Cited by 625Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesLanguage Development and Disorders

A bilingual advantage in task switching

Open access
PRIOR, ANAT, MACWHINNEY, BRIAN·2010·Bilingualism: Language and Cognition

Abstract

This study investigated the possibility that lifelong bilingualism may lead to enhanced efficiency in the ability to shift between mental sets. We compared the performance of monolingual and fluent bilingual college students in a task-switching paradigm. Bilinguals incurred reduced switching costs in the task-switching paradigm when compared with monolinguals, suggesting that lifelong experience in switching between languages may contribute to increased efficiency in the ability to shift flexibly between mental sets. On the other hand, bilinguals did not differ from monolinguals in the differential cost of performing mixed-task as opposed to single-task blocks. Together, these results indicate that bilingual advantages in executive function most likely extend beyond inhibition of competing responses, and encompass flexible mental shifting as well.

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 · 10.1017/s1366728909990526

Cites

47 of 47 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?

  • On task-switching tasks, bilinguals typically outperform monolinguals, though the specific components (mixing costs/set shifting vs local switch costs/response switching) vary across studies.

    “Not surprisingly, these tasks are typically performed better by bilinguals than by monolinguals, although the details of those performances are not yet well understood: Some studies report bilingual advantages on mixing costs indicating set shifting [86, 106] while others report the advantage in local switch costs indicating response switching [80,119].”

    From Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain (2012) · cites this paper as [80]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Allport DA, Styles EA & Hsieh S (1994). Shifting intentional set: Exploring the dynamic control of tasks. In Umilta C & Moscovitch M (eds.), Attention and performance XV: Conscious and nonconscious information processing, pp. 421– 452. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. Allport DA & Wylie G (1999). Task-switching: Positive and negative priming of task-set. In Humphreys GM, Duncan J, & Treisman AM (eds.), Attention, space, and action: Studies in cognitive neuroscience, pp. 273– 296. London: Oxford University Press.
  3. Allport DA & Wylie G (2000). Task-switching, stimulus–response bindings, and negative priming. In Monsell S & Driver JS (eds.), Attention and performance XVIII: Control of cognitive processes, pp. 35– 70. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
  4. Botvinick M, Braver TS, Yeung N, Ullsperger M, Carter CS & Cohen JD (2004). Conflict monitoring: Computational and empirical studies. In Posner MI (ed.), The Cognitive Neuroscience of Attention, pp. 91– 104. New York: Guilford Press.
  5. Costa A (2005). Lexical access in bilingual production. In Kroll JF & De Groot AMB (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 308– 325. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  6. Costa A & Santesteban M (2004). Lexical access in bilingual speech production: Evidence from language switching in highly proficient bilinguals and L2 learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 50, 491– 511.
  7. Dijkstra T (2005). Bilingual visual word recognition and lexical access. In Kroll JF & De Groot AMB (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 179– 201. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  8. Kroll JF & De Groot AMB (eds.) (2005). Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  9. La Heij W (2005). Selection processes in monolingual and bilingual lexical access. In Kroll JF & De Groot AMB (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, 289– 307. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  10. MacWhinney B (2005). A unified model of language acquisition. In Kroll JF & De Groot AMB (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 49– 67. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  11. Meiran N (1996). Reconfiguration of processing mode prior to task performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1423– 1442.
  12. Meuter R (2005). Language selection in bilinguals: Mechanisms and processes. In Kroll JF & De Groot AMB (eds.), Handbook of bilingualism: Psycholinguistic approaches, pp. 349– 370. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  13. Meuter R & Allport A (1999). Bilingual language switching in naming: Asymmetrical costs of language selection. Journal of Memory and Language, 40, 25– 40.
  14. Norman DA & Shallice T (1986). Attention in action: Willed and automatic control of behavior. In Davidson RJ, Schwartz GE, & Shapiro (eds.), Consciousness and self-regulation, Vol. 4, pp. 1– 18. New York: Plenum Press.
  15. Shallice T & Burgess PW (1996) The domain of supervisory processes and the temporal organisation of behaviour. In Roberts AC, Robbins TW and Weiskrantz (eds.), The prefrontal cortex: Executive and cognitive functions, pp. 22– 35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  16. Turner ML & Engle RW (1989). Is working memory capacity task dependent? Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 127– 154.
  17. Viswanathan M & Bialystok E (2007). Exploring the bilingual advantage in executive control: The role of expectancies. Poster presented at the 6th International Symposium on Bilingualism, Hamburg, Germany.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
PRIOR, A., & MACWHINNEY, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Haifa (IL)
  • Carnegie Mellon University (US)
Corresponding author
PRIOR, ANAT
Venue
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition
Published
2009-12-17
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
253-262
ISSN
  • 1366-7289 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1841
OpenAlex
W2042518312
Cited by
625
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 53 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 82 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 25
FWCI
7.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bilingualism Language and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KiltHub Repository (submittedVersion)
  • KiltHub Repository
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH019102)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM081760)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (F32HD049255, R01HD023998)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
bilingualism, task switching, switching costs, executive function, mental set shifting, cognitive flexibility, inhibition

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