scholarly journals Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks? Contrary evidence for nonlinguistic and linguistic switching tasks

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-37
Author(s):  
E. Mas-Herrero ◽  
D. Adrover-Roig ◽  
M. Ruz ◽  
R. de Diego-Balaguer
Keyword(s):  
Executive Functions ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bilingual Advantage ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Task Preparation ◽  
Language Control ◽  
The One ◽  
Switching Task ◽  
Contrary Evidence

Abstract The benefits of bilingualism in executive functions are highly debated. Even so, in switching tasks, these effects seem robust, although smaller than initially thought (Gunnerud et al., 2020; Ware et al., 2020). By handling two languages throughout their lifespan, bilinguals appear to train their executive functions and show benefits in nonlinguistic switching tasks compared to monolinguals. Nevertheless, because bilinguals need to control for the interference of another language, they may show a disadvantage when dealing with task-switching paradigms requiring language control, particularly when those are performed in their less dominant language. The present work explored this issue by studying bilingualism’s effects on task-switching within the visual and language domains. On the one hand, our results show that bilinguals were overall faster and presented reduced switch costs compared to monolinguals when performing perceptual geometric judgments with no time for task preparation. On the other hand, no bilingual advantage was found when a new sample of comparable bilinguals and monolinguals completed a within-language switching task. Our results provide clear evidence favoring the bilingual advantage, yet only when the task imposes greater executive demands and does not involve language control.

Theoretically driven experiments may clarify questions about the bilingual advantage

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
KLARA MARTON
Keyword(s):  
Executive Functions ◽  
The Other ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Bilingual Advantage ◽  
Executive Processing ◽  
Keynote Paper ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
The One

In her keynote paper, Valian (2014) provides a comprehensive review of the literature that examines whether bilingual individuals outperform monolingual participants on various executive processing tasks. The author acknowledges that numerous factors contribute to the outcomes, such as variations in participants’ profile, differences in target functions, as well as variants of tasks and procedures. She also says in her review that, on the one hand, researchers use different tasks to measure similar functions; while, on the other hand, each of these tasks target somewhat different aspects of executive processing. The most widely used tasks, such as the Stroop or flanker tasks, measure several components of executive functions simultaneously.

scholarly journals EXPRESS: When Two Actors Perform Different Tasks: Still No Evidence for Shared Task-Sets in Joint Task Switching

2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110315
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Husnain H. Shah ◽  
Bernhard Hommel
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
The Other ◽  
Shared Task ◽  
Joint Condition ◽  
Task Instructions ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Joint Task ◽  
Task Sets ◽  
Rule Out

Two different variations of joint task switching led to different conclusions as to whether co-acting individuals share the same task-sets. The present study aimed at bridging this gap by replicating the version in which two actors performed two different tasks. Experiment 1 showed switch costs across two actors in a joint condition, which agreed with previous studies, but also yielded even larger switch costs in a solo condition, which contradicted the claim that actors represent an alternative task as their own when it is carried out by the co-actor but not when no one carries it out. Experiments 2 and 3 further examined switch costs in the solo condition with the aim to rule out possible influences of task instructions for and experiences with the other task that was not assigned to the actor. Before participants were instructed on the second of the two tasks, switch costs were still obtained without a co-actor when explicit task names (“COLOUR” and “SHAPE”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 2), but not when arbitrary symbols (“XXXX” and “​​​​”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 3). The results thus imply that switch costs depend on participants’ knowledge of task cues being assigned to two different tasks, but not on whether the other task is performed by a co-actor. These findings undermine the assumption that switch costs in the joint conditions reflect shared task-sets between co-actors in this procedure.

scholarly journals Clear theories are needed to interpret differences: Perspectives on the bilingual advantage debate

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-46
Author(s):  
Angela de Bruin ◽  
Anthony Steven Dick ◽  
Manuel Carreiras
Keyword(s):  
Executive Functions ◽  
Brain Plasticity ◽  
Cognitive Effects ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Bilingual Advantage ◽  
Heated Debate ◽  
Brain Changes ◽  
Language Control ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract The heated debate regarding bilingual cognitive advantages remains ongoing. While there are many studies supporting positive cognitive effects of bilingualism, recent meta-analyses have concluded that there is no consistent evidence for a ’bilingual advantage’. In this paper we focus on several theoretical concerns. First, we discuss changes in theoretical frameworks, which have led to the development of insufficiently clear theories and hypotheses that are difficult to falsify. Next, we discuss the development of looking at bilingual experiences and the need to better understand language control. Last, we argue that the move from behavioural studies to a focus on brain plasticity is not going to solve the debate on cognitive effects, especially not when brain changes are interpreted in the absence of behavioural differences. Clearer theories on both behavioural and neural effects of bilingualism are needed. However, to achieve this, a solid understanding of both bilingualism and executive functions is needed first.

scholarly journals The effect of performing versus preparing a task on the subsequent switch cost

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Swainson ◽  
Laura Prosser ◽  
Kostadin Karavasilev ◽  
Aleksandra Romanczuk
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Relative Size ◽  
Limited Extent ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Subsequent Performance ◽  
Sequence Of Events ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Task Preparation ◽  
Switching Models ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Behaviour occurs not as isolated incidents, but within an ongoing sequence of events. The task-switching paradigm provides a useful way to investigate the impact of different events upon subsequent performance. An implication of two-stage task-switching models is that preparing a task without performing it might affect task readiness only to a limited extent. However, recent research has surprisingly shown larger switch costs following preparation (“cue-only” trials) than following performance (“completed” trials). We set out to conduct a rigorous comparison of the size of switch costs following cue-only versus completed trials. In Experiments 1 and 2, we controlled the timing between critical trial events. This had the effect of roughly equating, but not reversing, the relative size of switch costs. In Experiment 3, we restructured the paradigm to equate the predictability of cue and target events. Switch costs following cue-only trials were now smaller than those following completed trials. These studies confirm that task preparation alone is sufficient to drive subsequent switch costs. They also indicate that task performance might increase the size of these costs, consistent with two-stage task-switching models. Switch costs appear to be affected by both the timing and predictability of trial events.

scholarly journals Shifting Gear in the Study of the Bilingual Advantage: Language Switching Examined as a Possible Moderator

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evy Woumans ◽  
Shauni Van Herck ◽  
Esli Struys
Keyword(s):  
Executive Functions ◽  
Verbal Fluency ◽  
Specific Aspect ◽  
Language Switching ◽  
Verbal Fluency Task ◽  
Bilingual Advantage ◽  
Switching Behaviour ◽  
Switching Task ◽  
Determining Factor ◽  
Fluency Task

The bilingual advantage is a heavily debated topic in research on bilingualism. The current study further investigated one specific aspect of bilingualism proposed to be a determining factor for the bilingual advantage, namely language switching behaviour. We investigated whether a bilingual advantage can be detected in the executive functions of inhibition and shifting by comparing monolingual and bilingual participants on a Simon task and a colour–shape switching task. Furthermore, we examined the relation between these executive functions and language switching proficiency, as measured by a semantic verbal fluency task. In addition, the current study set out to investigate the convergence of self-reported language switching estimates and actual language switching proficiency. Results revealed a bilingual advantage for shifting, but not for inhibition. However, this bilingual advantage for shifting was not related to language switching behaviour. Additionally, we were unable to identify a relation between objective and subjective measures of switching abilities. These findings seem to confirm the existence of a bilingual advantage, but also once again validate its elusiveness, as demonstrated by the absence of bilingual benefits on our measure of inhibition. It furthermore questions the validity of switching measures employed in previous studies.

scholarly journals Research on individual differences in executive functions

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 535-548 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naomi P. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
Individual Differences ◽  
Executive Functions ◽  
Response Inhibition ◽  
General Purpose ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Set Shifting ◽  
Interference Control ◽  
Bilingual Advantage ◽  
Language Control ◽  
Multicomponent Nature

Abstract Executive functions (EFs), such as response inhibition, interference control, and set shifting, are general-purpose control mechanisms that enable individuals to regulate their thoughts and behaviors. Because bilingual individuals use EF-like processes during language control, researchers have become interested in the hypothesis that this use might train EFs, resulting in better performance on non-linguistic EF tasks. Although this bilingual advantage hypothesis seems straightforward to test, it involves a number of important decisions in terms of how to assess bilingualism and EFs. In this article, I focus on the complexity of measuring EFs, drawing on individual differences research (conducted with participants not selected for bilingualism). Specifically, I discuss issues related to (1) the measurement of EFs (particularly the effects of task impurity and unreliability) and (2) the multicomponent nature of EFs. Within each of these topics, I elaborate on consequences for research on bilingual advantages and provide some recommendations.

scholarly journals On the connection between language control and executive control - An ERP study

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-47
Author(s):  
Mathieu Declerck ◽  
Gabriela Meade ◽  
Katherine J. Midgley ◽  
Phillip J. Holcomb ◽  
Ardi Roelofs ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Task Switching ◽  
Executive Control ◽  
Color Naming ◽  
Event Related Potential ◽  
Task Switch ◽  
Control Processes ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Goal Level ◽  
Language Control ◽  
And Task

Models vary in the extent to which language control processes are domain general. Those that posit that language control is at least partially domain general insist on an overlap between language control and executive control at the goal level. To further probe whether or not language control is domain general, we conducted the first event-related potential (ERP) study that directly compares language-switch costs, as an index of language control, and task-switch costs, as an index of executive control. The language switching and task switching methodology were identical, except that the former required switching between languages (English or Spanish) whereas the latter required switching between tasks (color naming or category naming). This design allowed us to directly compare control processes at the goal level (cue-locked ERPs) and at the task performance level (picture-locked ERPs). We found no significant differences in the switch-related cue-locked and picture-locked ERP patterns across the language and task switching paradigms. These results support models of domain-general language control.

Symmetries of comprehension-based language switch costs in conflicting versus non-conflicting contexts

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 588-598
Author(s):  
Cong Liu ◽  
Kalinka Timmer ◽  
Lu Jiao ◽  
Ruiming Wang
Keyword(s):  
Adaptive Control ◽  
Language Comprehension ◽  
Switch Cost ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Mixed Effects Models ◽  
Switch Costs ◽  
Language Control ◽  
Control Hypothesis ◽  
Switching Task ◽  
Accuracy Data

Aims: The present study aimed to investigate the effect of contexts (i.e., non-conflicting context versus conflicting context) on bilingual language switch costs during language comprehension. Methodology: Thirty-two unbalance Chinese-English bilinguals completed a modified comprehension-based language-switching task in two contexts. They made a judgement about the colour meaning of the word. In the non-conflicting context all words were presented in white ink, while in the conflicting context the words were printed in an inconsistent ink colour. Data and analysis: Reaction time and accuracy data were analysed using mixed-effects models. Findings/conclusions: Results showed that the switch costs were larger in the conflicting context than in the non-conflicting context. Further, in the non-conflicting context an asymmetrical switch cost with larger costs for the second language was observed as compared to symmetrical switch costs in the conflicting context. Originality: This is the first study that indicates that bilingual comprehension-based language control adapts flexibly depending on the context, just as during bilingual production. Significance/implications: These findings supported and expanded the classic adaptive control hypothesis.

scholarly journals A bilingual advantage in task switching

2009 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 253-262 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANAT PRIOR ◽  
BRIAN MACWHINNEY
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Executive Function ◽  
Task Switching ◽  
Switching Costs ◽  
The Other ◽  
Single Task ◽  
Bilingual Advantage ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Competing Responses

This study investigated the possibility that lifelong bilingualism may lead to enhanced efficiency in the ability to shift between mental sets. We compared the performance of monolingual and fluent bilingual college students in a task-switching paradigm. Bilinguals incurred reduced switching costs in the task-switching paradigm when compared with monolinguals, suggesting that lifelong experience in switching between languages may contribute to increased efficiency in the ability to shift flexibly between mental sets. On the other hand, bilinguals did not differ from monolinguals in the differential cost of performing mixed-task as opposed to single-task blocks. Together, these results indicate that bilingual advantages in executive function most likely extend beyond inhibition of competing responses, and encompass flexible mental shifting as well.

scholarly journals Inhibitory control training reveals a common neurofunctional basis for generic executive functions and language switching in bilinguals

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Jing Wu ◽  
Mo Chen ◽  
Guillaume Thierry ◽  
Yongben Fu ◽  
Junjie Wu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Control System ◽  
Executive Functions ◽  
Inhibitory Control ◽  
Transfer Effect ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Lexical Selection ◽  
Language Switching ◽  
Left Caudate ◽  
Language Control ◽  
Switching Task

Abstract Background The neural networks underpinning language control and domain-general executive functions overlap in bilinguals, but existing evidence is mainly correlative. Here, we present the first neurofunctional evidence for a transfer effect between (domain-general) inhibitory control and language control through training. We trained Chinese–English bilinguals for 8 days using a Simon task taxing the inhibitory control system, whilst an active control group was trained with a color judgment task that does not tax the inhibitory control system. All participants performed a language-switching task before and after training. It has been suggested that the activity of the left DLPFC was associated with domain-general top-down cognitive control (Macdonald et al. Science 288: 1835–1838, 2000) and bilingual language control (Wang et al. Neuroimage 35: 862–870, 2007). In addition, the dACC was closely related to the conflict detection (Abutalebi et al. Cereb Cortex 18:1496–1505, 2008). Last, the activity of the left caudate has been linked with lexical selection (Abutalebi et al. Cereb Cortex 18:1496–1505, 2008), especially the selection of the weak language (Abutalebi et al. Cortex 49: 905–911, 2013). Therefore, we focused on these three regions of interest (ROIs) where neural changes associated with transfer were expected to occur. Results The results showed a negative correlation between changes in activation levels in the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) and changes in the switch cost magnitude in the language-switching task in the training group but not in the control group, suggesting that the DLPFC plays a critical role in the transfer effect from domain-general executive functions to language control. However, there was no measurable effect in the anterior cingulate cortex or left caudate nucleus, suggesting that the inhibitory control training increased the neural efficiency for language production in bilinguals in terms of attention shifting and conflict resolution, but the training did not affect conflict detection and lexical selection. Conclusion These findings showed how cognitive training evidence can help establish a causational link between the neural basis of domain-general executive functions and language control in bilinguals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document