Accumulating behavioral and neurophysiological evidence supports the idea of language being grounded in sensorimotor processes, with indications of a functional role of motor, sensory and emotional systems in processing both concrete and abstract linguistic concepts. However, most of the available studies focused on native language speakers (L1), with only a limited number of investigations testing embodied language processing in the case of a second language (L2). In this paper we review the available evidence on embodied effects in L2 and discuss their possible integration into existing models of linguistic processing in L1 and L2. Finally, we discuss possible avenues for future research towards an integrated model of L1 and L2 sensorimotor and emotional grounding.

Microplastics (MP) provide a unique and extensive surface for microbial colonization in aquatic ecosystems. The formation of microorganism-microplastic complexes, such as biofilms, maximizes the degradation of organic matter and horizontal gene transfer. In this context, MP affect the structure and function of microbial communities, which in turn render the physical and chemical fate of MP. This new paradigm generates challenges for microbiology, ecology, and ecotoxicology. Dispersal of MP is concomitant with that of their associated microorganisms and their mobile genetic elements, including antibiotic resistance genes, islands of pathogenicity, and diverse metabolic pathways. Functional changes in aquatic microbiomes can alter carbon metabolism and food webs, with unknown consequences on higher organisms or human microbiomes and hence health. Here, we examine a variety of effects of MP pollution from the microbial ecology perspective, whose repercussions on aquatic ecosystems begin to be unraveled. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

BackgroundAlthough the efficacy of Internet- and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) for anxiety is established, little is known about the intervention components responsible for therapeutic change. We conducted the first comprehensive meta-analytic review of intervention components of IMIs for adult anxiety disorders. MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IMIs for anxiety disorders to active online control groups, or IMIs to dismantled variations of the same intervention ( specific components) were identified by a systematic literature search in six databases. Outcomes were validated observer-rated or self-report measures for anxiety symptom severity and treatment adherence (number of completed modules and completer rate). This meta-analytic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017068268). ResultsWe extracted the data of 34 RCTs (with 3,724 participants) and rated the risk of bias independently by two reviewers. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed on 19 comparisons of intervention components (i.a., different psychotherapeutic orientations, disorder-specific vs. transdiagnostic approaches, guidance factors). IMIs had a large effect when compared to active online controls on symptom severity (standardized mean difference [SMD] of -1.67 [95% CI: -2.93, -0.42]; P=0.009). Thereby, guided IMIs were superior to unguided interventions on symptom severity (SMD of -0.39 [95% CI: -0.59, -0.18]; P=0.0002) and adherence (SMD of 0.38 [95% CI: 0.10, 0.66]; P=0.007). ConclusionsOverall, the results of this meta-analysis lend further support to the efficacy of IMIs for anxiety, pointing to their potential to augment service supplies. Still, future research is needed to determine which ingredients are essential, as this meta-analytic review found no evidence for incremental effects of several single intervention components apart from guidance.

We evaluated the effectiveness and acceptability of metacognitive interventions for mental disorders. We searched electronic databases and included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing metacognitive interventions with other treatments in adults with mental disorders. Primary effectiveness and acceptability outcomes were symptom severity and dropout, respectively. We performed random-effects meta-analyses. We identified Metacognitive Training (MCTrain), Metacognitive Therapy (MCTherap), and Metacognition Reflection and Insight Therapy (MERIT). We included 49 trials with 2,609 patients. In patients with schizophrenia, MCTrain was more effective than a psychological treatment (cognitive remediation, SMD = -0.39). It bordered significance when compared with standard or other psychological treatments. In a post hoc analysis, across all studies, the pooled effect was significant (SMD = -0.31). MCTrain was more effective than standard treatment in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (SMD = -0.40). MCTherap was more effective than a waitlist in patients with depression (SMD = -2.80), posttraumatic stress disorder (SMD = -2.36), and psychological treatments (cognitive-behavioural) in patients with anxiety (SMD = -0.46). In patients with depression, MCTherap was not superior to psychological treatment (cognitive-behavioural). For MERIT, the database was too small to allow solid conclusions. Acceptability of metacognitive interventions among patients was high on average. Methodological quality was mostly unclear or moderate. Metacognitive interventions are likely to be effective in alleviating symptom severity in mental disorders. Although their add-on value against existing psychological interventions awaits to be established, potential advantages are their low threshold and economy.