Export file:


  • RIS(for EndNote,Reference Manager,ProCite)
  • BibTex
  • Text


  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

The Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Cognitive Benefits of Bilingualism may be Extraordinarily Difficult to Discover

1 Language, Attention, & Cognitive Engineering (LACE) Lab, Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA;
2 Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA;
3 Department of Philosophy, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA

Special Issues: What are the mechanisms that occur in the brain that lead to the cognitive benefits of bilingualism and enriched environments?

The hypothesis that coordinating two or more languages leads to an enhancement in executive functioning has been intensely studied for the past decade with very mixed results. The purpose of this review and analysis is to consider why it has been (and will continue to be) difficult to discover the brain mechanisms underlying any cognitive benefits to bilingualism. Six reasons are discussed: 1) the phenomenon may not actually exist; 2) the cognitive neuroscientists investigating bilingual advantages may have been studying the wrong component of executive functioning; 3) most experiments use risky small numbers of participants and are underpowered; 4) the neural differences between groups do not align with the behavioral differences; 5) neural differences sometimes suffer from valence ambiguity, that is, disagreements whether “more” implies better or worse functioning and 6) neural differences often suffer from kind ambiguity, that is, disagreements regarding what type of mental events the pattern of activation in a region-of-interest actually reflects.
  Article Metrics


1. Miyake A, Friedman NP (2012) The Nature and Organization of Individual Differences in Executive Functions: Four General Conclusions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 21: 8-14.    

2. Green DW (1998) Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 1: 67-81.    

3. Abutalebi J, Della Rosa PA, Green DW, et al. (2012) Bilingualism tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitoring. Cereb Cortex 22: 2076-2086.    

4. Paap KR, Greenberg ZI (2013) There is no coherent evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing. Cogn Psychol 66: 232-258.    

5. Paap KR, Sawi O (2014) Bilingual advantages in executive functioning: problems in convergent validity, discriminant validity, and the identification of the theoretical constructs. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 962.

6. Paap KR, Johnson HA, Sawi O (2014) Are bilingual advantages dependent upon specific tasks or specific bilingual experiences? Journal of Cognitive Psychology 26: 615-639.    

7. Paap KR, Darrow J, Dalibar C, et al. (2014) Effects of script similarity on bilingual advantages in executive control are likely to be negligible or null. Frontiers in Psychology 5:1539.

8. Dunabeitia JA, Hernandez JA, Anton E, et al. (2014) The inhibitory advantage in bilingual children revisited: myth or reality? Exp Psychol 61: 234-251.    

9. Anton E, Dunabeitia JA, Estevez A, et al. (2014) Is there a bilingual advantage in the ANT task? Evidence from children. Front Psychol 5: 398.

10. Gathercole VC, Thomas EM, Kennedy I, et al. (2014) Does language dominance affect cognitive performance in bilinguals? Lifespan evidence from preschoolers through older adults on card sorting, Simon, and metalinguistic tasks. Front Psychol 5: 11.

11. Bialystok E, Craik FI, Klein R, et al. (2004) Bilingualism, aging, and cognitive control: evidence from the Simon task. Psychol Aging 19: 290-303.    

12.Hilchey MD, Klein RM (2011) Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review18: 625-658.

13. Costa A, Hernandez M, Costa-Faidella J, et al. (2009) On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: now you see it, now you don't. Cognition 113: 135-149.    

14. Bialystok E (2011) Coordination of executive functions in monolingual and bilingual children. J Exp Child Psychol 110: 461-468.    

15. Kroll JF, Bialystok E (2013) Understanding the Consequences of Bilingualism for Language Processing and Cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 25: 497-514.    

16. Paap KR (2014) The role of componential analysis, categorical hypothesizing, replicability and confirmation bias in testing for bilingual advantages in executive functioning. Journal of Cognitive Psychology 26: 242-255.    

17. Paap KR, 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.    

18. Bakker M, van Dijk A, Wicherts JM (2012) The rules of the game called psychological science. Perspectives in Psychological Science 7: 543-554.    

19. Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, et al. (2013) Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci 14: 365-376.    

20. Francis G (2012) Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychon Bull Rev 19: 975-991.    

21. Engel de Abreu PM, Cruz-Santos A, Tourinho CJ, et al. (2012) Bilingualism enriches the poor: enhanced cognitive control in low-income minority children. Psychol Sci 23: 1364-1371.    

22. Kousaie S, Phillips NA (2012) Conflict monitoring and resolution: Are two languages better than one? Brain Research 1446: 71-90.    

23. Morton J, Harper S (2007) What did Simon say? Revisiting the bilingual advantage. Developmental Science 10: 719-726.

25. Bialystok E, Craik FI, Grady C, et al. (2005) Effect of bilingualism on cognitive control in the Simon task: evidence from MEG. Neuroimage 24: 40-49.    

26. Bialystok E, Craik FI, Luk G (2012) Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain. Trends in Cognitive Science16: 240-250.

27. Luk G, Anderson JA, Craik FI, et al. (2010) Distinct neural correlates for two types of inhibition in bilinguals: response inhibition versus interference suppression. Brain Cogn 74: 347-357.    

28. Gold BT, Kim C, Johnson NF, et al. (2013) Lifelong bilingualism maintains neural efficiency for cognitive control in aging. J Neurosci 33: 387-396.    

29. Rouder JN, Speckman PL, Sun D, et al. (2009) Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 16: 225-237.

30. Moreno S, Bialystok E, Wodniecka Z, et al. (2010) Conflict Resolution in Sentence Processing by Bilinguals. J Neurolinguistics 23: 564-579.    

31. Salthouse TA (2010) Is flanker-based inhibition related to age? Identifying specific influences of individual differences on neurocognitive variables. Brain Cogn 73: 51-61.

32. Keye D, Wilhelm O, Oberauer K, et al. (2009) Individual differences in conflict-monitoring: testing means and covariance hypothesis about the Simon and the Eriksen Flanker task. Psychol Res 73: 762-776.    

33. Shenhav A, Botvinick MM, Cohen JD (2013) The expected value of control: an integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron 79: 217-240.    

34. Chein JM, Schneider W (2005) Neuroimaging studies of practice-related change: fMRI and meta-analytic evidence of a domain-general control network for learning. Brain Res Cogn Brain Res 25: 607-623.    

35. Davelaar EJ (2013) When the ignored gets bound: sequential effects in the flanker task. Front Psychol 3: 552.

36. Schmidt JR, De Houwer J (2011) Now you see it, now you don't: controlling for contingencies and stimulus repetitions eliminates the Gratton effect. Acta Psychol (Amst) 138: 176-186.    

37. Gratton G, Coles MG, Donchin E (1992) Optimizing the use of information: strategic control of activation of responses. J Exp Psychol Gen 121: 480-506.    

38. Botvinick MM, Braver TS, Barch DM, et al. (2001) Conflict monitoring and cognitive control. Psychol Rev 108: 624-652.    

39. Mayr U, Awh E, Laurey P (2003) Conflict adaptation effects in the absence of executive control. Nat Neurosci 6: 450-452.

40. Schmidt JR, Weissman DH (2014) Congruency sequence effects without feature integration or contingency learning confounds. PLoS One 9: e102337.    

Copyright Info: © 2014, Kenneth R. Paap, et al., licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licese (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)

Download full text in PDF

Export Citation

Article outline

Show full outline
Copyright © AIMS Press All Rights Reserved