Bilingualism has been associated with successful aging. In particular, research on the cognitive advantages of bilingualism suggests that it can enhance control over interference and help delay the onset of dementia signs. However, the evidence on the so-called cognitive advantage is not unanimous; furthermore, little is known about the neural basis of this supposed cognitive advantage in bilingual as opposed to monolingual elderly populations. In this study, elderly bilingual and monolingual participants performed a visuospatial interference control task during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanning. Response times and accuracy rates were calculated for congruent and incongruent conditions of the Simon task, and the neurofunctional correlates of performance on the Simon task were examined. The results showed equivalent performance on the Simon task across groups but different underlying neural substrates in the two groups. With incongruent trials, monolinguals activated the right middle frontal gyrus, whereas bilinguals relied upon the left inferior parietal lobule. These results show that elderly bilinguals and monolinguals have equivalent interference control abilities, but relay on different neural substrates. Thus, while monolinguals show a classical PASA (posterior-anterior shift in aging) effect, recruiting frontal areas, bilinguals activate visuospatial processing alone and thus do not show this posterior-anterior shift. Moreover, a modulation of frontal activity with task-dynamic control of interference, observed in the elderly bilingual group alone, suggests that elderly bilinguals deal with interference control without recruiting a circuit that is particularly vulnerable to aging.

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, our institution, like others in higher education, suspended face- to-face classes and offered remote learning as an alternative.  We report five cases of undergraduate and graduate courses that transitioned from a face-to-face to a remote mode. Each case will provide a detailed description of how the course was moved to an online mode, how the course was managed, the instructors’ previous experience in online teaching, their self-reflection on the process of transitioning to remote learning and their recommendations for a more successful experience in a similar potential scenario in the future.  Further, we report the students’ perspectives based on their responses to an online survey.  The combined results of the cases reported in this study reflect the resilience on both sides. A sudden shutdown of the university along with disease- related fears caused anxiety both for the students and instructors regardless of previous experience in online education. However, having online material pre-pandemic, possessing the technical skills, and previous online teaching or learning experience as well as having the infrastructure in place, facilitated the smooth navigation of the courses. The mode of delivery of the course (synchronous, asynchronous or blended) did not have an effect on students’ satisfaction.

Functional connectivity changes in the language network (Price, 2010), and in a control network involved in second language (L2) processing (Abutalebi & Green, 2007) were examined in a group of Persian (L1) speakers learning French (L2) words. Measures of network integration that characterize the global integrative state of a network (Marrelec, Bellec et al., 2008) were gathered, in the shallow and consolidation phases of L2 vocabulary learning. Functional connectivity remained unchanged across learning phases for L1, whereas total, between- and within-network integration levels decreased as proficiency for L2 increased. The results of this study provide the first functional connectivity evidence regarding the dynamic role of the language processing and cognitive control networks in L2 learning (Abutalebi, Cappa, & Perani, 2005; Altarriba & Heredia, 2008; Leonard et al., 2011; Parker-Jones et al., 2011). Thus, increased proficiency results in a higher degree of automaticity and lower cognitive effort (Segalowitz & Hulstijn, 2005).