyms & Examples:

: Respond Time (RT) : Evaluate successfulness in ambiguity resolution