Export file:

Format

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

Content

  • Citation Only
  • Citation and Abstract

On the ambiguity regarding the relationship between sequential congruency effects, bilingual advantages in cognitive control, and the disengagement of attention

1 Language, Attention, and Cognitive Engineering Laboratory, Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, United States
2 Department of Psychology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, United States

Grundy, Bialystok, and colleagues have reported that at short response-stimulus intervals bilinguals have smaller sequential congruency effects in flanker tasks compared to monolinguals. They interpret these differences to mean that bilinguals are more efficient at disengaging attentional control. Ten empirical studies are presented that show no differences between bilinguals and monolinguals under conditions that produced robust sequential congruency effects. These null results are discussed with respect to the rate at which sequential congruency effects dissipate and the fact these effects are not adaptive in the sense of improving overall performance. Arguments made by Goldsmith and Morton [1] that smaller sequential congruency effects should not be interpreted as “advantages” are extended. Evidence is also presented that neither simple congruency effects, nor sequential congruency effects, correlate across tasks. This lack of convergent validity is inconsistent with the hypothesis that either provides a measure of domain-general control that could underlie an advantage accrued through experience in switching languages. Results from other tasks purporting to show bilingual advantages in the disengagement of attention are also reviewed. We conclude that sequential congruency effects in nonverbal interference tasks and differences in the rate of disengaging attention are unlikely to contribute to our understanding of bilingual language control and that future research might productively examine differences in proactive rather than reactive control.
  Figure/Table
  Supplementary
  Article Metrics

References

1. Goldsmith SF, Morton JB (2018) Time to disengage from the bilingual advantage hypothesis. Cognition 170: 328–329.    

2. Bialystok E (2017) The bilingual adaptation: How minds accommodate experience. Psychol Bull 143: 233–262.    

3. Grundy JG, Chung-Fat-Yim A, Friesen DC, et al. (2017) Sequential congruency effects reveal differences in disengagement of attention for monolingual and bilingual young adults. Cognition 163: 42–55.    

4. Goldsmith SF, Morton JB (2018). Sequential congruency effects in monolingual and bilingual adults: A failure to replicate Grundy et al. (2017). Front Psychol 9: 2476.

5. Paap KR (2019) The bilingual advantage debate: Quantity and quality of the evidence, In: Schwieter JW (Ed.), The Handbook of Neuroscience of Multilingualism, London: Wiley-Blackwell, 701–735.

6. Paap KR, Anders-Jefferson R, Mason L, et al. (2018) Bilingual advantages in inhibition or attentional control: More challenges. Front Psychol 9: 1409.    

7. Bialystok E, Grundy JG (2018) Science does not disengage. Cognition 170: 330–333.    

8. Grundy JG, Bialystok E (2019) When a "replication" is not a replication. Commentary: sequential congruency effects in monolingual and bilingual adults. Front Psychol 10: 797.

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

10. Lehtonen M, Soveri A, Laine A, et al. (2018) Is bilingualism associated with enhanced executive functioning in adults? A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 144: 394–425.    

11. Donnelly S, Brooks PJ, Homer BD (2019) Is there a bilingual advantage on interference-control tasks? A multiverse-analysis of global reaction time and interference cost. Psychon Bull Rev 26: 1122–1147.

12. Weissman DH, Egner T, Hawks Z, et al. (2015) The congruency sequence effect emerges when the distracter precedes the target. Acta Psychol 156: 8–21.    

13. Mayr U, Awh E (2009) The elusive link between conflict and conflict adaptation. Psychol Res 73: 794–802.    

14. Gilbert SJ, Shallice T (2002) Task switching: a PDP model. Cogn Psychol 44: 297–337.    

15. Costa A, Hernández M, Sebastián-Gallés N (2008) Bilingualism aids conflict resolution: Evidence from the ANT task. Cognition 106: 59–86.    

16. Guido Mendes C (2015) The impact of bilingualism on conflict control. Doctoral dissertation, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

17. Costa A, Hernández 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.    

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

19. Paap KR, Sawi O (2014) Bilingual advantages in executive functioning: Problems in convergent validity, divergent validity, and the identification of the theoretical constructs. Front Psychol 5: 962.

20. Marian V, Blumenfeld HK, Kaushanskaya M (2007) The Language Experience and Proficiency Questionnaire (LEAP-Q): assessing language profiles in bilinguals and multilinguals. J Speech Lang Hear Res 50: 940–967.    

21. Francis WS, Strobach EN (2013, November) Prediction of objective bilingual language proficiency: Can self-report measures suffice? Paper presented at the 54th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Toronto, Canada.

22. Egner T, Ely S, Grinband J (2010) Going, going, gone: Characterizing the time-course of congruency sequence effects. Front Psychol 1: 154.

23. Braver TS (2012) The variable nature of cognitive control: a dual mechanisms framework. Trends Cogn Sci 16: 106–113.    

24. De Pisapia N, Braver TS (2006) A model of dual control mechanisms through anterior cingulate and prefrontal cortex interactions. Neurocomputing 69: 1322–1326.    

25. Grundy JG, Bialystok E (2015) It's not that simple: Sequential congruency effects reveal a bilingual disengagement advantage. Poster session presented at the Workshop on Bilingualism and Executive Function: An Interdisciplinary Approach, CUNY Graduate Center, NY.

26. Egner T (2008) Multiple conflict-driven control mechanisms in the human brain. Trends Cogn Sci 12: 374–380.    

27. Whitehead PS, Brewer GA, Blais C (2018) Are cognitive control processes reliable? J Exp Psychol Learn 45: 765–778.

28. Prior A, MacWhinney B (2010) A bilingual advantage in task switching. Biling Lang Cogn 13: 253–262.    

29. Prior A, Gollan TH (2011) Good language‐switchers are good task‐switchers: Evidence from Spanish–English and Mandarin–English bilinguals. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 17: 682–691.    

30. Cattaneo G, Costa A, Gironell A, et al. (2019) On the specificity of bilingual language control: A study with Parkinson's disease patients. Biling Lang Cogn: 1–9.

31. Dell GS, Burger LK, Svec WR (1997) Language production and serial order: a functional analysis and a model. Psychol Rev 104: 123–147.    

32. Sevald CA, Dell GS (1994) The sequential cuing effect in speech production. Cognition 53: 91–127.    

33. Rosenbaum DA, Weber RJ, Hazelett WH, et al. (1986) The parameter remapping effect in human performance: Evidence from tongue twisters and finger fumblers. J Mem Lang 25: 710–725.    

34. Friesen DC, Latman V, Calvo A, et al. (2015) Attention during visual search: the benefit of bilingualism. Int J Biling 19: 693–702.    

35. Ratiu I, Hout MC, Walenchok SC, et al. (2017) Comparing visual search and eye movements in bilinguals and monolinguals. Atten Percept Psychophys 79: 1695–1725.    

36. Mason LA, Zimiga BM, Anders-Jefferson R, et al. (2019) On the relationships between autistic traits, executive functioning, self-control and exercise. Poster session presented at the 26th annual meeting of the Cognitive Neuroscience Society, San Francisco, CA.

37. Chun-Fat-Yim A, Sorge GB, Bialystok E (2017) The relationship between bilingualism and selective attention in young adults: Evidence from an ambiguous figures task. Q J Exp Psychol 70: 366–372.    

38. Mishra RK, Hilchey MD, Singh N, et al. (2012) On the time course of exogeneous cuing effects in bilinguals: higher proficiency in a second language is associated with more rapid endogenous disengagement. Q J Exp Psychol 65: 1502–1510.    

39. Hernández M, Costa A, Fuentes LJ, et al. (2010) The impact of bilingualism on the executive control and orienting networks of attention. Biling Lang Cogn 13: 315–325.    

40. Saint-Aubin J, Hilchey MD, Mishra R, et al. (2018) Does the relation between the control of attention and second language proficiency generalize from India to Canada? Can J Exp Psychol 72: 208–218.    

41. Blumenfeld HK, Marian V (2011) Bilingualism influences inhibitory control in auditory comprehension. Cognition 118: 245–257.    

42. 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 Neurolinguist 27: 50–74.    

43. Paap KR, Sawi O, Dalibar C, et al. (2014). The brain mechanisms underlying the cognitive benefits of bilingualism may be very difficult to discover. AIMS Neuroscience 1: 245–256.    

44. Paap KR, Sawi O, Dalibar C, et al. (2015) Beyond Panglossian optimism: Larger N2 amplitudes probably signal a bilingual disadvantage in conflict monitoring. AIMS Neuroscience 2: 12–17.

45. Paap KR, Johnson HA, Sawi O (2016) Should the search for bilingual advantages in executive functioning continue? Cortex 74: 305–314.    

© 2019 the Author(s), 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