Cited by 800Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCategorization, perception, and language

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now you see it, now you don’t

Costa, Albert, Hernández, Mireia, Costa-Faidella, Jordi, Sebastián-Gallés, Núria·2009·Cognition

Abstract

We report two experiments exploring more in detail the bilingual advantage in conflict resolution tasks. In particular, we focus on the origin of the bilingual advantage on overall reaction times in the flanker task. Bilingual and monolingual participants were asked to perform a flanker task under different task versions. In Experiment 1, we used two low-monitoring versions where most of the trials were of just one type (either congruent or incongruent). In Experiment 2, we used two high-monitoring versions where congruent and incongruent trials were more evenly distributed. An effect of bilingualism in overall reaction times was only present in the high-monitoring condition. These results reveal that when the task at hand recruits a good deal of monitoring resources, bilinguals outperform monolinguals. This observation suggests that bilingualism may affect the monitoring processes involved in executive control.

Overview

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.cognition.2009.08.001

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 27 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 798

Metadata

Authors
Costa, A., Hernández, M., Costa-Faidella, J., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
Affiliations
  • Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
  • Universitat de Barcelona (ES)
Corresponding author
Costa, Albert
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-11
Volume
113
Issue
2
Pages
135-149
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2114225305
Cited by
800
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 64 · 2020: 62 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 77 · 2017: 54 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 54 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 34
FWCI
9.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
bilingualism, bilingual advantage, conflict processing, flanker task, reaction time, task monitoring, executive function, cognitive control
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Attention, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Perceptual Masking, Photic Stimulation, Problem Solving, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Multilingualism, 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