Global–local and trail-making tasks by monolingual and bilingual children: Beyond inhibition.

Abstract

In three experiments, a total of 151 monolingual and bilingual 6-year-olds performed similarly on measures of language and cognitive ability but bilinguals solved the global-local and trail-making tasks more rapidly than monolinguals. This bilingual advantage was found not only for the traditionally demanding conditions, incongruent global-local trials and Trails B, but also for the conditions not usually considered to be cognitively demanding, congruent global-local trials and Trails A. All the children performed similarly when congruent trials were presented in a single block or perceptually simple stimuli were used, ruling out speed differences between the groups. The results demonstrate a bilingual advantage in processing complex stimuli in tasks that require executive processing components for conflict resolution, including switching and updating, even when no inhibition appears to be involved. They also suggest that simple conditions of the trail-making and global-local tasks involve some level of effortful processing for young children. Finally, the bilingual advantage in the trail-making task suggests that the interpretation of standardized measures of executive control needs to be reconsidered for children with specific experiences such as bilingualism. Keywordsbilingualism; executive function; global-local task; trail-making task; inhibition A growing body of evidence has established that bilingualism enhances children's development of executive control, one of the most crucial aspects of cognitive development (e.g., Diamond, 2002;Zelazo, 2004). Although there is no single account of executive control, an influential model by Miyake et al. (2000) identifies inhibition, updating, and switching as its relevant components. An adaptation of this model by Garon, Bryson and Smith (2008) using the subcomponents working memory, response inhibition, and shifting provides a coherent framework for understanding executive function development in preschool children. However, progress in understanding how experience affects these developmental patterns and eventually explains modifications in the typical pattern requires precise evidence for the processes and subprocesses that are impacted and the conditions under which the effects are demonstrated. The usual interpretation of the bilingual advantage in executive control traces these effects to one of the three components, namely, enhanced inhibitory control (Abutalebi & Green, Address for Correspondence: Ellen Bialystok Department of Psychology York University 4700 Keele Street Toronto, Ontario M3J 1P3 Canada ellenb@yorku.ca. Publisher's Disclaimer: The following manuscript is the final accepted manuscript. It has not been subjected to the final copyediting, fact-checking, and proofreading required for formal publication. It is not the definitive, publisher-authenticated version. The American Psychological Association and its Council of Editors disclaim any responsibility or liabilities for errors or omissions of this manuscript version, any version derived...

Working memory capacity: Is there a bilingual advantage?

“…The results have been inconsistent with some researchers reporting equivalent performance for monolinguals and bilinguals (e.g., Luo, Luk, & Bialystok, 2010;Martin-Rhee & Bialystok, 2008), others reporting a monolingual advantage (e.g., Bialystok, 2010), and still others reporting a bilingual advantage (e.g., Bialystok, et al, 2008;Morales, Calvo, & Bialystok, 2013).…”

“…In most previous studies on bilingual executive function, WM span has been measured using simple span tasks, such as digit span, Corsi span, or matrix span (e.g., Bialystok, 2010;Luk, Anderson, Craik, Grady, & Bialystok, 2010;Martin-Rhee & Bialystok, 2008). The results have been inconsistent with some researchers reporting equivalent performance for monolinguals and bilinguals (e.g., Luo, Luk, & Bialystok, 2010;Martin-Rhee & Bialystok, 2008), others reporting a monolingual advantage (e.g., Bialystok, 2010), and still others reporting a bilingual advantage (e.g., Bialystok, et al, 2008;Morales, Calvo, & Bialystok, 2013).…”

“…Building on this model, Friedman, Miyake, Young, DeFries, Corley, and Hewitt (2008) showed that "inhibition" correlates almost perfectly with "general executive function" and strongly correlates with "updating." Similarly, other studies have reported a strong relationship between inhibition ability and WM span (e.g., Klauer, Schmitz, Teige-Mocigemba, & Voss, 2010;Unsworth & Spillers;2010). Given this strong relationship, if bilinguals have an inhibitory control advantage, a similar advantage should be observed on WM tasks.…”

Why are bilinguals better than monolinguals at false-belief tasks?

“…First, it offers a reinterpretation of bilinguals' better FB performance in view of current studies on the role of attentional processes in FB tasks (Rubio-Fernández 2013, 2015aRubioFernández & Geurts, 2013, 2015. Second, it puts bilinguals' better FB performance in line with recent findings on their better performance in EF tasks (Costa et al, 2008;Martin-Rhee & Bialystok, 2008;Bialystok, 2010Bialystok, , 2015Grundy & Bialystok, 2015). I will start by examining children's focus of attention in standard FB tasks, and then challenge the general assumption that passing this type of task requires inhibiting a prepotent response.…”

“…More recent studies, however, have revealed that bilinguals activate information about both languages when using one language alone (for a review, see Kroll & Bialystok, 2013). Since bilingual language production requires constant monitoring of the target language in order to minimise interference from the competing language, bilinguals' EF is strengthened over time (Bialystok, 2010;. However, even so, studies of EF have not revealed a bilingual advantage that is specific to inhibitory control, or any other single component of EF (for reviews, see Hilchey & Klein, 2011;Bialystok, 2015).…”