Evidence suggests that bilingualism may contribute to neuroplasticity and cognitive reserve, allowing individuals to resist cognitive decline associated with Alzheimer's disease progression, although the idea remains controversial. Here, we argue that the reason for the discrepancy stems from conflating incidence rates of dementia and the age at which the symptoms first appear, as well as statistical and methodological issues in the study designs. To clarify the issues, we conducted a comprehensive metaanalysis on the available literature regarding bilingualism and Alzheimer's disease, including both retrospective and prospective studies, as well as age of onset and incidence rates. Results revealed a moderate effect size for the protective effect of bilingualism on age of onset of symptoms of Alzheimer's disease (Cohen's d = 0.32), and weaker evidence that bilingualism prevents the occurrence of disease incidence itself (Cohen's d = 0.10). Moreover, our results cannot be explained by SES, education, or publication bias. We conclude with a discussion on how bilingualism contributes to cognitive reserve and protects against Alzheimer's disease and recommend that future studies report both age of onset as well as incidence rates when possible.

Building on our earlier analysis of the factorial structure of bilingualism for young adults obtained from the Language and Social Background Questionnaire (LSBQ; Anderson, Mak, Keyvani Chahi & Bialystok, 2018), we analyzed responses from 675 children and 125 older adults to a similar questionnaire. Three factors accounting for 74% of the variance emerged in the analysis of children's responses: Adult Language in the Home, Non-English use for Media, Non-English use with Siblings. There were also three factors that explained the responses of older adults that accounted for 79% of the variance: Non-English Use, Non-English Proficiency, and English Proficiency. Therefore, bilingual experience is captured by different factors at different points in the lifespan. These results are discussed in conjunction with the earlier results from young adults and the implications for understanding bilingualism across the lifespan.

One hundred and sixty-eight young adult participants were classified as monolingual or bilingual and as having a previously reported clinical diagnosis of ADHD or not to create four groups. All participants completed tests of language proficiency, ADHD ratings, and executive control. Both bilingualism and ADHD are generally associated with poorer vocabulary knowledge, but bilingualism and ADHD are associated with opposite effects on executive control. Consistent with this literature, bilinguals performed more poorly than monolinguals on the vocabulary test but contrary to predictions, the ADHD group performed somewhat better on language ability than the non-ADHD group, attesting to their high functioning status. For the flanker task, both bilinguals and non-ADHD participants showed less cost in performing in the conflict condition than in the baseline condition. For the stop-signal task, ADHD status interfered more with performance by bilinguals than monolinguals, suggesting a greater burden of ADHD on executive function for this group.

Early research that relied on standardized assessments of intelligence reported negative effects of bilingualism for children, but a study by Peal and Lambert (1962) reported better performance by bilingual than monolingual children on verbal and nonverbal intelligence tests. This outcome led to the view that bilingualism was a positive experience. However, subsequent research abandoned intelligence tests as the assessment tool and evaluated performance on cognitive tasks, making the research after Peal and Lambert qualitatively different from that before their landmark study, creating a disconnect between the new and earlier research. These newer cognitive studies showed both positive effects of bilingualism and no differences between language groups. But why were Peal and Lambert’s results so different from previous studies that were also based on intelligence tests? The present study analyzed data from verbal and nonverbal intelligence tests that were collected from 6,077 participants across 79 studies in which intelligence tests were administered as background measures to various cognitive tasks. By including adults, the study extends the results across the life span. On standardized verbal tests, monolinguals outperformed bilinguals, but on nonverbal measures of intelligence, there were no differences between language groups. These results, which are different from those reported by Peal and Lambert, are used to reinterpret their findings in terms of the sociolinguistic, political, and cultural context in which the Peal and Lambert study was conducted and the relevance of those factors for all developmental research.

No abstract