↓ 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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
376 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
508 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 508 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 16 3%
Netherlands 5 <1%
United Kingdom 5 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Canada 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Turkey 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Other 12 2%
Unknown 458 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 122 24%
Student > Master 97 19%
Student > Bachelor 91 18%
Researcher 57 11%
Unspecified 32 6%
Other 109 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 279 55%
Linguistics 83 16%
Unspecified 50 10%
Social Sciences 26 5%
Neuroscience 21 4%
Other 49 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 March 2017.
All research outputs
#2,955,456
of 13,255,689 outputs
Outputs from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#411
of 1,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,608
of 182,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
#12
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,255,689 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,616 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 182,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.