CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 925Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersCognitive Abilities and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 96 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and older bilinguals.

Open access
Bialystok, Ellen, Craik, Fergus, Luk, Gigi·2008·Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
DOI 10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.859
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Ninety-six participants, who were younger (20 years) or older (68 years) adults and either monolingual or bilingual, completed tasks assessing working memory, lexical retrieval, and executive control. Younger participants performed most of the tasks better than older participants, confirming the effect of aging on these processes. The effect of language group was different for each type of task: Monolinguals and bilinguals performed similarly on working memory tasks, monolinguals performed better on lexical retrieval tasks, and bilinguals performed better on executive control tasks, with some evidence for larger language group differences in older participants on the executive control tasks. These results replicate findings from individual studies obtained using only 1 type of task and different participants. The confirmation of this pattern in the same participants is discussed in terms of a suggested explanation of how the need to manage 2 language systems leads to these different outcomes for cognitive and linguistic functions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.859

Cites

95 of 95 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 96 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 601–700 of 924

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Luk, G.
Affiliations
  • York University (CA)
  • Rotman Research Institute (CA)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2008
Volume
34
Issue
4
Pages
859-873
ISSN
  • 0278-7393 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1285
DOI
10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.859
OpenAlex
W2144440751
Semantic Scholar
2db0c6e9b5e6c25d0b0340d76ecef4edd7d5fe8f
Cited by
925
References
96
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 69 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 67 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 51
FWCI
14.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2009-04-20)
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Psychology Learning Memory and Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP-57842)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
bilingualism, aging, cognitive control, executive function, word retrieval, lexical access, working memory, older adults, monolinguals, bilingual advantage
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aging, Cognition, Female, Humans, Male, Memory, Short-Term, Middle Aged, Neuropsychological Tests, Vocabulary, Multilingualism

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