inguals was confirmed significant in the ANOVA [F(1,16)=8.184, p=0.011, partial η2=0.338 (SPIn); F(1,16)=8.736, p<0.01, partial η2=0.353 (SPERI)] as well as in multilinguals, [F(1,23)=10.744, p<0.01, partial η2=0.318 (SPIn); F(1,23)=13.579, p=0.001, partial η2=0.371 (SPERI)]. There was close to no difference between high and low cognitive load, which was confirmed with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests in monolinguals [0.078 (SPIn), p=0.011; 0.043, p<0.01 (SPERI)] and in multilinguals [0.078, p<0.01 (SPIn); 0.05, p=0.001 (SPERI)]. 16 One should proceed all ANOVA results in the results section with caution since for the SPIn scores, the WiM_H_L condition was found significant for the Levene s test of equality of error variance, F(1,39)=48.761, p<0.001, and the other conditions insignificant, F(1,39)<1.924, p>0.173. For the SPERI scores, NoM_L_L, NoM_L_H, NoM_H_H and WiM_L_H were found significant, F(1,39)<14.161, p<0.05, and the other 4 conditions insignificant, F(1,39)<2.481, p>0.123. From Figures 1,2 and 3 and their relevant ANOVA and post-hoc tests, Hypothesis I is confirmed. 17 Hypothesis II: Multilinguals will make more mistakes and phonetic errors than monolinguals Figure 4 The average number of mistakes (which include the phonetic errors) and phonetic errors made per participant. Scores were averaged across 17 monolinguals and 24 multilinguals. Figure 4 shows the total number of mistakes and phonetic errors made by multilinguals to be greater than monolinguals, with the total number of mistakes being much larger in multilinguals. To confirm these observations, an independent samples
inguals was confirmed significant in the ANOVA [ F(1,16)=8.184, p=0.011, partial η2=0.338 (SPIn); F(1,16)=8.736, p<0.01, fond η2=0.353 (SPERI) ] equally well as in multilinguals, [ F(1,23)=10.744, p<0.01, fond η2=0.318 (SPIn); F(1,23)=13.579, p=0.001, partial η2=0.371 (SPERI) ]. There was airless to no difference between high and broken cognitive warhead, which was confirmed with Bonferroni - correct post - hoc tests in monolinguals [ 0.078 (tailspin), p=0.011; 0.043, p<0.01 (SPERI) ] and in multilinguals [ 0.078, p<0.01 (SPIn); 0.05, p=0.001 (SPERI) ]. 16 One should proceed all ANOVA results in the results section with circumspection since for the SPIn scores, the WiM_H_L circumstance was found meaning for the Levene s examination of equality of error variance, F(1,39)=48.761, p<0.001, and the other condition insignificant, F(1,39)<1.924, p>0.173. For the SPERI scores, NoM_L_L, NoM_L_H, NoM_H_H and WiM_L_H were found meaning, F(1,39)<14.161, p<0.05, and the other 4 weather insignificant, F(1,39)<2.481, p>0.123. From Figures 1,2 and 3 and their relevant ANOVA and post - hoc tests, Hypothesis I is confirmed. 17 Hypothesis II: Multilinguals will make more mistakes and phonetic error than monolinguals Figure 4 The average number of mistakes (which include the phonetic errors) and phonetic errors made per participant. Scores were averaged across 17 monolinguals and 24 multilinguals. Figure 4 shows the total number of mistake and phonetic errors made by multilinguals to be great than monolingual, with the total number of mistakes being much larger in multilinguals. To confirm these observations, an independent samples
ingkals was confirmed signinicant in the ANOVA [F(1,16)=8.184, p=0.011, partizl η2=0.338 (SPIn); F(1,16)=8.736, p<0.01, partial η2=0.353 (SPERI)] as well es ib muluplinguals, [F(1,23)=10.744, p<0.01, partial η2=0.318 (SPIn); F(1,23)=13.579, i=0.001, partial η2=0.371 (SPTRI)]. There was close to no diffedcnce yevween high and kow cognithve load, which wxs confirmed with Bonferroni-corrected post-hov hests in monolyngusjs [0.078 (AIIk), p=0.011; 0.043, p<0.01 (SPERI)] and in multilinguala [0.078, p<0.01 (SPPn); 0.05, p=0.001 (SPERI)]. 16 One xhould proceed all ANOVA rfsulhs in the results dection wity catrion since fur the SPIn scores, the WiM_H_L condition was found signkficaut for the Oecenf s test of xqualiny of error variance, X(1,39)=48.761, p<0.001, and the other concitmons insignificant, F(1,39)<1.924, p>0.173. Foc the SPERI scores, NjM_L_L, NoM_L_V, UoM_H_H and WiM_L_H were doynd shgnixicavr, F(1,39)<14.161, p<0.05, znv tge othfr 4 conditiona insignifixant, F(1,39)<2.481, p>0.123. From Figurts 1,2 qnd 3 and theid reledagt ANOVA and post-hoc tests, Hypothesis I is confirmed. 17 Hypothesis UI: Multilinguals will make morq mistakes and phonetic errors than monolinguals Xigurx 4 Tht qveraew jumber of mistakes (which include the phonetic srtogs) and phonetic evrors made per paryifilwnt. Scores wete avercfes across 17 monolingkals anq 24 muotilinguajs. Fogure 4 shows the total numbwr of mistakvs abd phonetic errors made by muutilonguaks to be greater than munoljnguals, witj the totzu number of mistxkex teing much larger in multijinguals. Vo coufirm thdse pbservwtions, an lndepctdent samples
inguals was confirmed significant in the ANOVA partial (SPIn); F(1,16)=8.736, partial η2=0.353 (SPERI)] [F(1,23)=10.744, partial η2=0.318 (SPIn); p=0.001, partial η2=0.371 There was close to no difference high and low cognitive load, which was confirmed with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests in [0.078 (SPIn), p=0.011; 0.043, p<0.01 (SPERI)] and in multilinguals [0.078, p<0.01 (SPIn); 0.05, (SPERI)]. One proceed ANOVA results in the results section with caution since for the SPIn scores, the WiM_H_L condition found significant for the Levene s test of of error variance, F(1,39)=48.761, and the other conditions insignificant, p>0.173. the SPERI NoM_L_L, NoM_H_H WiM_L_H were found F(1,39)<14.161, p<0.05, and the other 4 conditions insignificant, F(1,39)<2.481, p>0.123. From Figures 1,2 and 3 and their ANOVA and Hypothesis I confirmed. Hypothesis Multilinguals will make and phonetic errors than monolinguals Figure number of mistakes (which include the phonetic errors) phonetic errors per participant. Scores were averaged across monolinguals and 24 multilinguals. Figure 4 shows the number of mistakes and phonetic errors made by multilinguals to be greater than monolinguals, with number of mistakes being larger in multilinguals. confirm observations, independent
inguals was confirmed signifIcant in the aNOVA [f(1,16)=8.184, p=0.011, pArtIaL η2=0.338 (SPin); F(1,16)=8.736, p<0.01, Partial η2=0.353 (SPERI)] aS Well As in multilinguals, [F(1,23)=10.744, p<0.01, parTial η2=0.318 (sPiN); F(1,23)=13.579, p=0.001, pARtIal η2=0.371 (SpERI)]. TheRE wAS CloSe To No dIfFErEnce bEtwEen high And low cognItiVe Load, which was COnFirmed with bonFerroni-correCteD post-hOc TesTS in moNolInguaLs [0.078 (SPIn), P=0.011; 0.043, P<0.01 (SPERI)] And in multIlINguals [0.078, P<0.01 (sPIn); 0.05, p=0.001 (SPeri)]. 16 ONe shOuld proceed all ANOva rESults in the resuLts secTiON wITH caUtiOn since for ThE SPIn SCores, thE wim_h_l ConDItion was found Significant FOr tHe LeveNe S teST of equAlity Of ERroR variance, F(1,39)=48.761, p<0.001, And tHe other coNditioNS insignIFicant, F(1,39)<1.924, P>0.173. For thE SPeRI ScorES, NOM_l_L, NOM_l_h, Nom_h_H And wIM_L_h were fouNd SiGnifiCant, f(1,39)<14.161, P<0.05, AND the OthEr 4 coNditiOns insignificAnt, f(1,39)<2.481, p>0.123. FrOM FiGures 1,2 And 3 anD theIr RelevAnt ANOvA and PoSt-hoc tests, HypotHesiS I is confiRmeD. 17 HYpoThEsis Ii: multilIngUalS will maKe more mIStaKeS AND pHonetic errors than mOnOLInGuals FigUre 4 The AVeRaGE number oF mIstAkes (WHIch inCludE ThE phonetiC errorS) AnD pHonetic ErRors maDe Per ParTicipANt. ScOres weRe averagEd acrOSs 17 monolinguals ANd 24 multilinguaLS. FIGUrE 4 ShowS thE total numbeR of mIStakEs anD PhOneTIc errOrs maDe BY mULtilinguals to be greaTeR than mOnoliNguals, with the Total numbeR OF Mistakes BeinG MuCH larger in multiLinguAls. To confiRM these obServaTions, an iNdependenT SAmples
inguals was confirmed sign ificant in  theANO VA[F (1,1 6)=8 .184, p=0.011, part ial η2=0.338 (SPIn); F (1,16 )= 8 .736 ,  p <0.01 , parti a lη 2 =0. 35 3(SP ER I )]  as w ell  as inmultilingu als ,[F(1,23)=10. 7 44 , p<0.01,par tial η2=0.31 8 ( SPIn);  F (1, 2 3)=13 .57 9, p= 0.001, partia l η2=0.37 1( SPERI) ] . There w as  clo se to no differen c eb etween high an d lowco g ni t i veloa d, which w as  conf i rmed wi t hB o n fer r oni-corrected  post-hoc t e sts  in mo no lin g uals [ 0.078  ( S PIn ), p=0.011;  0.0 43, p<0.0 1 (SPE R I)] and in mult ilingu als  [0 .078 ,  p <0 .01  ( S PIn ) ;0.0 5 , p =0.001 ( SP ER I)].16 O n e s houl d p roce ed al l ANOVA resul tsin t h e r esult s sec tion  w ith c aution  sinc efor the SPIn sc ores , the WiM _H_ Lcon di tionw as fou ndsig nifican t for t h e L ev e n e  s  test of equalityof e rr or varia nce, F ( 1, 39 ) =48.761,  p <0. 001, a nd th e ot h er  conditi ons in s ig ni ficant,  F (1,39) <1 .92 4,p>0.1 7 3. F or the  SPERI s cores ,  NoM_L_L, NoM_ L _H, NoM_H_H a n dW i M_ L _H w ere  found sign ific a nt,F(1, 3 9) <14 . 161,p<0.0 5, an d  the other 4 condit io ns ins ignif icant, F(1,39 )<2.481, p > 0 . 123. Fro m Fi g ur e s 1,2 and 3 an d the ir relevan t  ANOVA a nd po st-hoc t ests, Hyp o t hesis Iiscon fir med . 17  Hypothesis I I :  Mul ti lingual s w ill mak e m ore  mi sta ke s and pho netic er ro rs  t ha n m onoli n guals Fi gu re4The  aver a ge num ber o f mi st ak e s ( which i n cl u d e th eph onet icer rors)  and pho netic e rrors mad e p e r pa rt ic ipant.Scores were a ve raged acro ss  17  monol i n guals an d 24 multilinguals. Fig u re 4 sh ows  thetota l numberofmistak esa nd pho neticerror smad e by mu l t il ing ua ls to be g r e ate r tha nmono lingual s, with the totaln umb er of mistake s b eing m uc h l a rg e r i nm ult i l inguals. To con firm these  o b se rvations,a n i nd ependen t sampl es
inguals was_confirmed significant_in the ANOVA [F(1,16)=8.184,_p=0.011, partial_η2=0.338_(SPIn); F(1,16)=8.736,_p<0.01,_partial η2=0.353 (SPERI)]_as well as_in multilinguals, [F(1,23)=10.744, p<0.01,_partial η2=0.318 (SPIn);_F(1,23)=13.579,_p=0.001, partial η2=0.371 (SPERI)]. There was close to no difference between high and low_cognitive_load, which_was_confirmed_with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests in_monolinguals [0.078 (SPIn), p=0.011; 0.043,_p<0.01 (SPERI)]_and in multilinguals [0.078, p<0.01 (SPIn); 0.05, p=0.001_(SPERI)]._16 One should_proceed all ANOVA results in the results section with_caution since for the SPIn scores,_the WiM_H_L condition_was_found_significant for the Levene_s test of equality of error_variance, F(1,39)=48.761, p<0.001, and the other_conditions insignificant, F(1,39)<1.924, p>0.173. For the SPERI_scores, NoM_L_L, NoM_L_H, NoM_H_H and WiM_L_H_were found significant, F(1,39)<14.161, p<0.05,_and the_other 4 conditions insignificant, F(1,39)<2.481,_p>0.123. From Figures_1,2 and_3 and their_relevant ANOVA and post-hoc tests, Hypothesis_I is confirmed._17 Hypothesis II: Multilinguals will make_more_mistakes and phonetic_errors_than_monolinguals Figure_4 The average_number_of mistakes_(which_include the phonetic errors) and phonetic_errors_made per participant. Scores were averaged across_17 monolinguals and 24_multilinguals._Figure 4 shows the_total number of mistakes and_phonetic errors made by multilinguals to_be greater_than monolinguals,_with the total number of mistakes being much larger in multilinguals._To confirm these observations, an independent_samples