Critically discuss how a specific experience or interest within your life may have

altered your brain organisation or structure in comparison to an ‘average’ brain

without the same strong experience/interest.

Of all human experiences, language is the most unique and central one. We use

language as a tool of social communication in our every waking moment. In this era

characterised by heightened globalisation, there is a growing number of people who

endorse in an extensive linguistic experience that encompass more than one language

(Bialystok, Craik & Luk, 2012). I am part of this population as I acquired my second

language (L2) at the age of four. Apart from the evident advantage of communicating

with people from a different culture, bilingualism leads to cognitive advantages beyond

language. Behavioural studies have shown that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in

attentional control (Bialystok, 1999) and response to cognitive conflicts in flanker task

(Costa, Hernández & Sebastián-Gallés, 2008) and the Stroop task (Bialystok, Craik &

Luk, 2008). These behavioural advantages may be explained by the underlying

mechanism of the language processing in bilinguals. There is evidence that both

languages are active to a certain degree at all times (Bialystok et al., 2012). This joint

activation of both languages presents “an attention problem that does not exist for

monolinguals” (Bialystok et al., 2012, p.241), resulting in bilinguals to use their

executive control system to solve the conflict and select attention to the desired language

stimuli. This stimulation provides an enriched environment that induces structural

plasticity in the brain (Mechelli et al., 2004). The phenomenon of experiences modifying

neural structures has been supported by studies in different domains, such as in juggling
(Draganski, Gaser, Busch, Schuierer, Bogdahn & May, 2004) and music (Gaser &

Schlaug, 2003). Similar to other experiences, the high functional demands of domain-

general and language-specific control of bilingualism induce experience-led changes to

anatomical brain structure (Mechelli et al., 2004). Research has found that bilingualism

not only increases grey matter density in language-related brain areas (Stein et al., 2012)

and brain areas involved in executive functions (Mechelli et al., 2004), but also increases

white matter density that improves efficiency in transmitting signals between brain areas

(Mohades et al., 2012). This essay seeks to conclude that bilingualism induces structural

plasticity in human brain, while the extent to which is moderated by age of acquiring L2,

proficiency in L2 and how L2 was learnt.

The ability to use two languages is clearly practicing brain areas associated with

language processing. A longitudinal study examined the brain structures of native

English-speaking exchange students before and after learning German upon their stay in

Switzerland (Stein et al., 2012). Voxel-based morphometry (VBM), which is a statistical

analysis that identifies local differences in stereotactic space by comparing the templates

between two groups constructed by normalising and smoothing all structural magnetic

resonance images (MRI) (Bialystok et al., 2012), showed an increase in grey matter

density in the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) after five months of second language

learning. This corresponds to the higher activation found in left IFG of bilinguals when

compared to monolinguals during a grammatical judgment and a semantic judgement

task (Ekiert, 2003). This may account to the more extensive use of the Broca’s area, a

brain area primarily responsible for language processing and speech production, in

bilinguals. With the evidence of the functional change in language-related areas in

matter change while accounting for the mediating variables, despite its shortfall of a

small sample size of ten students. Considering that the study investigated structural

plasticity in acquiring L2 over a short but intense period, it is more likely to depict the

changes in my brain that occur when I first began to learn English (L2) at the age of four.

This study, however, may present some limitations to fully account for my situation as L2

was acquired within a classroom setting rather than a naturalistic setting as investigated

in the study.

It is commonly assumed that learning L2 in a classroom setting is more effective

than in a naturalistic setting in inducing structural changes in the brain (Stein, Winkler,

Kaiser & Dierks, 2014). A study that examined brain organisation in participants before

and after acquiring L2 through a three-month intense language course found an increase

in grey matter density in brain areas involved in language processing (Mårtensson et al.,

2012). In addition to an increase in grey matter volume in left IFG, a consistent finding to

the effects of immersing in L2-environment (Stein et al., 2012), participants in this study

also showed increased grey matter density in left superior temporal gyrus (STG) and left

middle frontal gyrus (MFG). Changes in left STG and left MFG were until now only

observed in a classroom setting (Stein et al., 2014). On the other hand, Klein, Mok, Chen

and Watkins (2014) presented some conflicting evidence to the structural changes in left

IFG when L2 is acquired from a naturalistic environment. They found that simultaneous

bilinguals, who acquired L1 and L2 through immersion between the ages of zero and

three, were the only bilingual group that did not show an increase in the cortical thickness

of left IFG (Klein et al. 2014). However, it is premature to undermine the influence of
immersion to structural plasticity from these results. The influence of learning

environment is likely to be mediated by the age of acquisition in this study. In fact, those

who acquired L2 after achieving proficiency in L1 during their childhood (4-13 years)

showed increase in left IFG. Nevertheless, there is currently a lack of research that

directly compares the influence of different learning environments to grey matter

changes, and hence, it is difficult to draw on a comprehensive conclusion.

Indeed, age of acquisition is another mediating factor. As in the study by Klein et

al. (2014), although an increase in the cortical thickness in the left IFG was observed in

early (4-7 years) and late bilinguals (8-13 years), the increase was less substantial in the

early bilinguals, such as myself. Stein et al. (2014) argued that such a difference might

arise from how explicit learning was. Acquiring L2 is more likely to be seen as a new

skill after infancy and as age increases. This signals higher functional demand to brain

areas involved in language processing, and hence stimulates structural change in left IFG

(Klein et al., 2014). Moreover, age of acquisition also moderates the degree of structural

plasticity in the inferior parietal cortex (IPC). VBM identified a greater grey matter

density in the IPC of English-Italian bilinguals than in English monolinguals in a cross-

sectional study (Mechelli et al., 2004). Lee et al. (2007) suggested that the greater

vocabulary knowledge required in bilinguals is responsible for this structural change.

With brain imaging and lesion findings on IPC suggesting its significant role in action

recognition and attentive control (Singh-Curry & Husain, 2009), the structural change in

IPC of bilinguals is a probable source of their enhanced performance in non-verbal tasks.

Another factor underlying this difference in cognitive ability is the structural plasticity in

the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) in bilinguals. Functional data showed the
crucial role of dorsal ACC in domain-general executive control functions, such as

resolving non-verbal conflicts (Abutalebi et al., 2011). Bilinguals, like myself, are

presented to daily language conflicts. This extensive experience in resolving language

conflicts results in higher ACC grey matter volumes in bilinguals, as revealed by VBM

(Abutalebi et al., 2011). This structural change is supported by behavioural data of

bilinguals outperforming monolinguals in adapting to conflicting situations (Abutalebi et

al., 2011).

Nevertheless, the degree of change in IPC was also sensitive to age of acquisition

and L2 proficiency (Mechelli et al., 2004). Differing from the findings in the left IFG,

there is evidence of a more substantial increase in grey matter density in IPC in early

(less than 5 years) than in late bilinguals (10-15 years) (Mechelli et al., 2004; Wei et al.,

2015). The study by Mechelli et al. (2004) further found that higher L2 proficiency is

correlated with grater grey matter density in IPC of bilinguals. Hence, according to their

study, individuals with an early acquisition and high proficiency in L2, like myself, have

the greatest grey matter density in IPC. A cross-sectional study, however, is weak in

accounting for the effects of genetic disposition towards bilingualism. A longitudinal

study, such as the study by Stein et al. (2012), may provide a better account. This study

failed to replicate the correlation found by Mechelli et al. (2004). This is likely due to the

difference in approach such that this study emphasises on intra rather than inter-

individual differences (Stein et al., 2012). The different focuses led to the conclusion that

individual amount of learning is more important than absolute proficiency in L2 (Stein et

al., 2012). Furthermore, it is possible that the structural change in IPC do not occur at

such an early stage in bilingualism as the participants in the present study were all within
their first five months of L2 learning as opposed to the study of Mechelli et al. (2004).

Taken together, my IPC is expected to have undergone structural change with the

proficiency attained for some time from now.

Structural changes are not limited to grey matter. In fact, white matter changes in

accordance (May, 2011). These changes are often demonstrated by MR diffusion tensor

imaging (DTI), which involves measuring the direction of water diffusion in white matter

to calculate fractional anisotropy (FA) that reflect axon density, size of axons and

myelination (Mohades et al., 2012). FA values correlate with information transmission

properties, cognitive processing speed and information processing speed (Mohades et al.,

2012), advocating the association between white matter changes and efficiency of

connectivity in the brain. There is evidence that early bilinguals developed higher

connectivity in two sub-networks than monolinguals: one comprised left frontal and

parietal/temporal regions and another comprises left occipital and parietal/temporal

regions, while monolinguals do not possess any networks more interconnected than

bilinguals (García-Pentón, Fernandez, Iturria-Medina, Gillon-Dowens & Carreiras,

2014). The further graph analysis of the two sub-networks support that the higher

connectivity between different language-related regions is associated with more efficient

local information flow. Although this study may be criticised for gender bias since all

participants sampled were females, it also becomes more applicable to myself as a female

early bilingual. On the other hand, Mohades et al. (2012) reported changes in the white

matter pathway in connecting left inferior occipitofrontal fasciculus (lIFOF), anterior

regions in the frontal lobe and posterior regions in the temporal occipital lobes in

bilinguals, which was not found in the study by García-Pentón et al. (2014). This higher
FA value found infers more efficient semantic information processing in bilinguals.

Among the bilingual groups, simultaneous bilinguals were found to have a higher mean

FA value compared to sequential bilinguals, suggesting the possibility that age of

acquisition and the learning environment of L2 affect the extent of white matter

plasticity.

Another white matter change found between bilinguals and monolinguals was

reflected by the different FA values in the bundle that connects anterior corpus callosum

(CC) to orbital lobe (AC-OL) (García-Pentón et al., 2014). Despite the fact that the

interpretation of this finding was unclear, other studies also found white matter changes

in CC. A longitudinal study reported increased FA and decreased radial diffusivity in

white matter tracts that connect traditional left hemisphere language areas and right

hemisphere in English-speaking participants after learning Chinese (Schlegel, Rudelson

& Peter, 2012). In fact, the most significant change was found in the frontal tracts that

cross the anterior CC, an area not typically associated with language processing. This

structural change is in line with the argument that bilinguals are less lateralised than

monolinguals from fMRI evidence of bilateral activation in bilinguals that was absent in

monolinguals (Hull & Vaid, 2007). Lateralisation studies further concluded that early

bilinguals showed greater bilateral hemispheric involvement for both languages than late

bilinguals and monolinguals (Hull et al., 2007), again bringing age of acquisition into

play. These two studies draw on strong evidence to my situation as they are highly

relatable to my own experience as an early Chinese-English bilingual.

It is evident that bilingualism has reorganised my brain significantly. This essay has

identified the structural changes in grey matter volume in specific brain areas, such as left
IFG and IPC, and in white matter pathways, induced by the higher functional demand in

bilinguals. The degree of change, however, heavily depends on age of acquiring L2, L2

proficiency and the learning environment of L2. Another mediating factor that has not

been investigated by current research is how different L1 and L2 are to the individual.

The increases in white matter connectivity between the two hemispheres found in

English-Chinese bilinguals in the study by Schlegel et al. (2012) may be due to the

difference between a tonal (Chinese) and non-tonal (English) language (Wang et al.,

2003, as cited in Schlegel et al., 2012) rather than a general phenomenon found in all

bilinguals. Future research can explore how the degree of similarity between L1 and L2,

in terms of phonology and grammar, for example, has an impact on the extent of

structural plasticity in bilinguals. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the studies in

this area may not highly comparable as bilingualism is a continuum, and hence the

ambiguity in its definition.

Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P. A., Green, D. W., Hernandez, M., Scifo, P., Keim, R.,
Cappa, S. F., & Costa, A. (2011). Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex
for conflict monitoring. Cerebral Cortex, bhr287.
Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual
mind. Child development, 70(3), 636-644.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in
younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
memory, and cognition, 34(4), 859.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for mind and
brain.Trends in cognitive sciences, 16(4), 240-250.
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict
resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106(1), 59-86.
Draganski, B., Gaser, C., Busch, V., Schuierer, G., Bogdahn, U., & May, A. (2004).
Neuroplasticity: changes in grey matter induced by training.Nature, 427(6972),
311-312.
Ekiert, M. (2003). The bilingual brain. Teacher’s College, Columbia University Working
Papers in TESOL & Applied Linguistics, 3(2).
García-Pentón, L., Fernandez, A. P., Iturria-Medina, Y., Gillon-Dowens, M., & Carreiras,
M. (2014). Anatomical connectivity changes in the bilingual
brain. Neuroimage, 84, 495-504.
Gaser, C., & Schlaug, G. (2003). Brain structures differ between musicians and non-
musicians. The Journal of Neuroscience, 23(27), 9240-9245.
Hull, R., & Vaid, J. (2007). Bilingual language lateralization: A meta-analytic tale of two
hemispheres. Neuropsychologia, 45(9), 1987-2008.
Klein, D., Mok, K., Chen, J. K., & Watkins, K. E. (2014). Age of language learning
shapes brain structure: a cortical thickness study of bilingual and monolingual
individuals. Brain and language,131, 20-24.
Lee, H., Devlin, J. T., Shakeshaft, C., Stewart, L. H., Brennan, A., Glensman, J., Pitcher,
K., Crinion, J., Mechelli, A., Frackowiak, R. S., & Green, D. W. (2007).
Anatomical traces of vocabulary acquisition in the adolescent brain. The Journal of
Neuroscience, 27(5), 1184-1189.
Mårtensson, J., Eriksson, J., Bodammer, N. C., Lindgren, M., Johansson, M., Nyberg, L.,
& Lövdén, M. (2012). Growth of language-related brain areas after foreign
language learning. NeuroImage, 63(1), 240-244.
May, A. (2011). Experience-dependent structural plasticity in the adult human
brain. Trends in cognitive sciences, 15(10), 475-482.
Mechelli, A., Crinon, J. T., Noppeney, U., O’Doherty, J., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R.
S., & Price, C. J. (2004). Neurolinguistics: structural plasticity in the bilingual
brain. Nature, 431(7010), 757-757.
Mohades, S. G., Struys, E., Van Schuerbeek, P., Mondt, K., Van De Craen, P., &
Luypaert, R. (2012). DTI reveals structural differences in white matter tracts
between bilingual and monolingual children. Brain Research, 1435, 72-80.
Schlegel, A. A., Rudelson, J. J., & Peter, U. T. (2012). White matter structure changes as
adults learn a second language. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 24(8), 1664-
1670.
Singh-Curry, V., & Husain, M. (2009). The functional role of the inferior parietal lobe in
the dorsal and ventral stream dichotomy.Neuropsychologia, 47(6), 1434-1448.
Stein, M., Federspiel, A., Koenig, T., Wirth, M., Strik, W., Wiest, R., Brandeis, D., &
Dierks, T. (2012). Structural plasticity in the language system related to increased
second language proficiency. Cortex,48(4), 458-465.
Stein, M., Winkler, C., Kaiser, A., & Dierks, T. (2014). Structural brain changes related
to bilingualism: does immersion make a difference?. Retrieved from:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4183087/#B21
Wei, M., Joshi, A. A., Zhang, M., Mei, L., Manis, F. R., He, Q., Beattie, R. L., Xue, G,
Shattuck, D. W., Leahy, R. M., Xue, F., Houston, S. M., Chen, C., Dong, Q., & Lu,
Z. (2015). How age of acquisition influences brain architecture in
bilinguals. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 36, 35-55.