Interference suppression in bilingualism: Stimulus-Stimulus vs. Stimulus-Response conflict

Abstract

Studies examining the potential effects of bilingualism on interference suppression show inconsistent results. Our study approaches this topic by distinguishing two potential subcomponents within interference suppression (i.e., Stimulus-Stimulus and Stimulus-Response conflict). We investigated the two subcomponents through their operationalisation in different tasks and examined the role of language proficiency in modulating it. A sample of 111 young adult participants performed four non-linguistic cognitive tasks measuring both visual and auditory domains of cognitive control. Bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in tasks involving Stimulus-Stimulus conflict, but showed comparable performance in tasks involving Stimulus-Response conflict. Specific effects of language proficiency on cognitive control were observed: group differences in auditory inhibition and visual orienting were only observed between high-proficient bilinguals and monolinguals. Taken together, types of conflicts involved in interference tasks and language proficiency could differentially affect performance in monolinguals and bilinguals.

Individual and Sociolinguistic Differences in Language Background Predict Stroop Performance

“…These mediating factors explain differences in location. The current results align with previous findings that cognitive control indexed by the Stroop task may be shaped by bilingual experience ( Blumenfeld and Marian, 2014 ; Lehtonen et al, 2018 ; Xia et al, 2021 , but see Paap et al, 2019 ) and cognitive factors ( Chen et al, 2019 ; Paap et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Admittedly, the Stroop arrows task is a single measure of a very specific type of cognitive control. If it is indeed the stimulus-stimulus conflict nature of the Stroop task that simulates bilingual experience ( Blumenfeld and Marian, 2014 ; Xia et al, 2021 ), then other tasks with these features might be employed to trace the dynamics of stimulus-stimulus inhibition from the linguistic into the non-linguistic domain. Further, future studies may include important sociolinguistic variables such as more nuanced metrics of long-term L2 immersion and cooperative vs. competitive use of language, social networks, and language attitudes.…”

“…Individual differences measures included linguistic variables, such as self-reported L2 proficiency and exposure, age of L2 acquisition, and receptive vocabulary, along with a cognitive measure of non-verbal intelligence, the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence ( Wechsler, 1999 ). We used a non-linguistic Stroop arrows task that may be particularly sensitive to bilingual experience ( Blumenfeld and Marian, 2014 ; Xia et al, 2021 ; but see Lehtonen et al, 2018 ; Paap et al, 2019 ).…”

“…Informed by the Dimensional Overlap Model ( Kornblum et al, 1999 ), conflict between related stimulus dimensions (i.e., stimulus-stimulus: arrow direction left or right and arrow location left or right) is resolved at the same perceptual level as the related color-word Stroop task; in contrast, the traditional Simon task ( Simon and Rudell, 1967 ) creates a conflict between a stimulus dimension and an unrelated manual response (i.e., stimulus-response: arrow direction up or down and button press left or right). Bilinguals have been shown to make more efficient responses on the Stroop than the Simon task, while monolinguals perform the same across the two tasks ( Blumenfeld and Marian, 2014 ; Xia et al, 2021 ). Stroop arrows performance has also been found to correlate with bilingual language processing across a number of studies ( Blumenfeld and Marian, 2011 , 2013 ; Mercier et al, 2014 ; Giezen et al, 2015 ; Freeman et al, 2017 ).…”

“…First , based on previous research using the Stroop arrows task (e.g., Bialystok et al, 2008 ; Martin-Rhee and Bialystok, 2008 ; Bialystok and DePape, 2009 ; Blumenfeld and Marian, 2011 , 2014 ; Giezen et al, 2015 ; Freeman et al, 2017 ; Lehtonen et al, 2018 ; Xia et al, 2021 ), it was predicted that (a) all participants would show robust Stroop effects (i.e., be faster to respond to congruent than incongruent trials), inhibition effects (i.e., be faster to respond to neutral than incongruent trials), and facilitation effects (i.e., be faster to respond to congruent than neutral trials); and (b) when the dichotomous sociolinguistic context contrast was considered, no or small group differences would emerge across trial types (congruent, incongruent, and neutral).…”