Farreta. The Interplay of Individual Differences and Context of Learning in Behavioral and Neurocognitive Second Lenguage Development

684903
earch-article2017
SLR0010.1177/0267658316684903Second Language ResearchFaretta-Stutenberg and Morgan-Short
second
language
Special Issue on Neurolinguistics research
Second Language Research
The interplay of individual

2018, Vol. 34(1) 67–101
© The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
differences and context sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0267658316684903
of learning in behavioral journals.sagepub.com/home/slr
and neurocognitive second

language development
Mandy Faretta-Stutenberg
Northern Illinois University, USA
Kara Morgan-Short
University of Illinois at Chicago, USA
Abstract
In order to understand variability in second language (L2) acquisition, this study addressed how
individual differences in cognitive abilities may contribute to development for learners in different
contexts. Specifically, we report the results of two short-term longitudinal studies aimed at
examining the role of cognitive abilities in accounting for changes in L2 behavioral performance
and neurocognitive processing for learners in ‘at-home’ and ‘study-abroad’ settings. Learners
completed cognitive assessments of declarative, procedural, and working memory abilities. Linguistic
assessments aimed at determining behavioral sensitivity and online processing of L2 Spanish syntax
were administered before and after a semester of study in either a traditional university classroom
context (Experiment 1) or a study-abroad context (Experiment 2). At-home learners evidenced
behavioral gains, with no detected predictive role for individual differences in cognitive abilities.
Study-abroad learners evidenced behavioral gains and processing changes that were partially
accounted for by procedural learning ability and working memory. Taken together, these results
provide preliminary insight into how individual differences in cognitive abilities may contribute to
behavioral and neural processing changes over time among learners in different natural contexts.
Keywords
declarative memory, event-related potentials, individual differences, procedural memory, second
language, study abroad, working memory
Corresponding author:
Mandy Faretta-Stutenberg, Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Northern Illinois University,
Watson 111, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA.
Email: mfs@niu.edu.
68 Second Language Research 34(1)
I Introduction
In the pursuit of explaining why second language (L2) learners attain different levels of
success in L2 development, research has addressed questions related to a number of fac-
tors, including the role of context (for example, learning in study-abroad or at-home uni-
versity contexts) and the role of individual differences in cognitive abilities (for example,
declarative, procedural, and working memory abilities; e.g. DeKeyser, 1991; Sanz, 2014).
Research has also begun to explore how these factors impact variability in L2 neurocogni-
tive processing (e.g. Morgan-Short et al., 2012; Tanner et al., 2014). Current calls in the
literature claim that our understanding of variability in L2 development is best advanced
not by investigating each factor independently, but rather by exploring the interplay
among a variety of factors (e.g. Collentine and Freed, 2004; Robinson, 2001; Sanz, 2005).
Indeed, researchers are increasingly interested in examining how individual differences in
cognitive abilities might play out differently in specific learning contexts (Sanz, 2014).
The experiments reported here address this question by exploring the role of individual
differences in cognitive abilities in at-home (Experiment 1) and study-abroad (Experiment
2) learning contexts for L2 behavioral development and neurocognitive processing. We
motivate the experiments by reviewing L2 literature relevant to individual differences in
memory, individual differences in neurocognitive processing, the role of context, and
open issues in these areas that inform the current research design.
1 Review of literature
a Individual differences in L2: The role of memory. A number of individual difference fac-
tors have been examined in relation to variability in L2 success among learners with an
emerging focus on the role of two long-term memory systems: declarative memory, which
underlies semantic and episodic memory (Tulving, 1993); and procedural memory, which
underlies motor and cognitive skills and habit learning (e.g. Knowlton and Moody, 2008).
Theoretical claims posit a role for declarative and procedural memory and knowledge in
L2 development (e.g. DeKeyser, 2015; Paradis, 2009; Ullman, 2015; Ullman and Lovelett,
2018), generally suggesting a large role for declarative memory and knowledge at earlier
stages of L2 learning and an increasing role for procedural memory and knowledge at
later stages of L2 learning. Thus, one may predict that individuals who have greater ability
to learn declaratively may show more success at earlier stages of L2 whereas individuals
who have greater ability to learn procedurally may show more success at later stages of
L2. Indeed, results of empirical research seem largely consistent with these predictions,
with studies showing that declarative memory1 is related to success at early stages of
development (for explicitly trained learners: Carpenter, 2008; Carpenter et al., 2009; for
incidentally and implicitly trained learners: Hamrick, 2015; Morgan-Short et al., 2014),
and that procedural memory is related to success at later stages of learning (Brill-Schuetz
and Morgan-Short, 2014; Hamrick, 2015; Morgan-Short et al., 2014) as well to as
increased neural activation for L2 (Morgan-Short et al., 2015a). Importantly, theoretical
perspectives suggest that the relative role of declarative and procedural memory may be
mediated by context of learning, where declarative memory might play a larger role for
learners with primarily explicit L2 instruction and procedural memory might play a larger
Faretta-Stutenberg and Morgan-Short 69
role for learners when exposure to L2 without explicit instruction is more prominent (Ull-
man, 2015). These predications are supported by results from an artificial language study
that found an interaction between explicit and implicit training and high and low proce-
dural memory ability, with high procedural memory learners performing best in an
implicit training condition (Brill-Schuetz and Morgan-Short, 2014). Studies directly
examining the role of declarative and procedural memory, however, have been limited to
the acquisition of (semi-)artificial languages for learners trained under implicit or inciden-
tal conditions as assessed, primarily, by behavioral performance measures. Thus, it is
critical to examine whether similar patterns of findings would be evidenced (1) for natural
language, (b) across different contexts, and (3) for neurocognitive L2 processing meas-
ures. Furthermore, it may be worthwhile to consider declarative and procedural memory
in conjunction with other cognitive abilities.
Another factor posited to play a role in L2 acquisition is a learner’s ability to simulta-
neously process and store information, that is, an individual’s working memory (WM;
e.g. McDonald, 2006; Williams, 2012). Although not all researchers agree regarding the
nature of the relationship between WM and L2, results of a recent, large-scale meta-
analysis suggest a positive relationship between WM and L2 abilities (Linck et al., 2014).
Importantly, there is evidence that the relationship between WM and L2 abilities may be
mediated by factors such as learner proficiency (Linck et al., 2014), learning target (e.g.
McDonald, 2006; Sagarra and Herschensohn, 2010), and learning condition or context
(e.g. Tagarelli et al., 2015; Williams, 2012).
Regarding WM and learning context, contradictory predictions have been posited. It
has been suggested that WM plays a larger role in immersion settings, where processing
demands are arguably highest (McDonald, 2006; Sagarra and Herschensohn, 2010), and
indeed empirical research has found a facilitative role for WM among learners with
immersion experiences, but not for learners without immersion experiences (e.g. LaBrozzi,
2012; Sunderman and Kroll, 2009; Tokowicz et al., 2004). There is also evidence, how-
ever, that WM is predictive of learning in more explicit settings due to the requirement to
retain metalinguistic information in memory while simultaneously comprehending and
producing language (e.g. Linck and Weiss, 2015; Sagarra, 2008). Critically, the evidence
of an interaction between WM and learning in different naturalistic settings comes from
studies that have compared learners with or without previous immersion experiences,
rather than from experimental analyses of L2 development that occurs over time (e.g.
LaBrozzi, 2012; Sunderman and Kroll, 2009; Tokowicz et al., 2004). Although there is
preliminary evidence to suggest that WM can account for L2 development among learners
in a classroom setting (Linck and Weiss, 2015), additional longitudinal research is needed
to understand this relationship. Also of interest is the relationship between WM and online
neural processing changes, which has yet to be examined. The experiments reported here
aim to build upon and extend previous research by assessing whether WM, considered in
conjunction with declarative and procedural memory, can account for changes in L2 per-
formance and processing for learners in different naturalistic settings.
b Individual differences in electrophysiological processing. One brain-based processing meas-

ure that can be used for this purpose is the event-related potential (ERP), which reflects
online electrophysiological brain activity related to cognitive processing. Here we briefly
present two common language-related ERP components that are relevant to the current
study (for more in-depth reviews for native language (L1), see Kaan, 2007; Steinhauer and
Connolly, 2008; Swaab et al., 2012; and for more in-depth reviews for L2, see Morgan-
Short, 2014; Morgan-Short et al., 2015b; Steinhauer et al., 2009; van Hell and Tokowicz,
2010). One prominent ERP component in L1 is the ‘N400’, which is a negative deflection
that is typically evident over centro-posterior scalp regions around 300–500 ms after the
onset of a word (e.g. Kutas and Hillyard, 1980). The N400 is larger for words that are more
difficult to process due to their anomalous meaning or due to a range of lexical character-
istics, such as low frequency (Kutas and Federmeier, 2011). The N400 has been understood
to represent lexical-semantic processing, but may also be thought of as representing more
general memory-based processing, as it can be elicited by non-linguistic stimuli (Kuper-
berg, 2007; Osterhout et al., 2012; for further discussion, see Morgan-Short and Tanner,
2014). Another important ERP component in L1 is the ‘P600’, which is a positive deflec-
tion that is also typically distributed over posterior scalp regions but occurs around 600–
900 ms after the onset of a word (e.g. Osterhout and Holcomb, 1992). This component is
consistently elicited by violations of syntax and morphosyntax as well as by other gram-
matical properties, such a complexity (e.g. Kaan et al., 2000). The P600 has been inter-
preted as reflecting grammatical processing but has also been characterized as reflecting
more general combinatorial processes (Kuperberg, 2007; Osterhout et al., 2012; for further
discussion, see Morgan-Short and Tanner, 2014). Although these ERP components are
typically evident in L1 group averages, recent evidence suggests that there is considerable
individual variation among speakers, even in regard to whether a speaker shows an N400
or a P600 response to grammatical processing (Tanner and van Hell, 2014).
In L2, the N400 component is reliably elicited for lexical processing and is also often
found for grammatical processing among learners with lower levels of proficiency (e.g.
Mueller et al., 2009; Tanner et al., 2013). At higher levels of proficiency and exposure,
L2 learners often show P600s for syntactic violations (e.g. Bowden et al., 2013; Hahne
and Friederici, 2001; Rossi et al., 2006). A shift from N400 to P600 with increased pro-
ficiency and exposure has been attested within individual learners in longitudinal studies
of grammatical processing (e.g. McLaughlin et al., 2010; Morgan-Short et al., 2010,
2012), but, as in L1, there is evidence that ERP responses vary among L2 learners even
when proficiency and experience are similar (e.g. Bond et al., 2011; Tanner et al., 2014).
In order to better understand variability in processing, researchers have begun to exam-
ine individual-level processing signatures, which can reveal patterns not evidenced in
group-level analyses (e.g. Tanner et al., 2014).
The factors that predict variability in ERP processing signatures remain a largely open
question in the extant literature. Recent work has explored the relationship between apti-
tude and proficiency and P600 effect sizes (Bond et al., 2011; Nickols and Steinhauer,
this issue) as well as between motivation, proficiency, and language background and the
magnitude and the type of neural response (Tanner et al., 2014). The role of cognitive
abilities in L2 processing have not yet been addressed.
c Contexts of L2 learning: At-home and study-abroad. A significant number of behavioral

L2 studies have addressed the role of context of learning (e.g. study-abroad and at-home
university learning), in the development of a variety of linguistic skills. In general, results
indicate that study-abroad learners improve in measures of fluency and oral skills (e.g.
Collentine and Freed, 2004; Segalowitz and Freed, 2004). However, conflicting results
are prevalent in studies examining grammatical development and accuracy: There is evi-
dence that study-abroad groups show gains in L2 accuracy and grammatical abilities
(e.g. Grey et al., 2015; Isabelli, 2004) and that they are superior to comparison groups of
at-home learners (e.g. Howard, 2001; Isabelli and Nishida, 2005). In other cases, at-
home groups have shown gains that are equal to or superior than study-abroad groups
(Collentine, 2004; DeKeyser, 1991; Isabelli-Garcia, 2010). This research has primarily
focused on accuracy for morphosyntax (e.g. Collentine, 2004; Howard, 2001; Isabelli
and Nishida, 2005; Isabelli-Garcia, 2010), with limited focus on syntactic development
(Isabelli, 2004). Moreover, despite discussion in this literature of the importance of study-
ing individual differences in study-abroad and at-home contexts (e.g. Lafford, 2006), a
limited number of studies have addressed the role of cognitive abilities in L2 develop-
ment in these settings (e.g. Grey et al., 2015; Segalowitz et al., 2004). Furthermore,
although several ERP studies have examined processing for learners who have studied
abroad or have experienced immersion (for detailed discussion, see Morgan-Short et al.,
2015b), researchers have yet to examine how exposure to natural language in different
contexts affects the individual-level neurocognitive processing of an L2.
2 Motivation for the current study

Understanding how individual differences play out in different learning contexts, to influ-
ence both performance and processing, is critical to refining our understanding of L2 acqui-
sition (Robinson, 2001). To this end, motivated by emerging results of previous research
with artificial languages and post-immersion experience learners, the two experiments
reported here provide a longitudinal examination of natural L2 development (Spanish) to
explore the role of individual differences in declarative, procedural, and working memory in
behavioral performance and processing changes. Experiment 1 examines learners in a class-
room setting, the natural context that ‘explicit’ training conditions are generally designed to
reflect; Experiment 2 utilizes the same design to examine learners in a study-abroad or
immersion setting, the natural context that ‘implicit’ and ‘incidental’ training conditions are
generally designed to reflect. We acknowledge that learners in naturalistic settings are
undoubtedly exposed to a mixture of explicit and implicit training in their L2 learning and
note that the two experiments are not designed to allow for a direct comparison between the
at-home and study-abroad contexts. At the same time, we recognize the merit of exploring
whether results of laboratory-based research are corroborated in natural settings in order to
inform theoretical models. To this end, L2 Spanish syntax (phrase structure), the learning
target in previous artificial or mini-artificial language research that has explored the relative
contributions of different aspects of memory (e.g. Brill-Schuetz and Morgan-Short, 2014;
Carpenter, 2008; Carpenter et al., 2009; Hamrick, 2015; Morgan-Short, Faretta-Stutenberg
et al., 2014; Morgan-Short, Deng et al., 2015a), is used as a proxy for L2 development in
order to build upon and facilitate comparison with previous work.
The present experiments address the following research questions in hopes of provid-
ing insight into how individual differences in these memory systems may predict behav-
ioral and processing changes among learners in different, natural contexts:
Research question 1: Do individual differences in declarative, procedural, and work-

ing memory account for changes in L2 behavioral performance over the course of one
semester?
We predict that a regression analysis with L2 behavioral change as the outcome variable
and declarative, procedural, and working memory as predictor variables will show the
following: Working memory will predict performance gains in both settings (e.g. Linck
et al., 2014; Linck and Weiss, 2015); procedural memory will account for gains in per-
formance in immersion settings (e.g. Brill-Schuetz and Morgan-Short, 2014); and
declarative memory may play a role if learners remain at lower levels of proficiency (e.g.
Hamrick, 2015; Morgan-Short et al., 2014).
Research question 2: Do individual differences in declarative, procedural and work-

ing memory account for changes in L2 neurocognitive processing over the course of
one semester?
Because of the lack of previous research that directly informs this question, we tenta-
tively predict that regression analyses with individual L2 processing indices as the out-
come variables and declarative, procedural, and working memory as predictor variables
will show the following: Working memory may play a role in processing strategies for
learners in immersion settings (e.g. LaBrozzi, 2012); and procedural memory may pre-
dict increased neural activation (Morgan-Short et al., 2015b). No specific predictions are
made regarding the role of declarative memory in L2 processing changes.
In order to address these research questions, the study employed a short-term longitudi-
nal design, allowing for the assessment of behavioral and processing changes that occurred
over the course of one semester of university-level language study. Three testing sessions
were administered: (1) a cognitive session, in which declarative, procedural and working
memory were assessed, as well as (2) a baseline language session and (3) a follow-up lan-
guage session, in which L2 performance and processing were assessed at the beginning and
end of the semester, respectively. Each element of the study is described below.
II Experiment 1: At home

1 Methods
a Participants. Participants included 29 native speakers of English studying Spanish as
an L2 at the university level. During the semester of study, participants were enrolled in
one to three Spanish content courses at a fifth-semester level or above (e.g. Spanish
grammar review, introductory linguistics, literary analysis) at a large public university
in the USA.
In order to qualify for the study, a participant’s experience with Spanish had to be
classroom-based, with no previous substantial immersion experience and no substantial
exposure to the language before the age of 12. Participants were healthy, right-handed
(Oldfield, 1971), and had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. A total of 12 participants
were excluded from analysis for the following reasons: Seven participants failed to
complete all experimental sessions, one reported pre-study immersion experience, and
four had excessive artifacts in electroencephalogram (EEG) data. In addition to experi-
mental assessments (described below), a language history questionnaire and a measure
of IQ were administered during the cognitive session, and a motivation questionnaire and
two general measures of proficiency were administered during each language session.
Relevant characteristics for participants included in analyses (N = 17; 13 female) are
reported in Appendix 1. All participants provided written informed consent to participate
at each session, and received monetary compensation for their time.
Cognitive tests. During the cognitive assessment session, participants completed two
measures each of declarative and procedural learning ability, and three measures of WM
ability. Cognitive assessments were administered in a pseudo-randomized, counter-bal-
anced order across participants.
Measures of declarative learning ability. Following Morgan-Short et al. (2014), partici-

pants completed two independent measures of declarative learning ability: the Modern
Language Aptitude Test, Part V – Paired Associates (MLAT-V; Carroll and Sapon, 1959)
and Continuous Visual Memory Task (CVMT; Trahan and Larrabee, 1988). For the
MLAT-V, participants memorized a list of 24 pseudo-Kurdish words and their English
translation equivalents and then completed a timed multiple-choice test in which they
selected the Kurdish word that matched a given English word. The number correct on the
multiple-choice test (maximum = 24) comprised participant score. For the CVMT, par-
ticipants viewed a series of 112 slides on a computer screen in which a total of 70 abstract
figures were presented. Participants indicated whether each design was ‘new’ (had not
been displayed previously) or ‘old’ (had been displayed previously); these responses
were used to calculate a d' score. For analyses, a participants’ composite score for declar-
ative learning ability was calculated by averaging z-scores from these two tasks.
Measures of procedural learning ability. Following Brill-Schuetz and Morgan-Short

(2014), participants completed two independent measures of procedural learning abil-
ity: the Alternating Serial Response Time Task (ASRT; Howard and Howard, 1997) and
the dual-task version of the Weather Prediction Task (WPT; Foerde et al., 2006). For
the ASRT, participants viewed a set of four, empty circles on a computer screen that
became targets when they appeared with a solid black fill one at a time. Participants
were instructed to respond as quickly and accurately as possible to the target circles by
pressing corresponding keyboard keys. Embedded in the target appearance sequence was
a pattern that alternated with random trails. The difference in reaction time for correctly
responded pattern versus random trials was used in analyses. For the WPT, participants
were presented with different combinations of four ‘tarot cards’ associated with different
probabilities of ‘sunshine’ or ‘rain’ over a series of eight blocks. Participants were asked
to predict the weather (‘sunshine’ or ‘rain’) as each set of tarot cards was presented while
they simultaneously kept a count of high tones that were presented along with low tones
during each block. Participant scores were based on weather prediction accuracy during
the final dual-task block. For analyses, a composite score for procedural learning ability
was calculated by averaging participants’ z-scores from the ASRT and WPT.
Measures of working memory capacity. In order to obtain a measurement of WM abil-

ity, automated versions of three WM measures were employed: the Automated Operation
Span Task (OSpan; Unsworth et al., 2005), the Automated Reading Span Task (RSpan;
Unsworth et al., 2005), and the Automated Symmetry Span Task (SSpan; Unsworth
et al., 2005). Each task represents a ‘complex span task’ that engages both processing
and storage elements of WM (Unsworth et al., 2005).
For the OSpan task, participants solved math operations (processing) and kept track
of letters presented after each math operation (storage) in order to recall them at the end
of each of 15 sets of trials. The RSpan task is identical to the OSpan except that in place
of the math operations, participants read sentences and judged whether or not they made
sense (processing). For the SSpan, participants saw a matrix-based image and indicated
whether it was symmetrical (processing). After providing the symmetry judgment, a
smaller 4 × 4 matrix with one red cell appeared, and participants were instructed to
remember its location (storage) in order to recall them at the end of each of 12 sets of
trials. For all three WM tasks, participants were instructed to work as quickly and accu-
rately as possible; scores were based on perfect trials (correct for both processing and
storage components). For analyses, a composite score for WM was calculated by averag-
ing z-scores from the three tasks.
b Measure of L2 behavioral performance. A grammaticality judgment task (GJT)

served as the experimental linguistic task to address the research questions. During
the GJT, participants were directed to read Spanish sentences and to indicate whether
each was acceptable (‘good’) or unacceptable (‘bad’) in Spanish. The experimental,
phrase structure stimuli consisted of 60 sentences with syntactic violations and 60
matched correct control sentences, designed following a paradigm developed by
Steinhauer and Drury (2012) that allows both the critical and the pre-critical material
to be matched across the stimuli set (Luck, 2012). Violations were created from cor-
rect sentences containing a noun and an infinitive; in the violation, the noun and the
infinitive are switched. Two sentence frames with each noun and infinitive pair were
created so that each word appeared both as a correct and a violation critical word.
Experimental stimuli sentences ranged from 7 to 13 words in length, with one or two
words between the switched elements. Examples of experimental stimuli sentences
are provided in Table 1.
The GJT included an additional 480 sentences, representing four conditions not
reported here (120 sentences per condition, half correct), yielding a total of 600 stimuli
sentences. In order to ensure participant familiarity with the vocabulary, all words used
in the stimuli sentences appeared in at least one of two introductory Spanish language
textbooks (Dicho y hecho, 8th edition, 2008; Sol y viento, 2nd edition, 2009). Two stim-
uli lists were created using a Latin square design such that (1) only one version (violation
or correct) of each sentence was included in each list, and (2) participants read and
judged 300 different sentences during each session (half correct). Stimuli were divided
into five blocks, containing 60 sentences each (half correct, balanced across conditions).
Cronbach’s alphas for the GJT (both versions, at both testing sessions) ranged from .834
to .895, all falling at or above the median for instrument reliability in L2 research
(Plonsky and Derrick, 2016).
Table 1. Grammaticality judgment task experimental stimuli.
Condition Correct Control Violation

Phrase Structure La profesora tiene que corregir las La profesora tiene que *tareas las
tareas de sus estudiantes. corregir de sus estudiantes.
‘The teacher has to correct the ‘The teacher has to *assignments the
assignments of her students.’ correct of her students.’
Cada semana hay muchas tareas para Cada semana hay muchas *corregir
corregir en la oficina. para tareas en la oficina.
‘Every week there are many ‘Every week there are many *correct
assignments to correct in the office.’ to assignments in the office.’
Note. Bold typeface marks the critical word where violation becomes evident in each sentence. Event-relat-
ed potentials were time-locked to the onset of the critical words. The word that constitutes the violation is
indicated with an asterisk (*).
Participant responses to each sentence in the GJT were recorded, and accuracy and d'
scores were calculated. Analyses were based on d' scores, which account for potential
response bias (e.g. Stanislaw and Todorov, 1999). Because we were interested in examin-
ing behavioral development, individuals’ change in performance on each task was calcu-
lated by subtracting baseline scores from follow-up scores (e.g. GJT d'change = GJT
d'follow-up – GJT d'baseline).
c Measures of L2 neurocognitive processing. EEG data were collected while participants

completed the GJT. Sentences were presented visually through EPrime (Psychology
Software Tools, Inc.) one word at a time. Each word appeared in the center of the screen
for 400 ms, with an additional 400 ms between each word. After the end of the sentence,
the screen was blank for 1000 ms, followed by a question mark to prompt participants
to provide their judgment (left click for ‘good’ and right click for ‘bad’). The question
mark remained on the screen until the participant responded via mouse click (up to 5000
ms), and was followed by a blink prompt (####) that remained on the screen until the
participant clicked to begin the next sentence. After the blink screen, the cycle repeated,
beginning with presentation of a fixation cross (1000 ms) and then the next sentence.
The 300 stimuli were presented over five blocks (approximately 10 to 12 minutes each),
with a short break after each block.
Scalp EEG was continuously recorded in DC mode at a sampling rate of 512 Hz
using ASA-lab (ANT) 4.7.9 software. Participants were fitted with a Waveguard Cap
(ANT) comprising 32 Ag/AgCl electrodes placed according to the extended 10–20 sys-
tem, as illustrated in Figure 1. The impedance for each electrode was reduced to below
5 kΩ, and impedances were monitored after each block to ensure that they were held
below this threshold. Scalp electrodes were referenced online to the average of all elec-
trodes. The signal was amplified by an AMP-TRF40AB Refa-8 amplifier with a gain of
22-bit. The vertical electrooculogram (VEOG) was recorded from electrodes above and
below the right eye, and the horizontal electrooculogram (HEOG) was recorded from
electrodes on the left and right temples.
Figure 1. (a) Electrode layout and electrodes included in group-level event-related-potential
(ERP) analyses. Lateral electrodes include the four side columns enclosed in solid line; midline
electrodes are enclosed in a dashed line. (b) Electrode layout and electrodes included in
individual-level ERP analyses. Electrodes enclosed in the two rows represent the centro-parietal
region of interest.
After recording, data processing and analyses were completed in MatLab (version
R2009a) using EEGlab (version 9.0.7.6b) and ERPlab (version 2.0.0.0) plug-ins. First,
1400 ms epochs were extracted from the continuous EEG (200 ms pre-critical word to
1200 ms post-critical words). All data were re-referenced offline to the mean of the left
and right mastoids, then filtered using an IIR (infinite impulse response) Butterworth
filter with a high pass of .10 Hz and a low pass of 20.0 Hz. In order to detect eye blinks
and other artifacts, stepwise artifact rejections were performed on both EEG and EOG
channels using a 40 µV threshold, a 10 ms step, and a 400 ms moving window. In order
to reject epochs containing drift, an additional stepwise artifact rejection was performed
on EEG channels using a 40 µV threshold over the entire 1400 ms time window (one
1400 ms step). Participants with greater than 25% rejection in the experimental condition
(violation or correct) during either baseline or follow-up assessments were excluded
from analyses. After these participants were excluded, artifacts led to rejections of less
than 6% of experimental trials at either testing session (baseline: 5.44% correct, 5.38%
violation; follow-up: 2.31% correct, 4.87% violation). Following previous research with
L2 learners, all remaining trials, regardless of behavioral responses, were included in the
main analyses (e.g. Bowden et al., 2013; Morgan-Short et al., 2010; Tanner et al., 2013).
For ERP analysis, both group-level and individual-level analyses were conducted.
ERPs time-locked to the onset of critical words were averaged off-line for each partici-
pant, at each electrode site, using a 200 ms pre-stimulus baseline. ERP components of
interest were quantified by computer as mean voltage amplitudes within a time window
of activity. Two time windows of interest, corresponding to the N400 and P600 effects,
were selected based on previous research: 300–500 ms and 600–900 ms, respectively.
Specific analyses procedures for group-level (grand average) and individual-level (par-
ticipant average) ERP analyses are described below.
For group-level analyses, individual ERPs were calculated, averaged across partici-
pants, and entered into a group grand average for each session (baseline, follow-up) and
time window (300–500 ms, 600–900 ms). Lateral and midline global ANOVAs were
conducted for each time window. The lateral ANOVA was based on 20 electrode sites
(F7, F4, F3, F8, FC5, FC3, FC1, FC4, T7, C3, C4, T8, CP5, CP1, CP2, CP6, P7, P4, P3,
P8; see Figure 1a) and included the experimental factor Violation (violation, correct) and
the distributional factors Hemisphere (left, right), Laterality (lateral, medial) and
AnteriorPosterior (anterior, anterior-central, central, centro-posterior, posterior). The
midline ANOVA was based on five electrode sites (FPz, Fz, Cz, Pz, Oz; see Figure 1a)
and included the experimental factor Violation (violation, correct) and the distributional
factor AnteriorPosterior (anterior, anterior-central, central, centro-posterior, posterior).
Significant main effects and interactions (p < .05) from the global ANOVAs for each
time window at each session are reported. For all repeated measures with greater than
one degree of freedom, the Greenhouse–Geisser correction for inhomogeneity of vari-
ance was applied and corrected p-values are reported. Follow-up analyses for significant
interactions consisted of Bonferroni corrected, pair-wise comparisons.
For individual-level analyses, processing signatures were quantified using a response
magnitude index (RMI) and a response dominance index (RDI; following Tanner et al.,
2014). These indices were calculated for each participant for both sessions (baseline and
follow-up) based on formulae reported in Tanner et al. (2014) using the absolute value of
the N400 and P600 effects over the centro-posterior region of interest (ROI; C3, Cz, C4,
P3, Pz, P4; see Figure 1b) in the 300–500 ms and 600–900 ms time windows. RMI pro-
vides a measure of the magnitude of an individual’s overall sensitivity to violations,
where greater RMI values indicate larger neural responses to violations across both time
windows, regardless of the type of response. RDI provides an index of an individual’s
relative response dominance (negativity/N400 or positivity/P600), where a participant
with relatively equal-sized N400 and P600 effects would have an RDI value near zero.
The dependent variable of interest, an individual’s change in each processing metric, was
calculated by subtracting the value for the metric at baseline from the value at follow-up
(e.g. RMIchange = RMIfollow-up – RMIbaseline).
2 Results
In this section, we first provide a statistical overview of behavioral performance and
change. These results serve to inform the interpretation of the regression analysis tied to
the first research question:
Research question 1: Do individual differences in declarative, procedural, and work-

ing memory account for changes in L2 behavioral performance over the course of one
semester?
Next, we report group- and subgroup-level ERP patterns at each testing session as well
as ERP change as revealed through individual-level indices. Again, this reporting serves
to inform the interpretation of the regression analyses addressing our second research
question:
Table 2. At-home learners: Descriptive results for GJT.
Assessment Baseline Follow-up Change Change

M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) Effect Size
(Cohen’s d)
GJT d' .95 (.82) 1.48 (.93) .53 (.50)* 1.094
GJT Accuracy .65 (.13) .73 (.14) .08 (.08)**a .925
Notes. at(16) = 3.764, p = .002. *p < .05, **p < .01.
Table 3. At-home learners: Regression model examining declarative, procedural, and working
memory and GJT performance change from baseline to follow-up: GJT d' Change.
Variable B SEB β
Constant .510 .117
Declarative .156 .152 .247
Procedural .204 .137 .365
Working memory .174 .145 .293
R2 .244
F 1.398
Notes. B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SEB = standard error of B; β = standardized regression

coefficient.
Research question 2: Do individual differences in declarative, procedural and work-

ing memory account for changes in L2 neurocognitive processing over the course of
one semester?
a L2 behavioral performance. We explored the GJT scores for at-home learners in order
to gain an understanding of the performance changes that took place over the semester
(see Table 2). At baseline testing, learner scores were descriptively low but were signifi-
cantly above chance for phrase structure judgments (GJT d': t(16) = 7.50, p < .001).
From baseline to follow-up testing, at-home learners evidenced performance gains on
the GJT of large effect (GJT d': t(16) = 4.411, p < .001), although individual performance
change varied from a loss of 6% to a gain of 22%.
b Declarative, procedural and working memory and L2 performance. Our first research
question asked whether change in at-home learners’ L2 performance could be
accounted for by different aspects of memory. In order to capture the unique contribu-
tion of each aspect of memory (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2001), a standard, linear mul-
tiple regression was run where we regressed GJT d' change score (the dependent
variable) onto the declarative, procedural, and working memory composite scores
(the predictor variables; for scores on the memory measures, their intercorrelations,
and their correlations with GJT gains, see Appendix 2, Tables 11 and 12). Results
from the regression (see Table 3) indicated that memory accounted for approximately
24% of variance, although the model was not statistically significant and neither
Figure 2. ERP waveforms and voltage maps for at-home learners at (a) baseline and (b) follow-
up.
Notes. On the waveforms, the black line represents processing of correct phrase structure stimuli, and the
red line represents processing of violation phrase structure stimuli. Voltage maps represent the value of
the difference wave for the violation condition minus the correct condition. Note that negative voltage is
plotted up.
declarative, procedural, nor working memory were found to be statistically signifi-

cant predictors of performance gains.
c L2 neurocognitive processing (ERPs). Prior to examining at-home learners’ ERP data in

regard to the specific research questions, we first explored the ERP effects evidenced at
baseline and follow-up in order to gain an understanding of whether learners in this
group evidenced typical language-related ERP effects (e.g. N400, P600). As a group at
baseline, at-home learners evidenced a sustained negativity that was significant at ante-
rior and anterior-central sites during the 300–500 ms time window, and at anterior sites
during the 600–900 ms time window. At follow-up testing, this group of learners evi-
denced an early negativity that was marginally significant at posterior sites during the
300–500 ms time window. For the 600–900 ms time window at follow-up, learners evi-
denced a late positivity that was marginally significant at anterior and anterio-central
sites. (For waveforms and voltage maps, see first row in Figure 2. For full statistical
results, see the text and Table 14 provided in Appendix 3.) Thus, these group-level analy-
ses revealed that at-home learners showed a negative effect over anterior sites in both
time windows at baseline, but no clear effect at follow-up, although there were also both
negative and positive trends in the data.
Given recent reports of evidence of different processing strategies in both L1 and L2

(Tanner and van Hell, 2014; Tanner et al., 2014), we considered whether the general lack
of group effects could be due to the fact that the group average was obscuring clear ERP
effects in subgroups of learners with different processing strategies, as opposed to gen-
eral issues of lack of power or lack of language processing effects. Indeed, both at base-
line and at follow-up there were negative relationships between the effects in the 300–500
ms and the 600–900 ms time windows (baseline: r(15) = −.329, p = .197; follow-up:
r(15) = −.788, p < .001), suggesting that learners’ responses were either negativity- or
positivity-dominant, particularly at follow-up testing. Thus, we explored whether signifi-
cant ERP effects would emerge at baseline and at follow-up within learners who were
grouped by whether they had a negative or positive RDI value at the relevant testing
session. Note that evidence of a general negative or positive ERP effect within these
subgroups would not be particularly informative, but effects with timing and distribution
characteristics consistent with the N400 and/or P600 would provide evidence of lan-
guage processing effects within these groups.
Indeed, at baseline, we found that within the subgroup of negativity-dominant learn-
ers (n = 11; see second group of rows in Figure 2 and Table 14), statistically significant
negativities were present at both medial and lateral sites. Between 600–900 ms at base-
line, significant negativities were evidenced at anterio-central, central and centro-poste-
rior medial sites and at anterior and anterio-central lateral sites. At follow-up testing,
between 300–500 ms, the subgroup of negativity-dominant learners (n = 11) showed a
marginally significant negativity at medial sites and a significant negativity over lateral
sites. Between 600–900 ms, these learners evidenced a marginally significant negativity
at lateral sites. Thus, at both baseline and follow-up testing, the subgroups of negativity-
dominant learners evidenced significant negative effects, with the timing and the distri-
bution consistent with an N400 effect at follow-up testing.
For the subgroup of positivity-dominant learners at baseline testing (n = 6; see third
group of rows in Figure 2 and Table 14), no statistically significant effects or interactions
were evidenced in either time window. For positivity-dominant learners at follow-up (n
= 6), no significant effects or interactions were evidenced between 300–500 ms. However,
between 600–900 ms, this subgroup evidenced statistically significant positive effects
along all anterior to posterior sites for both medial and lateral sites. Thus, at follow-up
testing, a P600 constrained to the typical P600 time window was evidenced within the
subgroup of positivity-dominant learners.
Overall, the full group of learners who studied Spanish over the course of a semester
at their home university showed an anterior negative ERP effect at baseline and trends to
both negative and positive ERP effects at follow-up. These overall group averages, how-
ever, seemed to obscure the fact that negativity-dominant learners drove the anterior
negativity at baseline testing, with positivity-dominant learners not evidencing any ERP
effect at that time. At follow-up testing, negativity-dominant learners showed a clear
N400 effect and positivity-dominant learners showed a P600 effect.
d Declarative, procedural, and working memory and L2 processing. Our second research
question asked whether change in at-home learners’ processing could be accounted for
by different aspects of memory. Because group-level ERP effects do not allow us to
Table 4. At-home learners: Processing changes in magnitude and dominance.
ERP Index Baseline Follow–up Change Change

(Cohen’s d)
Response magnitude index (RMI) 1.90 (.78) 2.70 (1.82) .80 (1.97) .405
Response dominance index (RDI) −.35 (1.63) .20 (2.99) .55 (3.94) .140
Table 5. At-home learners: Regression model examining declarative, procedural, and working
memory and processing change from baseline to follow-up.
RMI-Change RDI-Change
Variable B SEB β B SEB β

Constant .846 .485 .530 .996
Declarative −.420 .631 −.168 1.211 1.294 .242
Procedural −.469 .568 −.210 .217 1.165 .049
Working memory −.848 .601 −.359 −1.196 1.233 −.254
R2 .176 .131
F .456 .594
Notes. RDI = response dominance index; RMI = response magnitude index.
examine individual differences, we adopted the indices from Tanner et al. (2014) to cap-
ture change in individuals’ processing response magnitude and type/dominance. Table 4
reveals descriptive changes among the at-home learners as a group, with a moderate-
sized increase in the magnitude of their responses and a small shift to more positive
processing responses, although neither of these changes reach statistical significance
(RMI: t(16) = 1.669, p = .114; RDI: t(16) = 0.577, p = .572). Correlations between pro-
cessing change metrics and cognitive factors are reported in Appendix 2, Table 12.
In order to capture the unique contribution of each aspect of memory, two standard,
multiple regression analyses were run, for which either RMI-change or RDI-change (as
the dependent variable) was regressed onto declarative and procedural learning ability
and WM composite scores (the predictor variables; see Table 5). Results from the regres-
sion for RMI-change indicated that memory accounted for approximately 18% of the
variance, and results from the regression for RDI-change indicated that memory
accounted for approximately 13% of the variance. However, neither model was statisti-
cally significant and no unique predictors of processing changes were evidenced.
3 Discussion
Results from Experiment 1 showed that intermediate Spanish learners in an at-home
context made significant gains from the beginning to the end of a semester in regard
to their ability to detect syntactic, phrase structure violations. In regard to learners’
neural processing of these violations, at-home learners as a group did not evidence
language-related ERP processing effects at the beginning or at the end of the semester,
nor did the overall size (RMI) or type (RDI) of neural signatures change at a statistically
significant level. However, when learners were grouped by their ERP dominance type at
each time point, significant N400 and P600 effects were evidenced at the end of the
semester. Thus, overall, at-home learners evidenced improved performance on a judg-
ment task as well as N400 and P600 effects at the end of a semester of intermediate-level
Spanish study.
How do these results compare with previous research that motivated the current exper-
iment? In regard to L2 performance, the only context-based study to examine gains for
at-home learners on GJTs failed to find improvements (Isabelli-Garcia, 2010), although
the target structure was grammatical gender agreement (which is different than that of the
current study and is known to be a particularly difficult structure for L2 learners to mas-
ter). In regard to L2 processing, previous research has shown progressions from no ERP
effect to an N400 and/or from an N400 to a P600 longitudinally in learners of natural and
artificial L2s (McLaughlin et al., 2010; Morgan-Short, Sanz et al., 2010; Morgan-Short,
Steinhauer et al., 2012; Osterhout et al., 2006). As a group, the learners in the current
study did not evidence this progression. The lack of group ERP effect at follow-up testing,
however, is consistent with previous research: at the end of the semester, at-home learners
were approximately 73% correct on detecting phrase structure violations; similarly,
explicitly trained learners in Morgan-Short et al. (2012) did not evidence any group ERP
effect when performing at approximately 77% correct on detecting phrase structure viola-
tions in an artificial language. Importantly though, the at-home learners’ group-averaged
ERPs seemed to obscure ERP effects present within subgroups. At the end of the semester
of at-home study, one subgroup of learners evidenced the development of an N400 effect,
which suggests a reliance on meaning-based strategies for processing phrase structure,
whereas another subgroup of learners evidenced the development of a P600 effect, which
suggests a reliance on combinatorial processes. These results add converging evidence to
(1) L2 studies that report N400s in response to syntactic violations (e.g. McLaughlin
et al., 2010; Morgan-Short et al., 2010, 2012; Tanner et al., 2013), and (2) research that has
found different language processing strategies may be obscured by group-level analyses
(Tanner and van Hell, 2014; Tanner et al., 2014).
In regard to our research questions asking whether abilities in different memory sys-
tems account for changes in performance or processing among at-home learners, the
results did not reveal a predictive role for individual differences in memory. In regards to
WM, we predicted that WM would account for performance gains; this prediction was
not supported. In contrast with the null results for the present study, Linck and Weiss
(2015) found that WM was a marginally significant predictor of gains on a written meas-
ure of general proficiency from pre- to post-semester for classroom learners at earlier
stages of experience. These contrasting results suggest that the role of WM for at-home
learners may be more relevant for general proficiency changes, and for earlier stages of
development, than for the specific linguistic structure and task utilized here. In terms of
declarative and procedural learning ability, we predicted a role for declarative memory
in behavioral change if learners remained at low proficiency (which they did not) and did
not predict a role for procedural memory among at-home learners. Indeed, if explicit
laboratory studies can be related to at-home contexts, these results corroborate those of
Brill-Schuetz and Morgan-Short (2014), where no effect for procedural memory was
found for explicitly trained learners of an artificial L2. In terms of processing, we pre-
dicted a role for procedural memory in processing changes, which was not supported. In
general, the particular relationships found in previous research, based on learners of
artificial L2s trained under implicit and incidental conditions, do not seem to be substan-
tiated in this set of at-home learners of Spanish. The disconnect between previous studies
that have found a role for declarative and procedural memory and the current study,
which did not find evidence of such a role, could be due to (1) differences in learner
proficiency and experience, as learners in the current study may have moved through
proficiency levels that were neither low nor high enough to expect strong reliance on
declarative or procedural memory and were likely exposed to a mixture of explicit and
implicit training, or (2) the fact that the present study examined a change in performance
and processing whereas previous research examined performance at discrete points in
time. Overall, even though performance gains and processing changes were evidenced in
at-home learners, we were not able to account for this development with the cognitive
factors examined here.
III Experiment 2: Study abroad

1 Methods
a Participants. Participants included 20 native speakers of English studying Spanish as
an L2. During the semester of study, participants were enrolled in 12- to 15-week study-
abroad programs in Spanish-speaking countries (Spain, Argentina, Dominican Repub-
lic), and completed four or five university-level courses taught in Spanish (e.g.
intermediate/advanced Spanish grammar, linguistics, literary analysis, history, culture,
and gastronomy; mean weekly classroom hours = 15.5, SD = 3.5). Participants com-
pleted the cognitive and baseline language sessions an average of 7.2 days (SD = 3.8
days) prior to departure for their study-abroad program and completed the follow-up
language session an average of 14.4 days (SD = 10.7 days) after returning from study
abroad. Screening procedures and participation criteria were the same as those used in
Experiment 1. A total of seven participants were excluded from analysis for the follow-
ing reasons: Five participants failed to complete all experimental sessions and two had
excessive artifacts in EEG data, resulting in final analyses on data from 13 participants
(all female; additional participant data reported in Appendix 1).
b Materials and procedures. All materials and procedures were identical to those uti-
lized in Experiment 1. Artifacts in EEG data led to rejections of less than 8% of experi-
mental trials from ERP analyses at either testing session (baseline: 6.08% correct, 7.64%
violation; follow-up: 6.27% correct, 5.30% violation).
2 Results
In this section, as Section II.2, we present statistical analyses that describe performance
and processing at each session and their change over the semester. These results inform
Table 6. Study-abroad learners: Descriptive results for GJT.
Assessment Baseline Follow-up Change Change

(Cohen’s d)
GJT d' 1.13 (1.18) 1.60 (.99) .47 (.72)* .684
GJT Accuracy .67 (.17) .75 (.13) .07 (.12)^a .618
Notes. at(12) = 2.136, p = .054. ^p < .10, *p < .05.
Table 7. Study-abroad learners: Regression model examining declarative, procedural, and
working memory and GJT performance change from baseline to follow-up: GJT d' change.
Variable B SEB β
Constant .506 .126
Declarative −.121 .182 −.138
Procedural 1.285 .363 .855**
Working memory .194 .202 .208
R2 .702
F 7.067**
Notes. B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SEB = standard error of B; β = standardized regression

coefficient. ** p < .01.
the interpretation of the regression analyses that are carried out to address our specific
research questions.
a L2 behavioral performance. We first explored GJT scores in order to gain insight into
performance changes that took place over the semester (see Table 6). At baseline testing,
learners showed fairly low but statistically above chance performance for phrase struc-
ture judgments (GJT d': t(12) = 3.452, p = .005). From baseline to follow-up testing,
learners who studied abroad evidenced improved performance on phrase structure judg-
ments of moderate-sized effect that reached statistical significance (GJT d': t(12) =
2.392, p = .034), although individual performance change varied from a loss of 13% to a
gain of 24%.
b Declarative, procedural, and working memory and L2 performance. In order to address

our first research question in regard to study-abroad learners, we examined whether the
change in performance could be accounted for by different aspects of memory. A stand-
ard, multiple regression was conducted, for which the GJT d' change score (the depend-
ent variable) was regressed onto the declarative, procedural, and working memory
composite scores (the predictor variables; for scores on the memory measures, their
intercorrelations, and their correlations with GJT gains, see Appendix 2, Tables 11 and
13). Results from the regression (see Table 7) indicated that memory accounted for
approximately 70% of the variance in GJT d' change scores and that procedural learning
ability was statistically significant, unique predictor of performance gains.
c L2 neurocognitive processing (ERPs). Prior to examining study-abroad learners’ ERP

data in regard to the specific research questions, we first explored the ERP effects evi-
denced at baseline and follow-up sessions in order to gain an understanding of whether
learners in this group evidenced typical language-related ERP effects. As a group, at
baseline, significant positivities were evidenced at anterior, central-anterior and central
sites for the 300–500 ms time window. For the 600–900 ms time window at baseline, a
significant positivity with a broad distribution was evidenced. At follow-up testing, for
the 300–500 ms time window, study-abroad learners evidenced significant negativities at
left-hemisphere medial sites as well as at right-hemisphere medial and lateral sites. For
the 600–900 ms time window at follow-up, no significant effects or interactions were
evidenced. (See first row in Figure 3 for waveforms and voltage maps. For full statistical
results, see the text and Table 15 provided in Appendix 3.) Thus, these group-level analy-
ses revealed that study-abroad learners showed an anterior positivity at baseline and an
N400 effect with typical timing and distribution characteristics at follow-up testing. Fol-
lowing the analysis for Experiment 1, we explored whether these group averages were
obscuring different processing strategies in subgroups of participants. As with the at-
home learners, there were negative relationships between the effects in the 300–500 ms
and 600–900 ms time windows (baseline: r(11) = –.622, p = .023; follow-up: r(11) =
–.504, p = .079), suggesting that learners largely displayed either negativity- or positiv-
ity-dominant processing responses. Thus we explored whether additional significant
ERP effects would emerge within learners who were grouped by their dominance (RDI).
For the subgroup of negativity-dominant learners at baseline (n = 3; see second group
of rows in Figure 3 and Table 15), analyses revealed a marginally significant negativity
at posterior sites, as well as a significant negativity at left, medial sites. Between 600–
900 ms, these negativity-dominant learners evidenced a significant negativity con-
strained to left, medial, posterior sites. At follow-up testing, negativity-dominant learners
(n = 8) evidenced significant negative effects at both medial and lateral sites. No sta-
tistically significant effects or interactions were evidenced between 600–900 ms.
For the subgroup of positivity-dominant learners at baseline (n = 10; see third group
of rows in Figure 3 and Table 15), between 300–500 ms, a significant positive effect
was distributed over anterior, anterio-central and central sites. Between 600–900 ms, a
significant, broad positivity was evidenced. At follow-up testing, between 300–500 ms,
no significant effects or interactions were evidenced for positivity-dominant learners
(n = 5). However, between 600–900 ms, analyses revealed positive effects over medial
and lateral sites.
Overall, the full group of learners who studied Spanish abroad over the course of a
semester showed an anterior positivity at baseline and an N400 effect at follow-up test-
ing. However, when analyses were conducted based on response dominance, negativity-
dominant learners evidenced clear N400 effects at both baseline and at follow-up testing
whereas positivity-dominant learners evidenced a more anterior positivity at baseline
testing and a clear P600 effect at follow-up testing.
d Declarative, procedural, and working memory and L2 processing. Our second research
question asked whether study-abroad learners’ change in processing could be accounted
for by different aspects of memory. As in Experiment 1, we adopted the indices from
Figure 3. ERP waveforms and voltage maps for study-abroad learners at (a) baseline and (b)
follow-up. On the waveforms, the black line represents processing of correct phrase structure
stimuli and the red line represents processing of violation phrase structure stimuli. Voltage
maps represent the value of the difference wave for the violation condition minus the correct
condition. Note that negative voltage is plotted up.
Table 8. Study-abroad learners: Processing changes in magnitude and dominance.
Event-related potential index Baseline Follow–up Change Change

(Cohen’s d)
Response magnitude index (RMI) 2.21 (1.73) 3.06 (2.00) .84 (2.50) .337
Response dominance index (RDI) .71 (2.49) −.97 (2.88) −1.67 (2.63)* −.636
Note. * p < .05.
Tanner et al. (2014) and explored change in the size (RMI) and type (RDI) of neural
response. Table 8 reveals descriptive changes among the study-abroad learners as a
group, with a moderate-sized increase in the magnitude of their responses, which did not
reach statistical significance (RMI: t(12) = 1.216, p = .247), and a moderate-sized, statis-
tically significant shift to more negative processing responses (RDI: t(12) = 2.294, p =
.041). Correlations between these processing changes and cognitive factors are reported
in Appendix 2, Table 13.
To examine whether change in processing could be accounted for by different aspects
of memory, two standard, multiple regression analyses were run in which either RMI-
change or RDI-change (as the dependent variable) was regressed onto the declarative
and procedural learning ability and WM composite scores (the predictor variables; see
Table 9). Results from the regression for RMI-change indicated that memory accounted
Table 9. Study-abroad learners: Regression model examining declarative, procedural, and
working memory and processing change from baseline to follow-up.
RMI-Change RDI-Change
Variable B SEB β B SEB β

Constant .963 .495 −1.712 .812
Declarative 1.229 .718 .402 .099 1.177 .031
Procedural 4.891 1.430 .933** −1.569 2.346 −.384
Working memory 2.514 .798 .772* −.906 1.309 −.264
R2 .619 .075
F 4.867* .863
Notes. RDI = response dominance index; RMI = response magnitude index. B = unstandardized regression
coefficient; SEB = standard error of B; β = standardized regression coefficient. * p < .05, ** p < .01.
for approximately 62% of the variance and that both procedural learning ability and WM
were statistically significant predictors of RMI-change. Results from the regression for
RDI-change indicated that memory accounted for approximately 8% of the variance;
neither declarative nor procedural learning ability nor WM were statistically significant
predictors of RDI-change.
3 Discussion
Results from Experiment 2 showed that intermediate Spanish learners in a study-abroad
context made significant gains from the beginning to the end of a semester in regard to
their ability to detect syntactic, phrase structure violations. In regard to the processing of
phrase structure violations, these learners evidenced the development of a group-level
N400 effect and a significant shift in RDI to a more negativity-dominant response. In
addition, when learners were grouped by their ERP dominance type, N400s were evi-
denced before and at the end of the semester abroad, and a P600 was evidenced at the end
of the semester. Thus, overall, study-abroad learners evidenced improved performance
on a judgment task as well as the emergence of a subgroup-level N400 and P600 at the
end of the semester.
How do the current results compare with previous study-abroad research? In regard to
performance changes, the results differ from findings for grammatical gender agreement,
where judgement task improvements were not observed after study abroad (Grey et al.,
2015; Isabelli-Garcia, 2010). The current study’s results are consistent, however, with
findings of improvements among study-abroad learners for word order and number
agreement judgments (Grey et al., 2015). Thus, it appears that certain linguistic forms
may be more likely to develop with study-abroad experience. In regard to ERP process-
ing effects, the group-level analysis seems to suggest a progression from no clear, lan-
guage-related effect before studying abroad to the development of an N400 effect, which
is consistent with other longitudinal L2 ERP studies that have shown this pattern of
progression (e.g. Morgan-Short et al., 2010). Interestingly, the specific ERP effects evi-
denced across the study-abroad learners at baseline or follow-up testing are consistent
with ERP effects evidenced in previous studies for similar populations of learners in
several ways: First, although its functional significance is unclear, the early anterior-
central positivity evidenced in the current experiment at baseline is similar to (1) the
effects found for syntactic violation processing among low proficiency, explicitly trained
learners of an artificial language (Morgan-Short et al., 2012), as well as (2) the effect in
L2 Spanish learners who were relatively matched with the present learner group at base-
line in terms of L2 proficiency and experience (Bowden et al., 2013). Second, after a
semester abroad, the present learner group exhibited an N400 effect when their perfor-
mance was approximately 75% accurate on the phrase structure judgment task, which is
parallel to the implicitly trained artificial L2 learners who evidenced an N400 effect
when performance was approximately 71% accurate on a phrase structure judgment task
(Morgan-Short et al., 2012). These parallel results suggest that learners in study abroad
(and implicit laboratory) contexts may tend to rely on meaning-based strategies when
processing L2 syntax.
Indeed, previous research has found evidence of more meaning-based communicative
strategies for learners with study-abroad experience (Tokowicz et al., 2004). Specifically,
in their L2 production study, Tokowicz, Michael and Kroll (2004) found that higher WM
allowed learners with study-abroad experience to make more effective use of meaning-
based communicative strategies. Considering that the N400 is posited to reflect semantic
processing strategies (see Kuperberg, 2007; Kutas and Federmeier, 2011), if study-
abroad experience pushes learners to employ meaning-based communicative strategies,
we might expect learners who have just returned from immersion to make more use of
semantic information in sentence processing, as reflected by the findings of a more nega-
tive RDI at follow-up testing and the emergence of an N400.
Although these group-level results are informative, it is also important to consider
that these patterns did not seem to be representative of all learners. Indeed, when grouped
by processing dominance, a subgroup of study-abroad learners evidenced a P600 effect
at follow-up testing, which suggests reliance on combinatorial processing. The finding in
this subgroup of learners is consistent with the P600 effect for phrase structure violations
found previously for implicitly trained learners at higher levels of proficiency (e.g. 94%
accuracy, Morgan-Short et al., 2012). Overall, even as we detect group-level results, we
see individual variation in processing responses that provides further evidence that
group-level analyses may obscure processing effects evidenced in subgroups (Tanner
and van Hell, 2014; Tanner et al., 2014).
Our research questions asked whether individual differences in memory could account
for performance and processing changes. For study-abroad learners, we predicted that
WM would account for gains in behavioral performance and changes in processing. WM
did not account for behavioral gains but did account for processing changes. Within this
group of learners, WM predicted an increase in neural response magnitude from pre- to
post-semester, providing converging evidence with previous eye-tracking research that
found WM modulated processing strategies for learners with study-abroad experience
(LaBrozzi, 2012).
In terms of declarative and procedural memory, we predicted a role for procedural
memory in both behavioral and processing changes. Our results are consistent with and
extend previous work: here we look at change in performance and processing as opposed
to at high stages of proficiency. Although most of the learners in this group did not reach
advanced stages of proficiency, and thus would not be expected to rely fully on
procedural memory for L2 grammar, we did find that procedural learning ability
accounted for gains in behavioral performance as well as an increase in the magnitude of
learners’ ERP responses. This pattern of results is consistent with predictions made by
declarative and procedural perspectives of L2 acquisition that components of L2 gram-
mar should come to rely on the procedural memory system with increasing proficiency
and exposure (e.g. DeKeyser, 2015; Paradis, 2009; Ullman, 2015; Ullman and Lovelett,
2018).
Overall, study-abroad learners evidenced large performance gains and significant
changes in processing dominance over the course of the semester of study. Procedural
memory accounted for changes in performance and processing, and WM accounted for
changes in processing.
IV General discussion

The two experiments reported here sought to explore how individual differences in
declarative, procedural, and working memory account for changes in L2 behavioral
performance and neural processing for learners in at-home and study-abroad contexts.
The implications of the results for L2 issues related to context of learning, electro-
physiological processing, and individual differences in cognitive abilities have been
considered in the experiment-specific discussion sections (Sections II.3 and III.3). In
this general discussion section, we consider the larger theoretical implications of the
full set of results for perspectives about the role of memory in L2 and how that role
may vary in different contexts.
First, we consider WM, which has been posited to play a role in L2 processing and
development (e.g. Linck et al., 2014; McDonald, 2006; Williams, 2012). Results from
the current study suggest a fairly constrained role of WM in development over one
semester in intermediate-level learners of Spanish. The results indicated a role for WM
for processing, but not behavioral, changes for learners in study-abroad, but not at-home
contexts. These findings bear out claims that factors such as context and linguistic struc-
ture likely mediate the effect of WM on L2 development (e.g. Linck et al., 2014).
Specifically, the current experiments provide preliminary evidence that WM may predict
processing changes in settings where input is less controlled (e.g. study abroad), which
is in line with (1) theoretical claims that processing demands, and thus, the role of WM,
are greater in immersion settings (e.g. McDonald, 2006; Sagarra and Herschensohn,
2010), as well as (2) previous research that has found WM to be relevant for learners with
immersion experience, but not for those whose L2 experience is limited to traditional
classroom settings (e.g. LaBrozzi, 2012; Sunderman and Kroll, 2009; Tokowicz et al.,
2004). Because WM accounted for increase in the magnitude of the processing response
in study-abroad learners, we may tentatively conclude that WM facilitates processing
regardless of the specific strategy, although it may be particularly important in meaning-
based processing strategies (see Section III.3).
Second, we consider theoretical perspectives that posit a role for declarative and pro-
cedural memory and knowledge in L2 acquisition (e.g. DeKeyser, 2015; Paradis, 2009;
Ullman, 2015). In regard to declarative memory, these perspectives predict that individu-
als who have a greater ability to learn declaratively may show more success at earlier
stages of L2 and that this relationship might be enhanced when the context is more
explicit (Ullman, 2015). When examining changes in performance and processing for
intermediate-level learners, we did not find a role for declarative memory, which may not
be surprising given the specific model predictions. Note, however, that because of the
relatively low levels of behavioral performance at baseline testing, we might expect to
find a relationship with declarative memory at that session. Indeed, post-hoc exploratory
analyses revealed that at baseline testing, declarative memory was positively correlated
with online processing (Experiment 1, RMI: r = .597, p = .011) and with behavioral per-
formance (Experiment 2, GJT d': r = .687, p = .009), which is in line with these specific
theoretical predictions as well as with previous research (Carpenter et al., 2009; Hamrick,
2015; Morgan-Short et al., 2014; Morgan-Short et al., 2015b).
In regard to procedural memory, theoretical perspectives predict that individuals who
have a greater ability to learn procedurally may show more success at later stages of L2
and that this relationship might be enhanced when the context is less explicit (Ullman,
2015). Behaviorally, we found that procedural memory predicted gains only for learners
in the study-abroad context, despite similar behavioral development among at-home
learners (improvement in GJT accuracy: at-home, 8%; study-abroad, 7%). This parallels
the pattern of results found with artificial language, where learners with high procedural
memory experienced advantages when trained under implicit, but not explicit, condi-
tions (Brill-Schuetz and Morgan-Short, 2014), and provides converging evidence to sup-
port that the role of procedural memory may be enhanced under less explicit, more
exposure-based contexts.
With regard to accounting for processing changes, results indicated that procedural
memory predicted an increase in overall neural response magnitude for learners in the
study-abroad context. What might have led to this result? It could be that having better
procedural memory, along with better WM, facilitated processing the L2 input provided
in the study-abroad context, which, in turn, led to a larger processing response in this
group at the end of the semester, regardless of whether learners fell into the N400 or
P600 processing subgroups. Note that the experiments here utilize phrase structure as a
proxy for L2 development; certainly, future research that examines the relationship
between cognitive factors and L2 development with different linguistic structures will
aid in developing a better understanding of exactly which aspects of linguistic compe-
tence of tapped by processing measures, as noted by Roberts et al. (this issue).
The results of the current study must be considered in light of its limitations, many of
which are inherent to research in natural contexts. A primary limitation is that the sam-
ples sizes of 17 (Experiment 1) and 13 (Experiment 2) are certainly smaller than ideal,
which is not uncommon with other studies of this kind (e.g. Bond et al., 2011; Tanner
et al., 2013; Tanner et al., 2014; White et al., 2012). Despite this methodological con-
straint, we seem to have sufficient power to detect effects in these datasets (the emer-
gence of group-level ERP effects in both experiments, as well as a predictive role for
procedural and working memory in Experiment 2). Future research should aim to repli-
cate and extend these findings with larger participant numbers. A second limitation is
that learners in both experiments represent relatively diverse L2 experiences during the
semester of study: Participants were enrolled in different Spanish classes in both experi-
ments, and in a number of different semester-long study-abroad programs in Experiment
2. These differences likely imply a range of L2 exposure and use that may interact with
cognitive abilities to influence L2 development. Although this diversity could arguably

afford greater generalizability of these results to a wider range of ‘at-home’ and ‘study-
abroad’ contexts as opposed to specific programs, future work may wish to measure and
analyze the role of amount and type of L2 contact in these settings. Such work may also
want to consider affective factors, such as motivation, as a variable that accounts for L2
performance and processing (see Tanner et al., 2014 for evidence regarding a role for
motivation). The results of the current study suggest that future investigations along
these lines will be informative to our understanding of L2 acquisition in study-abroad
and at-home contexts.
V Conclusions
The two complementary experiments reported here build upon previous research by pro-
viding the first empirical assessment of individual differences in declarative, procedural,
and working memory as predictors of L2 development in different contexts of learning.
This research addresses gaps in the extant literature by examining both processing and
performance development in naturalistic settings. Using a longitudinal design, we found
that procedural memory accounted for changes in L2 performance and processing, and
WM accounted for changes in L2 processing, but only for learners in a study-abroad
context. Future research that utilizes a multidimensional approach informed by second
language acquisition and cognitive neuroscience research will provide further insights
into the relationships between external and internal factors in L2 development that will
help to determine whether individual differences in memory are differentially predictive
of L2 outcomes across learning contexts and to refine theories of L2 acquisition.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the following people for their ideas, feedback, and suggestions, which
have improved this research and manuscript: Darren Tanner, Jessica Williams, Susanne Rott, Luis
Lopez, the members of the Cognition of Second Language Acquisition Laboratory at the University
of Illinois at Chicago, the members of the Instructed Second Language Acquisition Laboratory at
Northern Illinois University, and our reviewers.
Declaration of conflicting interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a Language Learning Dissertation
Grant to MFS and a University of Illinois at Chicago Campus Research Board Pilot Grant to KMS.
Note
1. Throughout the manuscript, we use declarative and procedural ‘memory’ and declarative and
procedural ‘learning ability’ interchangeably to refer to learning abilities within these mem-
ory systems.
References
Bond K, Gabriele A, Fiorentino R and Alemán Bañón J (2011) Individual differences and the role
of the L1 in L2 processing: An ERP investigation. In: Herschensohn J and Tanner D (eds)
Proceedings of the 11th Generative Approaches to Second Language Acquisition Conference.
Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 17–29.
Bowden HW, Steinhauer K, Sanz C and Ullman MT (2013) Native-like brain processing of syntax
can be attained by university foreign language learners. Neuropsychologia 51: 2492–2511.
Brill-Schuetz KA and Morgan-Short K (2014) The role of procedural memory in adult second lan-
guage acquisition. In: Bello P, Guarini M, McShane M and Scassellati B (eds) Proceedings
of the 36th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Cognitive Science Society:
Quebec City, pp. 260–265.
Carpenter HS (2008) A behavioral and electrophysiological investigation of different aptitudes for
L2 grammar in learners equated for proficiency level. Unpublished PhD thesis, Georgetown
University, Washington, DC.
Carpenter HS, Morgan-Short K and Ullman MT (2009) Predicting L2 using declarative and proce-
dural memory assessments: A behavioral and ERP investigation. In: Georgetown University
Round Table, Washington, DC.
Carpenter HS, Morgan-Short K and Ullman MT (2009) Predicting L2 using declarative and proce-
dural memory assessments: A behavioral and ERP investigation. In: Georgetown University
Round Table: Implicit and Explicit Conditions, Processes, and Knowledge in SLA and
Bilingualism, Washington, DC, 13–15 March 2009.
Carroll JB and Sapon SM (1959) Modern language aptitude test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
Collentine J (2004) The effects of learning contexts on morphosyntactic and lexical development.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26: 227–48.
Collentine J and Freed BF (2004) Learning context and its effects of second language acquisition:
Introduction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26: 153–71.
DeKeyser RM (1991) Foreign language development during a semester abroad. In: Freed BF (ed.)
Foreign language acquisition and the classroom. Lexington, MA: DC Health, pp. 104–18.
DeKeyser RM (2015) Skill acquisition theory. In: VanPatten B and Williams J (eds) Theories of
second language acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 94–112.
Foerde K, Knowlton BJ and Poldrack RA (2006) Modulation of competing memory systems by
distraction. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
103: 11778–83.
Grey S, Cox JG, Serafini EJ and Sanz C (2015) The role of individual differences in the study
abroad context: Cognitive capacity and language development during short-term intensive
language exposure. The Modern Language Journal 99: 137–57.
Hahne A and Friederici AD (2001) Processing a second language: Late learners’ comprehen-
sion mechanisms as revealed by event-related brain potentials. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 4: 123–41.
Hamrick P (2015) Declarative and procedural memory abilities as individual differences in inci-
dental language learning. Learning and Individual Differences 44: 9–15.
Howard JH and Howard DV (1997) Age differences in implicit learning of higher order dependen-
cies in serial patterns. Psychology and Aging 12: 634–36.
Howard M (2001) The effects of study abroad on the L2 learner’s structural skills: Evidence from
advanced learners of French. EUROSLA Yearbook 1: 123–41.
Isabelli CA (2004) The acquisition of the null subject parameter properties in SLA: Some effects
of positive evidence in a naturalistic learning context. Hispania 87: 150–62.
Isabelli CA and Nishida C (2005) Development of the Spanish subjunctive in a nine-month study-
abroad setting. In: Eddington D (ed.) Selected proceedings of the 6th Conference on the
Acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as First and Second Languages. Somerville, MA:
Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 78–91.
Isabelli-Garcia C (2010) Acquisition of Spanish gender agreement in two learning contexts: Study
abroad and at home. Foreign Language Annals 43: 289–303.
Kaan E (2007) Event-related potentials and language processing: A brief overview. Language and
Linguistics Compass 1: 571–91.
Kaan E, Harris A, Gibson E and Holcomb P (2000) The P600 as an index of syntactic integration
difficulty. Language and Cognitive Processes 15: 159–201.
Kaufman AS and Kaufman NL (2004) Kaufman assessment battery for children. 2nd edition.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Knowlton BJ and Moody TD (2008) Procedural learning in humans. In: Byrnes J (ed.) Learning and
Memory: A Comprehensive Reference, Vol. 3: Memory Systems. Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 321–40.
Kuperberg GR (2007) Neural mechanisms of language comprehension: Challenges to syntax.
Brain Research 1146: 23–49.
Kutas M and Federmeier KD (2011) Thirty years and counting: Finding meaning in the N400 com-
ponent of the event-related brain potential (ERP). Annual Review of Psychology 62: 621–47.
Kutas M and Hillyard SA (1980) Reading senseless sentences: Brain potentials reflect semantic
incongruity. Science 207(4427): 203–05.
LaBrozzi RM (2012) The role of study abroad and inhibitory control on processing redundant
cues. In: Geeslin K and Díaz-Campos M (eds) Selected Proceedings of the 14th Hispanic
Linguistics Symposium. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 228–41.
Lafford BA (2006) The effects of study abroad vs. classroom contexts on Spanish SLA: Old
assumptions, new insights and future research directions. In: Klee CA and Face TL (eds)
Selected proceedings of the 7th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as
first and second languages. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 1–25.
Linck JA and Weiss DJ (2015) Can working memory and inhibitory control predict second lan-
guage learning in the classroom? SAGE Open 5: 1–11.
Linck JA, Osthus P, Koeth JT and Bunting MF (2014) The relationship between working memory
and second language comprehension and production: A meta-analysis. Psychonomic Bulletin
and Review 21: 861–83.
Luck SJ (2012) Event-related potentials. In: Cooper H, Camic PM, Long DL, Panter AT,
Rindskopf D and Sher KJ (eds) APA handbook of research methods in psychology; Volume
1: Foundations, planning, measures, and psychometrics. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association, pp. 523–46.
McDonald JL (2006) Beyond the critical period: Processing-based explanations for poor gram-
maticality judgment performance by late second language learners. Journal of Memory and
Language 55: 381–401.
McLaughlin J, Tanner D, Pitkänen I et al. (2010) Brain potentials reveal discrete stages of L2
grammatical learning. Language Learning 60: 123–50.
Morgan-Short K (2014) Electrophysiological approaches to understanding second language
acquisition: A field reaching its potential. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 34: 15–36.
Morgan-Short K and Tanner D (2014) Event-related potentials (ERPs). In: Jegerski J and VanPatten
B (eds) Research methods in second language psycholinguistics. New York: Routledge, pp.
127–52.
Morgan-Short K, Sanz C, Steinhauer K and Ullman MT (2010) Second language acquisition of
gender agreement in explicit and implicit training conditions: An event-related potential
study. Language Learning 60: 154–93.
Morgan-Short K, Steinhauer K, Sanz C and Ullman MT (2012) Explicit and implicit second lan-
guage training differentially affect the achievement of native-like brain activation patterns.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24: 933–47.
Morgan-Short K, Faretta-Stutenberg M, Brill-Schuetz K, Carpenter H and Wong PCM (2014)

Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17: 56–72.
Morgan-Short K, Deng Z, Brill-Schuetz KA et al. (2015a) A view of the neural representation of
second language syntax through artificial language learning under implicit contexts of expo-
sure. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 27: 383–419.
Morgan-Short K, Faretta-Stutenberg M and Bartlett-Hsu L (2015b). Contributions of event-related
potential research to issues in explicit and implicit second language acquisition. In: Rebuschat
P. (ed.) Implicit and explicit learning of languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 349–84.
Mueller JL, Oberecker R, and Friederici AD (2009) Syntactic learning by mere exposure: An ERP
study in adult learners. BMC Neuroscience 10: 89–97.
Oldfield RC (1971) The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory.
Neuropsychologia 9: 97–113.
Ortega L, Iwashita N, Rabie S, and Norris JM (1999) A multilanguage comparison of measures
of syntactic complexity [Funded Project]. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawai’i, National
Foreign Language Resource Center.
Osterhout L and Holcomb PJ (1992) Event-related brain potentials elicited by syntactic anomaly.
Journal of Memory and Language 31: 785–806.
Osterhout L, McLaughlin J, Pitkänen I, Frenck-Mestre C and Molinaro N (2006) Novice learners,
longitudinal designs, and event-related potentials: A means for exploring the neurocognition
of second language processing. Language Learning 56(S1): 199–230.
Osterhout L, Kim A and Kuperberg GR (2012) The neurobiology of sentence comprehension. In:
Spivey M, Joannisse M and McCrae K (eds) The Cambridge handbook of psycholinguistics.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 365–89.
Paradis M (2009) Declarative and procedural determinants of second languages. Philadelphia,
PA: John Benjamins.
Plonsky L and Derrick DJ (2016) A Meta-analysis of reliability coefficients in second language
research. Modern Language Journal, 100: 538–53.
Redick TS, Broadway JM, Meier ME et al. (2012) Measuring working memory capacity with
automated complex span tasks. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 28: 164–71.
Robinson P (2001) Individual Differences, Cognitive Abilities, Aptitude Complexes and Learning
Conditions in Second Language Acquisition. Second Language Research 17: 368–92.
Rossi S, Gugler MF, Friederici AD and Hahne A (2006) The impact of proficiency on syntactic
second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials.
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 18: 2030–48.
Sagarra N (2008) Working memory and L2 processing of redundant grammatical forms. In:
Han Z (ed.) Understanding second language process. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters,
pp. 133–47.
Sagarra N and Herschensohn J (2010) The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and
number agreement processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua 120: 2022–39.
Sanz C (2005) Mind and context in adult second language acquisition. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Sanz C (2014) Contributions of study abroad research to our understanding of SLA processes and
outcomes: The SALA project, An appraisal. In: Pérez-Vidal C (ed.) Language acquisition in
study abroad and formal instruction contexts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp.
1–13.
Segalowitz N and Freed BF (2004) Context, contact, and cognition in oral fluency acquisi-
tion: Learning Spanish in at home and study abroad contexts. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition 26: 173–99.
Segalowitz N, Freed BF, Collentine J et al. (2004) A comparison of Spanish second language
acquisition in two different learning contexts: study abroad and the domestic classroom.
Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad 10: 1–18.
Stanislaw H and Todorov N (1999) Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 31: 137–149
Steinhauer K and Connolly JF (2008) Event-related potentials in the study of language. In:
Stemmer B and Whitaker H (eds) Handbook of the cognitive neuroscience of language. New
York: Elsevier, pp. 91–104.
Steinhauer K and Drury JE (2012) On the early left-anterior negativity (ELAN) in syntax studies.
Brain and Language 120: 135–62.
Steinhauer K, White EJ and Drury JE (2009) Temporal dynamics of late second language acquisi-
tion: Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Second Language Research 25: 13–41.
Sunderman G and Kroll JF (2009) When study-abroad experience fails to deliver: The internal
resources threshold effect. Applied Psycholinguistics 30, 79–99.
Swaab TY, Ledoux K, Camblin CC and Boudewyn MA (2012) Language related ERP compo-
nents. In: Luck SJ and Kappenman ES (eds) Oxford handbook of event-related potential
components. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 397–440.
Tabachnick BG and Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics. 4th edition. Boston, MA: Allyn
and Bacon.
Tagarelli KM, Borges Mota M and Rebuschat P (2015) Working memory, learning conditions
and the acquisition of L2 syntax. In: Wen Z, Mota M and McNeill A (eds) Working memory
in second language acquisition and processing: Theory, research and commentary. Bristol:
Multilingual Matters, pp. 224–47.
Tanner D and van Hell JG (2014) ERPs reveal individual differences in morphosyntactic process-
ing. Neuropsychologia 56: 289–301.
Tanner D, McLaughlin J, Herschensohn J and Osterhout L (2013) Individual differences reveal
stages of L2 grammatical acquisition: ERP evidence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
16: 367–82.
Tanner D, Inoue K and Osterhout L (2014) Brain-based individual differences in online L2 gram-
matical comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 17: 277–93.
Tokowicz N, Michael EB and Kroll J F (2004) The roles of study-abroad experience and working-
memory capacity in the types of errors made during translation. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition 7, 255–.
Trahan DE and Larrabee GJ (1988) Continuous visual memory test. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Tulving E (1993) What is episodic memory? Current Directions in Psychological Science 2: 67–70.
Ullman MT (2015) The Declarative/Procedural Model: A neurobiologically-motivated theory of
first and second language. In: VanPatten B and Williams J (eds) Theories of second language
acquisition: An introduction. Mahwah: NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 135–58.
Unsworth N, Heitz RP, Schrock JC and Engle RW (2005) An automated version of the operation
span task. Behavior Research Methods 37, 498–505.
White EJ, Genesee F and Steinhauer K (2012) Brain responses before and after intensive second
language learning: Proficiency based changes and first language background effects in adult
learners. PLoS One 7(12): e52318.
Williams JN (2012) Working memory and SLA. In: Gass S and Mackey A (eds) Handbook of
second language acquisition. London: Routledge, pp. 427–47.
van Hell JG and Tokowicz N (2010) Event-related brain potentials and second language learning:
Syntactic processing in late L2 learners at different L2 proficiency levels. Second Language
Research 26: 43–74.
Appendix 1
Table 10. Participant background information.
Variable At home Study abroad

M (SD) M (SD)
Age 20.18 (1.63) 20.54 (1.51)
Number of L1s 1.35 (.49) 1.31 (.48)
Number of L2s 1.71 (.92) 1.31 (.48)
Age of Exposure: Spanish 13.06 (3.44) 11.85 (2.48)
Years Formal Instruction: Spanish 6.29 (2.46) 7.04 (2.15)
Age of Exposure: First L2 11.44 (2.77) 11.85 (2.48)
Years Formal Instruction: All L2s 7.31 (2.25) 7.27 (2.30)
IQa 101.59 (13.44) 107.85 (12.53)
Motivation: Spanishb 6.44 (.69) 6.62 (.76)
EIT-Baselinec 48.88 (22.96) 46.08 (19.94)
EIT-Follow-up 48.69 (22.64) 66.69 (15.42)
DELE-Baselined 21.71 (5.37) 20.15 (4.12)
DELE-Follow-up 20.82 (4.42) 26.85 (6.67)
Notes. Although we are not comparing learners in the At-Home and Study-Abroad experiments, t tests
were run to compare means for background factors as well as baseline linguistic assessments (EIT and
DELE) in order to explore whether participants in these two experiments differed at baseline. The only sig-
nificant difference evidenced between the groups was for Number of L2s: t(28) = −1.417, p = .037. aCom-
posite IQ score from Kaufman and Kaufman, 2004. bMotivation on a range of 0–7, composite of responses
to three questions to assess overall motivation to learn Spanish, questionnaire completed at the end of
baseline language assessment session. cElicited imitation task (adapted from Ortega et al., 1999); maximum
score = 116. dDiplomas de español como lengua extranjera (Diplomas of Spanish as a Foreign Language) (Span-
ish Embassy, Washington, DC), written proficiency test; maximum score = 50.
Appendix 2
Table 11. Descriptive statistics for assessments of declarative, procedural, and working
memory.
Assessment At home Study abroad Range or unit of Reliability

M (SD) M (SD) measurement
MLAT-V 17.82 (6.00) 19.08 (4.54) 0–24 .884a
CVMT 2.09 (.49) 1.75 (.50) d' .645a
ASRT 2.53 (8.41) 1.26 (8.68) ms .921b
WPT .58 (.14) .65 (.14) 0–1 .746a
RSpan 41.18 (17.69) 31.69 (8.20) 0–75 c
OSpan 44.41 (19.93) 39.38 (16.26) 0–75 c
SSpan 16.94 (8.74) 19.00 (7.153) 0–42 c
Notes. aCronbach’s alpha; bSplit-half coefficient reliability, corrected using Spearman–Brown formula; cNecessary
data for reliability calculations was not available in the output files from the working memory tasks used in this
study; however, all tasks have been extensively tested for reliability (Redick et al., 2012).
Table 12. Correlations and intercorrelations among dependent variables and predictor
variables for at-home learners.
Assessment Declarative Procedural Working memory

composite composite composite
GJT PS d' change .239 .319 .233
RMI-change −.160 −.155 −.324
RDI-change .246 .085 −.266
Declarative composite − −.007 −.018
Procedural composite − −.152
Working Memory −
composite
Table 13. Correlations and intercorrelations among dependent variables and predictor
variables for study-abroad learners.
Assessment Declarative Procedural Working memory

composite composite composite
GJT PS d' change −.502 .808** −.280
RMI-change .112 .327 .348
RDI-change .113 −.156 −.105
Declarative composite — −.474 .197
Procedural composite — −.539^
Working Memory —
composite
Notes. ^p < .10, **p < .01.
Appendix 3
In this appendix, we report all statistically significant main effects and interactions from
the lateral, global ANOVAs, along with motivated follow-up, Bonferroni-corrected, pair-
wise comparisons. Results from midline, global ANOVAs and their follow-up,
Bonferroni-corrected, pair-wise comparisons are reported only when these analyses
revealed effects that were not revealed by the lateral analysis. Note that the full statistical
results from the lateral, global ANOVAs are available in Table 14 (at-home learners,
Experiment 1) and Table 15 (study-abroad learners, Experiment 2).
At-home learners: Experiment 1

At baseline, for the 300–500 ms time window, the lateral, global ANOVA revealed a
statistically significant Violation negative effect. The midline, global ANOVA yielded a
statistically significant Violation × AnteriorPosterior interaction (F(4,16) = 3.904, p =
0.044, η p = 0.196), with follow-up comparisons indicating negative effects in anterior
2
and anterio-central sites (p = .016 and p = .036, respectively). For the 600–900 ms time
window at baseline, the lateral ANOVA did not yield any statistically significant effects
Table 14. At-home learners: Results from global, lateral ANOVAs across all learners and by
dominance group.
Effects and Baseline testing Follow-up testing
Interactions
300–500 ms 600–900 ms 300–500 ms 600–900 ms
F p η 2
p
F p η 2
p F p η 2
p F p η p2
All (N = 17) All (N = 17)
V 4.798 .044* .231 .439 .517 .027 .297 .593 .018 2.445 .137 .133
V*H .515 .483 .031 1.495 .239 .085 .160 .695 .010 1.635 .219 .093
V*L .058 .813 .004 1.434 .249 .082 2.330 .146 .127 .102 .754 .006
V*AP 2.961 .092 .156 3.504 .054 .180 4.603 .017* .223 3.633 .040* .185
V*H*L .145 .709 .009 .042 .839 .003 .382 .545 .023 2.252 .153 .123
V*H*AP 1.378 .266 .079 1.997 .134 .111 1.358 .265 .078 1.200 .319 .070
V*L*AP .436 .720 .027 1.617 .197 .092 1.033 .380 .061 1.654 .184 .094
V*H*L*AP 1.491 .229 .085 .893 .440 .053 2.439 .092 .132 1.792 .178 .101
Negativity-dominant (n = 11) Negativity-dominant (n = 11)
V 26.211 .000*** .724 12.194 .006** .549 7.860 .019* .440 2.043 .183 .170
V*H .011 .919 .001 1.324 .277 .117 1.377 .268 .121 2.728 .130 .214
V*L 6.785 .026* .404 .207 .659 .020 5.236 .045* .344 6.555 .028* .396
V*AP 1.153 .316 .013 2.220 .141 .182 2.854 .097 .222 3.274 .079 .247
V*H*L .014 .908 .011 .325 .581 .031 .672 .432 .063 1.863 .202 .157
V*H*AP 1.158 .334 .104 2.976 .060 .229 .202 .865 .020 .299 .773 .029
V*L*AP 1.438 .257 .126 4.706 .011* .320 .479 .608 .046 .586 .623 .055
V*H*L*AP 2.147 .121 .177 2.329 .093 .189 1.394 .269 .122 .810 .473 .075
Positivity-dominant (n = 6) Positivity-dominant (n = 6)
V 4.800 .080 .490 .463 .526 .085 2.429 .180 .327 23.922 .005** .827
V*H 1.449 .283 .225 .374 .567 .070 1.664 .253 .250 .048 .835 .010
V*L 5.069 .074 .503 1.256 .313 .201 .000 .999 .000 50.653 .001** .910
V*AP 2.410 .165 .325 1.242 .325 .199 2.189 .155 .305 2.452 .148 .329
V*H*L 1.606 .261 .243 .448 .533 .082 .167 .700 .032 .349 .580 .065
V*H*AP .807 .459 .139 .405 .667 .075 2.523 .116 .335 2.236 .157 .309
V*L*AP .154 .849 .030 .195 .877 .038 1.846 .206 .270 3.729 .042* .427
V*H*L*AP .565 .542 .101 .387 .622 .072 1.402 .292 .219 1.179 .345 .191
Notes. The participants in the negativity- and positivity-dominant subgroups are not necessarily the same at
baseline and at follow-up testing, as they were categorized into these groups based on their RDI value at each
time. V = Violation. H = Hemisphere. L = Laterality. AP = AnteriorPosterior. *p < .05, **p < .01. ***p < .001.
or interactions. The midline ANOVA, however, yielded a significant Violation ×

AnteriorPosterior interaction (F(4,16) = 5.590, p = 0.011, η 2p = 0.259) with follow-up
comparisons revealing a negative effect at the anterior site (p = .033).
At follow-up testing, for the 300–500 ms time window, the lateral, global ANOVA
yielded a significant Violation × AnteriorPosterior interaction, with follow-up compari-
sons revealing a marginally significant negative effect at posterior sites (p = .051). For
the 600–900 ms time window at follow-up testing, the lateral ANOVA yielded a signifi-
cant Violation × AnteriorPosterior interaction, with follow-up comparisons revealing
marginally significant positive effects at anterior sites and anterio-central sites (p = .051
and p = .074, respectively).
Table 15. Study-abroad learners: Results from global, lateral ANOVAs across all learners and
by dominance group.
Effects and Baseline testing Follow-up testing
Interactions
300–500 ms 600–900 ms 300–500 ms 600–900 ms
F p η 2
F p η 2
p F p η p2 F p η p2
p
All (N = 13) All (N = 13)

V 4.291 .061 .263 5.824 .033* .327 9.833 .009** .450 .114 .741 .009
V*H .839 .378 .065 .915 .358 .071 1.754 .210 .128 .161 .695 .013
V*L .009 .928 .001 .235 .637 .019 6.581 .025* .354 .226 .643 .018
V*AP 5.318 .028* .307 1.979 .176 .142 3.243 .083 .213 .348 .635 .028
V*H*L .830 .380 .065 1.028 .331 .079 5.257 .041* .305 .838 .378 .065
V*H*AP .592 .554 .047 1.926 .158 .138 2.882 .070 .194 2.923 .074 .196
V*L*AP 1.141 .254 .105 .710 .562 .056 .405 .743 .033 .556 .652 .044
V*H*L*AP .508 .665 .041 .593 .584 .047 1.896 .151 .136 2.101 .134 .149
Negativity-dominant (n = 3) Negativity-dominant (n = 8)
V 2.651 .245 .570 .019 .904 .009 10.777 .013* .606 2.473 .160 .261
V*H 7.442 .112 .788 1.031 .417 .340 .132 .727 .019 1.635 .242 .189
V*L 1.392 .359 .410 .157 .730 .073 8.044 .025* .535 1.126 .324 .139
V*AP 12.676 .040* .864 5.168 .147 .721 3.400 .091 .327 .376 .614 .051
V*H*L 26.83 .035* .931 .105 .777 .050 1.679 .236 .193 .002 .962 .000
V*H*AP 1.623 .329 .448 .179 .771 .082 .667 .515 .087 1.478 .260 .174
V*L*AP 1.181 .395 .371 .248 .730 .110 .606 .608 .080 .610 .588 .080
V*H*L*AP 5.787 .100 .743 8.263 .047* .805 .721 .529 .093 .983 .406 .123
Positivity-dominant (n = 10) Positivity-dominant (n = 5)
V 41.395 .000*** .821 9.403 .013* .511 1.089 .356 .214 318.761 .000*** .988
V*H .005 .944 .001 .122 .735 .013 4.974 .090 .554 .212 .669 .050
V*L 1.229 .296 .120 .403 .542 .043 .450 .539 .101 17.877 .013* .817
V*AP 1.785 .153 .166 .150 .809 .016 .310 .635 .072 .713 .453 .151
V*H*L .037 .852 .004 1.067 .329 .106 4.194 .110 .512 1.367 .307 .255
V*H*AP .720 .482 .074 2.435 .102 .213 3.500 .077 .467 1.403 .303 .260
V*L*AP 1.592 .226 .150 .647 .632 .067 .116 .892 .028 2.017 .198 .335
V*H*L*AP .218 .838 .024 .874 .489 .089 1.673 .247 .295 1.678 .261 .296
Notes. The participants in the negativity- and positivity-dominant subgroups are not necessarily the same at
baseline and at follow-up testing, as they were categorized into these groups based on their RDI value at each
time. V = Violation. H = Hemisphere. L = Laterality. AP = AnteriorPosterior. *p < .05, **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Within the negativity-dominant group of at-home learners at baseline (n = 11), a sta-

tistically significant effect of Violation and Violation × Laterality interaction were
revealed between 300–500 ms. Follow-up comparisons revealed statistically significant
negativities at both medial and lateral sites (p = .003 and p < .001, respectively). Between
600–900 ms at baseline, the ANOVA revealed a significant effect of Violation and a sig-
nificant interaction of Violation × Laterality × AnteriorPosterior. Follow-up comparisons
revealed negativities at anterio-central, central and centro-posterior medial sites (p =
.018, p < .001, and p = .050, respectively) and at anterior and anterio-central lateral sites
(p = .003 and p = .047, respectively). At follow-up testing, between 300–500 ms, the
subgroup of negativity-dominant learners (n = 11) showed a significant main effect of
Violation and a significant interaction of Violation × Laterality. Follow-up analyses

showed a marginally significant negativity at medial sites (p = .052) and a significant
negativity over lateral sites (p = .014). Between 600–900 ms, a Violation × Laterality
interaction was evidenced, but follow-ups only revealed a marginally significant nega-
tivity at lateral sites (p = .057). Thus, at both baseline and follow-up testing, the sub-
groups of negativity-dominant learners evidenced significant negative effects, with the
timing and the distribution consistent with an N400 effect at follow-up testing.
For the subgroup of positivity-dominant at-home learners at baseline testing (n = 6),
no statistically significant effects or interactions were evidenced in either time window.
For positivity-dominant learners at follow-up (n = 6), no significant effects or interac-
tions were evidenced between 300–500 ms. However, between 600–900 ms, this sub-
group evidenced a statistically significant Violation effect that was qualified by significant
Violation × Laterality and Violation × Laterality × AnteriorPosterior interactions.
Follow-up analyses for the three-way interaction revealed statistically significant posi-
tive effects along all anterior to posterior sites for both medial and lateral sites (medial:
anterior, p = .014, anterio-central, p = .007, central, p = .035, centro-posterior, p = .011,
posterior, p = .025; Lateral: anterior, p = .002, anterio-central, p = .004, central, p = .006,
centro-posterior, p = .005, posterior, p = .006). Thus, at follow-up testing, a P600 con-
strained to the typical P600 time window was evidenced within the subgroup of positiv-
ity-dominant learners.
Study-abroad learners: Experiment 2

At baseline, for the 300–500 ms time window, the global, lateral ANOVA yielded a sig-
nificant Violation × AnteriorPosterior interaction, with follow-up comparisons revealing
significant positivities at anterior, central-anterior and central sites (p = .001, p = .008,
and p = .043, respectively). For the 600–900 ms time window at baseline, a statistically
significant main effect of Violation indicated a broad positivity within the full group of
study-abroad learners.
At follow-up testing, for the 300–500 ms time window the global, lateral ANOVA
yielded a statistically significant effect of Violation, qualified by two statistically signifi-
cant interactions: Violation × Laterality, and Violation × Hemisphere × Laterality.
Follow-up comparisons based on the three-way interaction revealed significant negativi-
ties at left-hemisphere medial sites (p = .012) as well as at right-hemisphere lateral and
medial sites (p = .008 and p = .010, respectively). For the 600–900 ms time window at
follow-up, no significant effects or interactions were evidenced.
For the subgroup of negativity-dominant study-abroad learners at baseline (n = 3),
two statistically significant interactions were evidenced between 300–500 ms: Violation
× AnteriorPosterior, and Violation × Hemisphere × Laterality. Follow-up comparisons on
the first interaction revealed a marginally significant negativity at posterior sites (p =
.067) whereas follow-up comparisons on the second interaction revealed a statistically
significant negativity at left, medial sites (p = .030). Between 600–900 ms, these nega-
tivity-dominant learners evidenced a Violation × Hemisphere × Laterality ×
AnteriorPosterior interaction, with follow-up comparisons indicating a statistically sig-
nificant negativity constrained to left, medial, posterior sites (p = .042). At follow-up
testing, negativity-dominant study-abroad learners (n = 8) evidenced a significant

Violation effect, that was qualified by a Violation × Laterality interaction, with follow-up
comparisons indicating negative effects at both medial and lateral sites (p = .016 and p =
.014, respectively). No statistically significant effects or interactions were evidenced
between 600–900 ms.
For the subgroup of positivity-dominant study-abroad learners at baseline (n = 10),
between 300–500 ms, a statistically significant effect of Violation indicated a positivity.
In addition, the midline, global ANOVA yielded a Violation × AnteriorPosterior interac-
tion (F(4,9) = 3.582, p = 0.049, η 2p = 0.285), with follow-up comparisons revealing that
the positive effect was distributed over anterior (p = .009), anterio-central (p = .003) and
central sites (p = .001). Between 600–900 ms, a significant effect of Violation indicated
a broad positivity. At follow-up testing, between 300–500 ms, no significant effects or
interactions were evidenced for positivity-dominant learners (n = 5). However, between
600–900 ms, analyses revealed a significant effect of Violation and interaction of
Violation × Laterality, with follow-ups indicating positive effects over medial and lateral
sites (p = .001 and p = .000, respectively).

Farreta. The Interplay of Individual Differences and Context of Learning in Behavioral and Neurocognitive Second Lenguage Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Farreta. The Interplay of Individual Differences and Context of Learning in Behavioral and Neurocognitive Second Lenguage Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

684903

Second Language Research

The interplay of individual

and neurocognitive second

b Individual differences in electrophysiological processing. One brain-based processing meas-

c Contexts of L2 learning: At-home and study-abroad. A significant number of behavioral

2 Motivation for the current study

Research question 1: Do individual differences in declarative, procedural, and work-

Research question 2: Do individual differences in declarative, procedural and work-

II Experiment 1: At home

Measures of declarative learning ability. Following Morgan-Short et al. (2014), partici-

Measures of procedural learning ability. Following Brill-Schuetz and Morgan-Short

Measures of working memory capacity. In order to obtain a measurement of WM abil-

b Measure of L2 behavioral performance. A grammaticality judgment task (GJT)

Table 1. Grammaticality judgment task experimental stimuli.

Condition Correct Control Violation

c Measures of L2 neurocognitive processing. EEG data were collected while participants

Research question 1: Do individual differences in declarative, procedural, and work-

Table 2. At-home learners: Descriptive results for GJT.

Assessment Baseline Follow-up Change Change

Notes. at(16) = 3.764, p = .002. *p < .05, **p < .01.

Notes. B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SEB = standard error of B; β = standardized regression

Research question 2: Do individual differences in declarative, procedural and work-

declarative, procedural, nor working memory were found to be statistically signifi-

c L2 neurocognitive processing (ERPs). Prior to examining at-home learners’ ERP data in

Given recent reports of evidence of different processing strategies in both L1 and L2

Table 4. At-home learners: Processing changes in magnitude and dominance.

ERP Index Baseline Follow–up Change Change

Variable B SEB β B SEB β

Notes. RDI = response dominance index; RMI = response magnitude index.

III Experiment 2: Study abroad

Table 6. Study-abroad learners: Descriptive results for GJT.

Assessment Baseline Follow-up Change Change

Notes. at(12) = 2.136, p = .054. ^p < .10, *p < .05.

Notes. B = unstandardized regression coefficient; SEB = standard error of B; β = standardized regression

b Declarative, procedural, and working memory and L2 performance. In order to address

c L2 neurocognitive processing (ERPs). Prior to examining study-abroad learners’ ERP

Table 8. Study-abroad learners: Processing changes in magnitude and dominance.

Event-related potential index Baseline Follow–up Change Change

Note. * p < .05.

Variable B SEB β B SEB β

IV General discussion

cognitive abilities to influence L2 development. Although this diversity could arguably

Declaration of conflicting interest

Morgan-Short K, Faretta-Stutenberg M, Brill-Schuetz K, Carpenter H and Wong PCM (2014)

Variable At home Study abroad

Assessment At home Study abroad Range or unit of Reliability

OSpan 44.41 (19.93) 39.38 (16.26) 0–75 c

SSpan 16.94 (8.74) 19.00 (7.153) 0–42 c

Assessment Declarative Procedural Working memory

Assessment Declarative Procedural Working memory

Notes. ^p < .10, **p < .01.

At-home learners: Experiment 1

or interactions. The midline ANOVA, however, yielded a significant Violation ×

All (N = 13) All (N = 13)

Within the negativity-dominant group of at-home learners at baseline (n = 11), a sta-

Violation and a significant interaction of Violation × Laterality. Follow-up analyses

Study-abroad learners: Experiment 2

testing, negativity-dominant study-abroad learners (n = 8) evidenced a significant

You might also like