Export file:

Format

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

Content

  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

Beyond Panglossian Optimism: Larger N2 Amplitudes Probably Signal a Bilingual Disadvantage in Conflict Monitoring

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?

In this special issue on the brain mechanisms that lead to cognitive benefits of bilingualism we discussed six reasons why it will be very difficult to discover those mechanisms. Many of these problems apply to the article by Fernandez, Acosta, Douglass, Doshi, and Tartar that also appears in the special issue. These concerns include the following: 1) an overly optimistic assessment of the replicability of bilingual advantages in behavioral studies, 2) reliance on risky small samples sizes, 3) failures to match the samples on demographic characteristics such as immigrant status, and 4) language group differences that occur in neural measures (i.e., N2 amplitude), but not in the behavioral data. Furthermore the N2 amplitude measure in general suffers from valence ambiguity: larger N2 amplitudes reported for bilinguals are more likely to reflect poorer conflict resolution rather than enhanced inhibitory control.
  Figure/Table
  Supplementary
  Article Metrics

References

1. Paap KR, Sawi OM, Dalibar C, et al. (2014) The Brain Mechanisms Underlying the Cognitive Benefits of Bilingualism may be Extraordinarily Difficult to Discover. AIMS Neuroscience 1:245-256.    

2. Fernandez M, Acosta J, Douglass K, et al. (2014) Speaking Two Languages Enhances an Auditory but not a Visual Neural Marker of Cognitive Inhibition. AIMS Neuroscience 1:145-157.

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

4. Paap KR, Johnson HA, Sawi O (2014) Are bilingual advantages dependent upon specific tasks or specific bilingual experiences? J Cogn Psychol 26: 615-639.    

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

6. 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. J Neurolinguistics 27: 50-74.    

7. 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.

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

9. Valian V (2014) Bilingualism and cognition. Biling Lang Cogn 18: 3-24.

10. Paap KR (2014) Do many hones dull the bilingual whetstone? Biling Lang Cogn 18: 41-42.

11. Fernandez M, Tartar JL, Padron D, et al. (2013) Neurophysiological marker of inhibition distinguishes language groups on a non-linguistic executive function test. Brain Cognition 83:330-336.    

12. Falkenstein M, Hoormann J, Johnsbein J (1999) ERP components in Go/NoGo tasks and their relation to inhibition. Acta Psychol 101.

13. Lamm C, Zelazo PD, Lewis MD (2006) Neural correlates of cognitive control in childhood and adolescence: disentangling the contributions of age and executive function. Neuropsychologia 44:2139-2148.    

14. Espinet SD, Anderson JE, Zelazo PD (2012) N2 amplitude as a neural marker of executive function in young children: an ERP study of children who switch versus perseverate on the Dimensional Change Card Sort. Dev Cogn Neurosci 2 Suppl 1: S49-58.

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

16. Kornblum S, Hasbroucq T, Osman A (1990) Dimensional Overlap: Cognitive Basis for Stimulus-Response Compatibility - A Model and Taxonomy. Psychol Rev 97: 253-270.    

17. Nigg JT (2000) On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from cognitive and personality psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychol Bulletin 126:220-246.    

18. Bunge SA, Dudukovic NM, Thomason ME, et al. (2002) Immature frontal lobe contributions to cogntive control in children: evidence from fMRI. Neuron 33: 301-311.    

19. 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.    

20. Friedman NP, Miyake A (2004) The Relations Among Inhibition and Interference Control Functions: A Latent-Variable Analysis. J ExpPsychol Gen133: 101-135.

21. Duckworth L, Kern ML (2011) A meta-analysis of the convergent validity of self-control measures. J Res Personal 45: 259-268.    

22. Votruba KL, Langenecker SA (2013) Factor structure, construct validity, and age- and education-based normative data for the Parametric Go/No-Go Test. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 35:132-146.    

Copyright Info: © 2015, 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