Cited by 295Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersCognitive Abilities and Testing

Global–local and trail-making tasks by monolingual and bilingual children: Beyond inhibition.

Open access
Bialystok, Ellen·2010·Developmental Psychology

Abstract

In 3 experiments, a total of 151 monolingual and bilingual 6-year-old children performed similarly on measures of language and cognitive ability; however, bilinguals solved the global-local and trail-making tasks more rapidly than monolinguals. This bilingual advantage was found not only for the traditionally demanding conditions (incongruent global-local trials and Trails B) but also for the conditions not usually considered to be cognitively demanding (congruent global-local trials and Trails A). All the children performed similarly when congruent trials were presented in a single block or when perceptually simple stimuli were used, ruling out speed differences between the groups. The results demonstrate a bilingual advantage in processing complex stimuli in tasks that require executive processing components for conflict resolution, including switching and updating, even when no inhibition appears to be involved. They also suggest that simple conditions of the trail-making and global-local tasks involve some level of effortful processing for young children. Finally, the bilingual advantage in the trail-making task suggests that the interpretation of standardized measures of executive control needs to be reconsidered for children with specific experiences, such as bilingualism.

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 · 10.1037/a0015466

Cites

62 of 62 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

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: 1

  1. Segalowitz N Hulstijn J Kroll JF de Groot AMB Automaticity in bilingualism and second language learning Handbook of bilingualism 2005 371 388 Oxford University Press New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bialystok, E.
Affiliations
York University (CA)
Corresponding author
Bialystok, Ellen
Venue
Developmental Psychology
Published
2010-01
Volume
46
Issue
1
Pages
93-105
ISSN
  • 0012-1649 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-0599
OpenAlex
W2038832340
Cited by
295
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 26
FWCI
12.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01HD052523)
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (A2559)
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, bilingual advantage, executive function, Trail Making Test, inhibition, conflict resolution, cognitive flexibility, task switching, working memory updating, young children, cognitive development
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Child, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psycholinguistics, Reaction Time, Statistics as Topic, Trail Making Test, Verbal Behavior, Vocabulary, Confidence Intervals, Multilingualism, Executive Function

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