Reading and translation in bilinguals: A connectivity study with scalp and intracranial EEG recordings A. M. García a,b,c,d, E. Mikulan a,b,c, F. Adolfi a,c, M. Santilli a, M. Gonzalez Vilas a, Á. Rivera-Rei c, M. del C. García e, W. Silva e, E. Vaucheret e, C. Ciraolo e, A. Ibáñez a,b,c,f,g a. Laboratory of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience, INECO, Favaloro University, Bs. As., Argentina. b. CONICET, Bs. As., Argentina. c. NUFIN Core on Neuroscience, UDP, Santiago, Chile. d. FEEyE, UNCuyo, Mendoza, Argentina. e. Hospital Italiano, Bs. As., Argentina. f. Universidad Autónoma del Caribe, Barranquilla, Colombia. g. CCD, Australian Research Council, New South Wales, Australia. INTRODUCTION RESULTS METHODS CONCLUSIONS SCALP EEG: FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVITY Beta frequency patterns FT: Differential predominance of bilateral fronto-temporal networks. BT: Greater information exchange in temporo- occipital networks throughout the LNDH. PARTICIPANTS (L1: Spanish; L2: English) STIMULI 192 pairs of English/Spanish equivalents, in three pairs of blocks with 64 items each: All blocks matched for length, rank, and concreteness. Same-language blocks, also for frequency (all ps >.95). Figure 3. ERPs in FT and BT (LNDH). Translation processes have been studied from varied perspectives, such as linguistics and psycholinguistics. In the last 30 years, relevant behavioral evidence has steadily accrued. Yet, the neural basis of this bilingual skill remains largely unknown. Previous research indicates that translation processes (i) predominantly engage the left hemisphere, (ii) always generate distinct activity in Broca’s area, and (iii) elicit wider activation patterns in forward translation (FT) than backward translation (BT) (1). However, little is known about the neurocognitive mechanisms that are differentially engaged by BT and FT in the language-non-dominant hemisphere (LNDH). To address this issue, we examined word translation processes using scalp and intracranial electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings. Here we report preliminary multilevel evidence, focusing on the role of the LNDH in both tasks. 1.FT and BT rely on different neurocognitive mechanisms in the LNDH. Activation increases in FT concentrate in areas supporting cognitive control mechanisms, suggesting increased lexical retrieval and selection efforts (3). Instead, BT elicited differential activity patterns in more widely distributed areas subserving primary and automatic processes, such as visual perception and lexical access. Early ERP modulations (~230 ms) suggest increased attentional demands for FT. Later modulations (~580 ms) confirm that input comprehension is more effortful for L2 than L1 (4) REFERENCES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS by CONICET, CONICYT/FONDECYT Regular ( ), COLCIENCIAS ( and ), FONCyT-PICT , FONCyT-PICT , and the INECO Foundation. Research partially supported 1. García, A. M. (2013). Brain activity during translation: A review of the neuroimaging evidence […] J Neuroling 26(3), García, A. M. et al. (2014). Word reading and translation in bilinguals: The impact of formal and informal translation expertise. Front Psychol 5, Abutalebi, J. & Green, D. (2007.) Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. J Neuroling 20(3), Christoffels, I. et al. (2013). Language conflict in translation: An ERP study of translation production. J Cog Psychol 25(5), 646– ms 300 ms 200 ms 50 ms 300 ms 200 ms DESIGN AND PROCEDURE Four tasks: L1 reading, L2 reading, BT, FT RT recording: Participants pressed a key upon articulation onset Note: RTs in oral responses are affected by variables such as the manner of articulation of the initial phoneme and the structure of the initial syllable. Full methodological details reported in (2) Intracranial EEG study (epileptic patient) Age: 29 Left-handed Left occipito-parietal arachnoid cyst RH-dominance for language (Wada)  16 concrete cognates (e.g., paper, papel)  16 abstract cognates (e.g., comedy, comedia)  16 concrete non-cognates (e.g., table, mesa)  16 abstract non-cognates (e.g., fin, end) Scalp EEG study (10 professional translators) Age: M = 29.6, SD = 4.43 Years of L2 instruction: M = 16.2, SD = 4.87 Professional experience: from 2 to 10 years Proficiency ratings L1: M = 6.4, SD =.7 L2: M = 6.3, SD =.7 BT: M = 5.8, SD =.8 FT: M = 5.3, SD = 1 Figure 1. Connectivity in FT and BT (both hemispheres). i-EEG: FUNCTIONAL CONNECTIVITY FT: More intense and concentrated information sharing among anterior temporal, frontal, and prefrontal regions (e.g., MFC, OFC). BT: More widely and less densely distributed connections throughout frontal, temporal, and parietal regions, converging in the precuneus. Figure 2. Connectivity in FT and BT (LNDH). i-EEG: EVENT-RELATED POTENTIALS Early window ( ms) FT: In the posterior fusiform gyrus, larger amplitude in the P2 component. Late window ( ms) BT: In the posterior fusiform and anterior middle temporal gyri, more negative amplitude at ms (N400 family). Posterior fusiform gyrus Anterior middle temporal gyrus A. Forward translation B. Backward translation Mild motor, executive, and attentional deficits Proficient bilingual Language skills spared Self-ratings 1 minimal. 7 optimal