Multiple Language Use Influences Oculomotor Task Performance: Neurophysiological Evidence of a Shared Substrate between Language and Motor Control

Abstract

In the present electroencephalographical study, we asked to which extent executive control processes are shared by both the language and motor domain. The rationale was to examine whether executive control processes whose efficiency is reinforced by the frequent use of a second language can lead to a benefit in the control of eye movements, i.e. a non-linguistic activity. For this purpose, we administrated to 19 highly proficient late French-German bilingual participants and to a control group of 20 French monolingual participants an antisaccade task, i.e. a specific motor task involving control. In this task, an automatic saccade has to be suppressed while a voluntary eye movement in the opposite direction has to be carried out. Here, our main hypothesis is that an advantage in the antisaccade task should be observed in the bilinguals if some properties of the control processes are shared between linguistic and motor domains. ERP data revealed clear differences between bilinguals and monolinguals. Critically, we showed an increased N2 effect size in bilinguals, thought to reflect better efficiency to monitor conflict, combined with reduced effect sizes on markers reflecting inhibitory control, i.e. cue-locked positivity, the target-locked P3 and the saccade-locked presaccadic positivity (PSP). Moreover, effective connectivity analyses (dynamic causal modelling; DCM) on the neuronal source level indicated that bilinguals rely more strongly on ACC-driven control while monolinguals rely on PFC-driven control. Taken together, our combined ERP and effective connectivity findings may reflect a dynamic interplay between strengthened conflict monitoring, associated with subsequently more efficient inhibition in bilinguals. Finally, L2 proficiency and immersion experience constitute relevant factors of the language background that predict efficiency of inhibition. To conclude, the present study provided ERP and effective connectivity evidence for domain-general executive control involvement in handling multiple language use, leading to a control advantage in bilingualism.

Inhibition Efficiency in Highly Proficient Bilinguals and Simultaneous Interpreters: Evidence from Language Switching and Stroop Tasks

“…It seems that both simultaneous and successive bilinguals possess a certain ease in switching from one language to another, which necessitates mental flexibility, and to some extent also involves inhibition processes (Bobb and Wodniecka 2013;Costa and Santesteban 2004;Dijkstra and van Hell 2003;Heidlmayr et al 2016;Meuter 2005). It has been well demonstrated that language switching in bilinguals requires language control processes, and more specifically that an active top-down inhibition mechanism should be applied to refrain interference from the irrelevant language (Abutalebi and Green 2007;Aparicio and Lavaur 2013;Chauncey et al 2008;Green 1998).…”

“…The use of more than one language is one of the exercises, amongst other activities such as playing music (Bialystok and DePape 2009), playing computer and video games (Bialystok et al 2006;Dye et al 2009), or practicing sports requiring high level of bimanual coordination (Diamond 2011) that plays a role in the strengthening of executive functions (Bialystok 2001;Bialystok et al 2006;Bialystok and DePape 2009;Costa et al 2008b;Diamond 2010;Heidlmayr et al 2014Heidlmayr et al , 2015Heidlmayr et al , 2016Kroll et al 2012). However, results are far from consensual and several studies reported a clear bilingual advantage for performing various tasks involving executive control (e.g.…”

A review on the electroencephalography markers of Stroop executive control processes

“…But they should also look in to oscillatory activity and their functional significance with respect to cognitive control processes. Recently there has been much progress in our understanding of the functional significance of specific frequency bands with respect to cognitive and motor control, with theta (4-7 Hz) emerging as a marker of cognitive control (e.g., Cavanagh & Frank, 2014;Hanslmayr et al, 2008;Mückschel, Stock, Dippel, Chmielewski, & Beste, 2016), alpha (8-12 Hz) as a marker of inhibition (e.g., Jensen & Mazaheri, 2010;Klimesch, 2012;Waldhauser, Johansson, & Hanslmayr, 2012), or beta (13-30 Hz) as a marker of the maintenance of the current sensorimotor or cognitive state (e.g., Engel & Fries, 2010;Heidlmayr, Doré-Mazars, Aparicio, & Isel, 2016). Fig.…”