Hostname: page-component-56f8b8447b-rgvmg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-11-03T19:54:17.890Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": true, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForArticlePurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForBookPurchase": false, "coreDisableEcommerceForElementPurchase": false, "coreUseNewShare": true, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mouse tracking reveals that bilinguals behave like experts*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2015

SARA INCERA  and
CONOR T. McLENNAN
SARA INCERA*
Affiliation:
Language Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Cleveland State University.
CONOR T. McLENNAN
Affiliation:
Language Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Cleveland State University.
*
Address for correspondence: Sara Incera, Department of Psychology, Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44115saraincera@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We used mouse tracking to compare the performance of bilinguals and monolinguals in a Stroop task. Participants were instructed to respond to the color of the words (e.g., blue in yellow font) by clicking on response options on the screen. We recorded participants’ movements of a computer mouse: when participants started moving (initiation times), and how fast they moved towards the correct response (x-coordinates over time). Interestingly, initiation times were longer for bilinguals than monolinguals. Nevertheless, when comparing mouse trajectories, bilinguals moved faster towards the correct response. Taken together, these results indicate that bilinguals behave qualitatively differently from monolinguals; bilinguals are “experts” at managing conflicting information. Experts across many different domains take longer to initiate a response, but then they outperform novices. These qualitative differences in performance could be at the root of apparently contradictory findings in the bilingual literature.

Keywords

inhibitory controlexecutive functionbilingual advantageexpertisemouse tracking
Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , May 2016 , pp. 610 - 620
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We thank Daniel Mirman for his valuable feedback on the statistical analysis.

This work includes portions of Sara Incera's Master's thesis (Incera, 2014). Data from the English–Spanish group is reported separately in a manuscript that discusses competition between the two languages of a bilingual participant (Incera & McLennan, 2015).

References

Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P. A., Green, D. W., Hernandez, M., Scifo, P., Keim, R., Cappa, S.F., & Costa, A. (2012). Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitoring. Cerebral Cortex, 287.Google ScholarPubMed
Abutalebi, J., & Green, D. (2007). Bilingual language production: The neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 242–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antón, E., Duñabeitia, J. A., Estévez, A., Hernández, J. A., Castillo, A., Fuentes, L. J., Davidson, D. J., & Carreiras, M. (2014). Is there a bilingual advantage in the ANT task? Evidence from children. Frontiers in psychology, 5.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Development, 70, 636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2010). Global–local and trail-making tasks by monolingual and bilingual children: Beyond inhibition. Developmental Psychology, 46, 93–105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I., & Luk, G. (2012). Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 240–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E., & Martin, M.M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science, 7, 325–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., Hernández, M., Costa-Faidella, J., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2009). On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you don’t. Cognition, 113, 135–149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 59–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, A., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2014). How does the bilingual experience sculpt the brain? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15, 336–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bruin, A., Treccani, B., & Della Sala, S. (2014). Cognitive Advantage in Bilingualism An Example of Publication Bias? Psychological Science, 0956797614557866.Google ScholarPubMed
Duñabeitia, J. A., Hernández, J. A., Antón, E., Macizo, P., Estévez, A., Fuentes, L. J., & Carreiras, M. (2014). The inhibitory advantage in bilingual children revisited: Myth or reality? Experimental Psychology, 61, 234.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Filippi, R., Leech, R., Thomas, M. S., Green, D. W., & Dick, F. (2012). A bilingual advantage in controlling language interference during sentence comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 858–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filippi, R., Morris, J., Richardson, F. M., Bright, P., Thomas, M. S., Karmiloff-Smith, A., & Marian, V. (2014) Bilingual children show an advantage in controlling verbal interference during spoken language comprehension. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1–12.Google ScholarPubMed
Freeman, J. B., & Ambady, N. (2010). MouseTracker: Software for studying real-time mental processing using a computer mouse-tracking method. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 226–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilchey, M. D., & Klein, R. M. (2011). Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 625–658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Incera, S. (2014). The time course of a bilingual Stroop task. (Electronic Thesis). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/ Google Scholar
Incera, S., Markis, T. A., & McLennan, C. T. (2013). Mouse-tracking reveals when the Stroop effect happens. Ohio Psychologist, 60, 33–34.Google Scholar
Incera, S., & McLennan, C. T. (2015). The time course of a bilingual Stroop task. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
Klein, G. S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with color-naming. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576–588.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kobus, D. A., Proctor, S., & Holste, S. (2001). Effects of experience and uncertainty during dynamic decision making. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 28, 275–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop Effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirman, D. (2014). Growth Curve Analysis and Visualization Using R. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Paap, K. R., & Greenberg, Z. I. (2013). There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cognitive Psychology, 66, 232–258.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paap, K. R., & Liu, Y. (2014). Conflict resolution in sentence processing is the same for bilinguals and monolinguals: the role of confirmation bias in testing for bilingual advantages. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 27, 50–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ranganathan, R., & Carlton, L. G. (2007). Perception-action coupling and anticipatory performance in baseball batting. Journal of Motor Behavior, 39, 369–380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roelofs, A. (2010). Attention and facilitation: Converging information versus reading in Stroop task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 411–422.Google ScholarPubMed
Sanchez, F. J. N., Sicilia, A. O., Guerrero, A. B., & Pugnaire, A. R. (2005). Anticipation in soccer goalkeepers during penalty kicking. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 36, 284.Google Scholar
Shank, M. D., & Haywood, K. M. (1987). Eye movements while viewing a baseball pitch. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 1191–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sim, M., & Kim, J. U. (2010). Differences between experts and novices in kinematics and accuracy of golf putting. Human Movement Science, 29, 932–946.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spivey, M. J., Grosjean, M., & Knoblich, G. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 102, 10393–10398.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugg, M. J., & McDonald, J. E. (1994). Time course of inhibition in color-response and word-response versions of the Stroop task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 647.Google ScholarPubMed
Tse, C. & Altarriba, J. (2012). The effects of first- and second-language proficiency on conflict resolution and goal maintenance in bilinguals: Evidence from reaction time distributional analyses in a Stroop task. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 15, 663–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar