Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-hp6zs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-04T23:17:47.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cognitive control in bilinguals: Advantages in Stimulus–Stimulus inhibition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2013

HENRIKE K. BLUMENFELD  and
VIORICA MARIAN
HENRIKE K. BLUMENFELD*
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
VIORICA MARIAN
Affiliation:
Northwestern University
*
Address for correspondence: Henrike K. Blumenfeld, School of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1518, USAhblumenf@mail.sdsu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Bilinguals have been shown to outperform monolinguals at suppressing task-irrelevant information and on overall speed during cognitive control tasks. Here, monolinguals’ and bilinguals’ performance was compared on two nonlinguistic tasks: a Stroop task (with perceptual Stimulus–Stimulus conflict among stimulus features) and a Simon task (with Stimulus–Response conflict ). Across two experiments testing bilinguals with different language profiles, bilinguals showed more efficient Stroop than Simon performance, relative to monolinguals, who showed fewer differences across the two tasks. Findings suggest that bilingualism may engage Stroop-type cognitive control mechanisms more than Simon-type mechanisms, likely due to increased Stimulus–Stimulus conflict during bilingual language processing. Findings are discussed in light of previous research on bilingual Stroop and Simon performance.

Keywords

bilingualisminhibitionStroop taskSimon task

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , July 2014 , pp. 610 - 629
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank Margarita Kaushanskaya, Marcel Giezen, Ashley Adams, Cynthia Thompson, James Booth, members of the Bilingualism and Psycholinguistics Laboratory at Northwestern University, and members of the Bilingualism and Cognition Laboratory at San Diego State University for helpful discussions of this work; and Jenny Vinh Truong, Michelle Ortega, Amy Tellez, Michael Meirowitz, Sebnem Uzuner, Diana Garcia, Daniela Cherbowsky, Natalie Spino, Paula Alvarez, Scott Schroeder, Zahra Ali, Nancy Mariscal, and Kali Brogan for research assistance. We also thank Ping Li, Jared Linck and an anonymous reviewer for feedback on previous versions of this manuscript. This project was supported in part by a John and Lucille Clarke Dissertation Scholarship, San Diego State University Grants Program grant 242338, and an American Speech-Language Hearing Foundation New Investigator grant to the first author, and by grant NICHD 1R01HD059858 to the second author.

References

Abutalebi, J. (2008). Neural aspects of second language representation and language control. Acta Psychologica, 128, 466–478.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control in the bilingual mind. Child Development, 70, 636–644.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E. (2006). Effect of bilingualism and computer video game experience on the Simon task. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 68–79.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. I. M. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic processing in the bilingual mind. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 19–23.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Grady, C., Chau, W., Ishii, A. G., & Christo, P. (2005). Effect of bilingualism on cognitive control in the Simon task: Evidence from MEG. NeuroImage, 24, 40–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., & Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology and Aging, 19, 290–303.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 859–873.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., & DePape, A. -M. (2009). Musical expertise, bilingualism, and executive function. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 265–274.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Bialystok, E., Martin, M. M., & Viswanathan, M. (2005). Bilingualism across the lifespan: The rise and fall of inhibitory control. International Journal of Bilingualism, 9, 103–119.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2007). Constraints on parallel activation in bilingual spoken language processing: Examining proficiency and lexical status using eye-tracking. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22, 633–660.Google Scholar
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2011). Bilingualism influences inhibitory control in auditory comprehension. Cognition, 118, 245–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blumenfeld, H. K., & Marian, V. (2013). Cognitive control and parallel language activation during word recognition in bilinguals. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25, 547–567.Google Scholar
Carlson, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in young children. Developmental Science, 11, 282–298.Google Scholar
Christie, J., & Klein, R. (1995). Familiarity and attention: Does what we know affect what we notice? Memory and Cognition, 23, 547–550.Google Scholar
Colzato, L. S., Bajo, M. T., van den Wildenberg, W., & Paolieri, D. (2008). How does bilingualism improve executive control? A comparison of active and reactive inhibition mechanisms. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34, 302–312.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Costa, A., Hernández, M., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2008). Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition, 106, 59–86.Google Scholar
Costa, A., & Santesteban, M. (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dijkstra, T., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition. In Grainger, J. & Jacobs, A. (eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to human cognition, pp. 189–225. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Yest (PPVT). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M., Padilla, E. R., Lugo, D. E., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody (TVIP). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Egner, T. (2008). Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 12, 374–380.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Luk, G., Pyers, J. E., & Bialystok, E. (2008). The source of enhanced cognitive control in bilinguals. Psychological Science, 19, 1201–1206.Google Scholar
Emmorey, K., Borinstein, H. B., Thompson, R., & Gollan, T. H. (2008). Bimodal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 1–19.Google Scholar
Festman, J., Rodriguez-Fornells, A., & Münte, T. F. (2010). Individual differences in control of language interference in late bilinguals are mainly related to general executive abilities. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 6, 1–12.Google Scholar
Giezen, M. R., Blumenfeld, H. K., Shook, A., Marian, V., & Emmorey, K. E. (2013). Parallel language activation and inhibitory control in bimodal bilinguals. Ms., San Diego State University.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1986). Control, activation, and resource: A framework and a model for the control of speech in bilinguals. Brain and Language, 27, 210–223.Google Scholar
Green, D. W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 67–81.Google Scholar
Grosjean, F. (1997). Processing mixed language: Issues, findings and models. In de, A. M. B. Groot & Kroll, J. F. (eds.), Tutorials in bilingualism: Psycholinguistic perspectives, pp. 225–254. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hermans, D., Bongaerts, T., de Bot, K., & Schreuder, R. (1998). Producing words in a foreign language: Can speakers prevent interference from their first language? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 213–229.Google Scholar
Hernández, M., Costa, A., Fuentes, L. J., Vivas, A. B., & Sebastián-Gallés, N. (2010). The impact of bilingualism on the executive control and orienting networks of attention. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 315–325.Google 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 and Review, 18, 625–658.Google Scholar
Kornblum, S. (1994). The way irrelevant dimensions are processed depends on what they overlap with: The case of Stroop- and Simon-like stimuli. Psychological Research, 56, 130–135.Google Scholar
Kornblum, S., Stevens, G., Whipple, A., & Requin, J. (1999). The effects of irrelevant stimuli: 1. The time course of S–S and S–R consistency effects with Stroop-like stimuli (DO Type 4 task), Simon-like tasks (DO Type 3 task), and their factorial combinations (DO Type 7 task). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 688–714.Google Scholar
Kovács, A. M., & Mehler, J. (2009). Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 6556–6560.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kroll, J. F. (2008). Juggling two languages in one mind: What bilinguals tell us about language processing and its consequences for cognition. Psychological Science Agenda, American Psychological Association, 22. http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2008/01/kroll.aspx.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9, 119–135.Google Scholar
Kroll, J. F., Dijkstra, A., Janssen, N., & Schriefers, H. (2000, November). Selecting the language in which to speak: Experiments on lexical access in bilingual production. Paper presented at the 41st Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Linck, J. A., Schwieter, J. W., & Sunderman, G. (2012). Inhibitory control predicts language switching performance in trilingual speech production. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 651–662.Google Scholar
Liu, X., Banich, M. T., Jacobson, B. L., & Tanabe, J. L. (2004). Common and distinct neural substrates of attentional control in an integrated Simon and spatial Stroop task as assessed by event-related fMRI. NeuroImage, 22, 1097–1106.Google Scholar
Lu, C.-H., & Proctor, R. W. (1995). The influence of irrelevant location information on performance: A review of the Simon and spatial Stroop effects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 174–207.Google Scholar
Luk, G., Anderson, J. A. E., Craik, F. I. M., Grady, C., & Bialystok, E. (2010). Distinct neural correlates for two types of inhibition in bilinguals: Response inhibition versus interference suppression. Brain and Cognition, 74, 347–357.Google Scholar
Luk, G., de Sa, E., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Is there a relation between onset age of bilingualism and enhancement of cognitive control? Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 14, 588–595.Google Scholar
Macizo, P., Bajo, T., & Martín, M. C. (2010). Inhibitory processes in bilingual language comprehension: Evidence from Spanish–English interlexical homographs. Journal of Memory and Language, 63, 232–244.Google Scholar
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 163–203.Google Scholar
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): Assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 50, 940–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marian, V., Blumenfeld, H. K., Mizrahi, E., Kania, U., & Cordes, A.-K. (2013). Multilingual Stroop performance: Effects of trilingualism and proficiency on inhibitory control. International Journal of Multilingualism, 10, 82–104.Google Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003a). Bilingual and monolingual processing of competing lexical items. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 173–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marian, V., & Spivey, M. (2003b). Competing activation in bilingual language processing: Within- and between-language competition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 97–115.Google Scholar
Martín, M. C., Macizo, P., & Bajo, T. (2010). Time course of inhibitory processes in bilingual language processing. British Journal of Psychology, 101, 679–693.Google Scholar
Martin-Rhee, M. M., & Bialystok, E. (2008). The development of two types of inhibitory control in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11, 81–93.Google Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Elman, J. L. (1986). The TRACE model of speech perception. Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1–86.Google Scholar
Mercier, J., Pivneva, I., & Titone, D. (2014). Individual differences in inhibitory control relate to bilingual spoken word processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17, 89–117.Google Scholar
Morton, J. B., & Harper, S. N. (2007). What did Simon say? Revisiting the bilingual advantage. Developmental Science, 10, 719–726.Google Scholar
Ortman, J. M., & Stevens, G. (2008). Shift happens, but when? Inter- and intragenerational language shift among Hispanic Americans. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, April 17–19, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2011). Principles underlying the Bilingual Aphasia Test (BAT) and its uses. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 25, 427–443.Google Scholar
Prior, A., & MacWhinney, B. (2010). A bilingual advantage in task switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13, 253–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
PsychCorp (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment, Inc.Google Scholar
Pyers, J., & Emmorey, K. (2008). The face of bimodal bilingualism: Bilinguals produce ASL grammar while speaking English. Psychological Science, 19, 531–536.Google Scholar
Salvatierra, J. L., & Rosselli, M. (2011). The effect of bilingualism and age on inhibitory control. International Journal of Bilingualism, 15, 26–37.Google Scholar
Schroeder, S., & Marian, V. (2012). A bilingual advantage for episodic memory in older adults. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 24, 591–601.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N., & Frenkiel-Fishman, S. (2005). Attention control and ability level in a complex cognitive skill: Attention shifting and second-language proficiency. Memory and Cognition, 33, 644–653.Google Scholar
Shook, A., & Marian, V. (2012). Bimodal bilinguals co-activate both languages during spoken comprehension. Cognition, 124, 314–324.Google Scholar
Shook, A., & Marian, V. (2013). The Bilingual Language Interaction Network for Comprehension of Speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 16, 304–324.Google Scholar
Simon, J. R., & Rudell, A. P. (1967). Auditory S–R compatibility: The effect of an irrelevant cue on information processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 51, 300–304.Google Scholar
Singh, N., & Mishra, R. K. (2012). Does language proficiency modulate oculomotor control? Evidence from Hindi–English bilinguals. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15, 771–781.Google Scholar
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tao, L., Marzecová, A., Taft, M., Asanowicz, D., & Wodniecka, Z. (2011). The efficiency of attentional networks in early and late bilinguals: The role of age of acquisition. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 1–19.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Treccani, B., Argyri, E., Sorace, A., & Della Sala, S. (2009). Spatial negative priming in bilingualism. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 16, 320–327.Google Scholar
Van Heuven, W. J. B., Conklin, K., Coderre, E. L., Guo, T., & Dijkstra, T. (2011). The influence of cross-language similarity on within- and between-language Stroop effects in trilinguals. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 374.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Weber, A., & Cutler, A. (2004). Lexical competition in non-native spoken-word recognition. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 1–25.Google Scholar
West, R., & Alain, C. (2000). Effects of task context and fluctuations of attention on neural activity supporting performance of the Stroop task. Brain Research, 873, 102–111.Google Scholar
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar