Cited by 256Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience

Distinct neural correlates for two types of inhibition in bilinguals: Response inhibition versus interference suppression

Luk, Gigi, Anderson, John A.E., Craik, Fergus I.M., Grady, Cheryl, Bialystok, Ellen·2010·Brain and Cognition

Abstract

To examine the effects of bilingualism on cognitive control, we studied monolingual and bilingual young adults performing a flanker task with functional MRI. The trial types of primary interest for this report were incongruent and no-go trials, representing interference suppression and response inhibition, respectively. Response times were similar between groups. Brain data were analyzed using partial least squares (PLS) to identify brain regions where activity covaried across conditions. Monolinguals and bilinguals activated different sets of brain regions for congruent and incongruent trials, but showed activation in the same regions for no-go trials. During the incongruent trials, monolinguals activated the left temporal pole and left superior parietal regions. In contrast, an extensive network including bilateral frontal, temporal and subcortical regions was active in bilinguals during the incongruent trials and in both groups for the no-go trials. Correlations between brain activity and reaction time difference relative to neutral trials revealed that monolinguals and bilinguals showed increased activation in different brain regions to achieve less interference from incongruent flankers. Results indicate that bilingualism selectively affects neural correlates for suppressing interference, but not response inhibition. Moreover, the neural correlates associated with more efficient suppression of interference were different in bilinguals than in monolinguals, suggesting a bilingual-specific network for cognitive control.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.bandc.2010.09.004

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bilingualism changes functional neural networks at the response-selection stage, not at the motor-execution stage.

    “bilingualism alters functional neural network at the response-selection level (congruent and incongruent trials), but not at the motor execution level (response inhibition no-go trials)”

    From Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain (2012) · cites this paper as [103]

  • More activity in the bilingual network, including regions from the meta-analysis, was linked to smaller reaction-time costs on incongruent trials.

    “greater activity in the bilingual network, including areas identified in the meta-analysis [95], was related to smaller RT costs for incongruent trials.”

    From Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain (2012) · cites this paper as [103]

  • Luk et al. found that monolinguals and bilinguals engaged different neural networks for congruent and incongruent trials, but no group difference appeared for no-go trials.

    “The results showed that monolinguals and bilinguals recruited different neural networks for both congruent and incongruent trials. Another condition that tested ‘no-go’ responses indicated no difference between groups.”

    From Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain (2012) · cites this paper as [103]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luk, G., Anderson, J. A. E., Craik, F. I. M., Grady, C., & Bialystok, E.
Affiliations
  • Baycrest Hospital (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • York University (CA)
Corresponding author
Luk, Gigi
Venue
Brain and Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-12
Volume
74
Issue
3
Pages
347-357
ISSN
0278-2626 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1973623884
Cited by
256
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 10
FWCI
7.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Brain and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP14036, MOP57842)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Keywords
bilingualism, cognitive control, response inhibition, interference suppression, flanker task, incongruent trials, neural correlates, reaction time, superior parietal cortex
MeSH terms
Brain, Cognition, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Functional Laterality, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Neuropsychological Tests, Parietal Lobe, Reaction Time, Speech Perception, Temporal Lobe, Multilingualism, Comprehension, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review