↓ Skip to main content

Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
612 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
711 Mendeley
Title
Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, June 2011
DOI 10.3758/s13423-011-0116-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew D. Hilchey, Raymond M. Klein

Abstract

It has been proposed that the unique need for early bilinguals to manage multiple languages while their executive control mechanisms are developing might result in long-term cognitive advantages on inhibitory control processes that generalize beyond the language domain. We review the empirical data from the literature on nonlinguistic interference tasks to assess the validity of this proposed bilingual inhibitory control advantage. Our review of these findings reveals that the bilingual advantage on conflict resolution, which by hypothesis is mediated by inhibitory control, is sporadic at best, and in some cases conspicuously absent. A robust finding from this review is that bilinguals typically outperform monolinguals on both compatible and incompatible trials, often by similar magnitudes. Together, these findings suggest that bilinguals do enjoy a more widespread cognitive advantage (a bilingual executive processing advantage) that is likely observable on a variety of cognitive assessment tools but that, somewhat ironically, is most often not apparent on traditional assays of nonlinguistic inhibitory control processes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 711 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 16 2%
Netherlands 5 <1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 10 1%
Unknown 663 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 153 22%
Student > Master 128 18%
Student > Bachelor 119 17%
Researcher 70 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 36 5%
Other 99 14%
Unknown 106 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 328 46%
Linguistics 109 15%
Neuroscience 40 6%
Social Sciences 35 5%
Arts and Humanities 21 3%
Other 47 7%
Unknown 131 18%