Effects of Bilingualism on Cognitive Control: Considering the Age of Immersion and Different Linguistic Environments
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Cognitive control-e.g. the abilities to pay attention, to ignore irrelevant input, and to switch between tasks- has received much attention in recent literature. Since both of their languages are activated in parallel, bilinguals have been suggested to have improved cognitive control skills in both the linguistic and non-linguistic domain (e.g., Bialystok, 2017), but inconsistent results (e.g., Hilchey, Saint-Aubin, & Klein, 2015) have lead to a heated debate in the field. However, when found, the effects of bilingualism on cognitive control appear to be generally positive (Valian, 2015). Furthermore, earlier bilingualism has been linked to greater cognitive benefits (Yow & Li, 2015), and Green and Abutalebi's (2013) Adaptive Control Hypothesis (ACH) suggests that the bilingual environment also plays a role. The aim of the current study is to investigate the role of the Age of Acquisition (AoA) of the second language on cognitive control in young adult bilinguals in two different linguistic environments, as well as to examine the underlying processes of cognitive control via event-related brain potentials (ERPs). Two research questions are focused on: 1) Which, if any, cognitive control abilities are enhanced by bilingualism? and 2) Does the type of bilingual experience modulate observed effects? The present study uses the non-linguistic Attention Network Test (ANT; Fan et al., 2002), in which sets of arrows appear with a central target arrow in either a congruent (e.g. ← ← ← ) or incongruent (e.g. ← → ← ) condition, to examine Alerting, Orienting, and Executive Control networks, and a linguistic Stroop task (Stroop, 1935), in which colour terms appear in congruent (i.e. the word "red" presented in red font) and incongruent (i.e. the word "red" presented in green font) conditions, to examine language processing of English-French bilinguals in Canada and in Japanese-English bilinguals in Japan. In addition, Canadian participants also completed an ERP version of the Stroop task to examine possible underlying differences. The results of this series of experiments revealed a complex, yet interesting picture of bilingual cognitive control: although bilingual advantages were not consistent, there was support for earlier bilingualism being more beneficial to cognitive control. Particularly, results show Executive Control advantages for Simultaneous bilinguals, and significant differences between Simultaneous and Early Sequential bilinguals (typically grouped together as "early") in the Stroop task, demonstrating that balanced, proficient bilingualism enhances both linguistic and non-linguistic control. Interestingly, these effects only become apparent when both languages are mixed in the task, in line with suggestions that young adults’ cognitive resources need to be maximally taxed before advantages become apparent. Indeed, ERP results confirmed a greater engagement of cognitive resources in the more difficult version of the task. Although AoA and environment turned out to be confounded, there were still differences between Canadian and Japanese participants. Most notably, Canadian participants appeared to have better Executive Control. Taken together, the current work concludes that despite increased processing load, bilingual cognition does not suffer. Instead, cognition may receive a boost from dual language experience in some cases. Several rarely-explored factors were examined, and the complex results suggest possible areas that would benefit from further exploration, as well as raise interesting questions for future research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».