Previous studies have demonstrated a bilingual advantage in the efficiency of executive attention. A question remains, however, about the impact of the age of L2 acquisition and relative balance of the two languages on the enhancement of executive functions in bilinguals, and whether this is modulated by the similarity of the bilingual's two languages. The present study explores these issues by comparing the efficiency of attentional networks amongst three groups of young adults living in Australia: English monolinguals and early and late Chinese–English bilinguals. We also address the impact of bilingualism on hemispheric lateralization of cognitive functions, which is of interest since a recent study on early bilinguals revealed reduced hemispheric asymmetry in attentional functioning. In the present study, participants performed a modified version of the lateralized attention network test. Both early and late bilinguals were found to have more efficient executive network than monolinguals. The late bilinguals, who were also reported to be more balanced in the proficiency and usage of their two languages, showed the greatest advantage in conflict resolution, whereas early bilinguals seemed to show enhanced monitoring processes. These group differences were observed when controlling for non-verbal intelligence and socioeconomic status. Such results suggest that specific factors of language experience may differentially influence the mechanisms of cognitive control. Since the bilinguals had distinct language sets, it seems that the influence of bilingualism on executive functions is present regardless of the similarity between the two languages. As for hemispheric lateralization, although the results were not clear-cut, they suggest the reduced lateralization in early bilinguals.
a b s t r a c tWe compare four subjective awareness measures in the context of a visual identification task and investigate quantitative differences in terms of scale use and correlation with task performance. We also analyse the effect of identification task decisions on subsequent subjective reports. Results show that awareness ratings strongly predict accuracy for all scale types, although the type of awareness measure may influence the reported level of perceptual awareness. Surprisingly, the overall relationship between awareness ratings and performance was weaker when participants rated their awareness before providing identification responses. Furthermore, the Perceptual Awareness Scale was most exhaustive only when used after the identification task, whereas confidence ratings were most exhaustive when used before the identification task. We conclude that the type of subjective measure applied may influence the reports on visual awareness. We also propose that identification task decisions may affect subsequent awareness ratings.
Consciousness can be measured in various ways, but different measures often yield different conclusions about the extent to which awareness relates to performance. Here, we compare five different subjective measures of awareness in the context of an artificial grammar learning task. Participants (N=217) expressed their subjective awareness of rules using one of five different scales: confidence ratings (CRs), post-decision wagering (PDW), feeling of warmth (FOW), rule awareness (RAS), and continuous scale (SDS). All scales were equally sensitive to conscious knowledge. PDW, however, was affected by risk aversion, and both RAS and SDS applied different minimal criteria for rule awareness. CR seems to capture the largest range of consciousness, but failed to indicate unconscious knowledge with the guessing criterion. We close by discussing the theoretical implications of scale sensitivity and propose that CR's unique features enable (in conjunction with RAS and FOW) a finer assessment of subjective states of awareness.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.