Cited by 130Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesCognitive Abilities and Testing

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 94 of the 94 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dual mechanisms of cognitive control in bilinguals and monolinguals.

Morales, Julia, Gómez-Ariza, Carlos J., Bajo, M. Teresa·2013·Journal of Cognitive Psychology

Abstract

Growing evidence shows that executive functioning benefits from bilingual experience. However, the nature of the mechanisms underlying this advantage remains to be clarified. Whereas some have put forward single process accounts to explain the superior performance of bilinguals relative to monolinguals in executive control tasks, recent findings have been interpreted by considering the dynamic combination of monitoring and inhibitory processes to overcome interference from distractor information. In the present study we explored this idea by comparing monolinguals and highly proficient bilinguals in the AX-CPT. This task requires individuals to adjust proactive (monitoring) and reactive (inhibition) control to achieve efficient performance. We also examined the extent to which a well-known index of inhibitory capacity, the stop-signal reaction time, predicts accuracy in the AX-CPT. Results showed that bilinguals outperformed monolinguals in the experimental condition where higher requirement of proactive-reactive control adjustment was required. Interestingly, the inhibition index predicted errors in this condition only in the sample of bilinguals. These findings suggest that a better understanding of the cognitive benefits of bilingualism may require consideration of how bilinguals adjust different executive control mechanisms to cope with interference.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/20445911.2013.807812

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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 94 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–130 of 130

Metadata

Authors
Morales, J., Gómez-Ariza, C. J., & Bajo, M. T.
Affiliations
Universidad de Granada (ES)
Corresponding author
Morales, Julia
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Psychology
Published
2013-06-27
Volume
25
Issue
5
Pages
531-546
ISSN
  • 2044-5911 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-592X
OpenAlex
W2055776553
Cited by
130
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 2
FWCI
5.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Cognitive Psychology (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 › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
bilingualism, executive function, cognitive control, bilingual advantage, proactive control, reactive control, inhibition, monitoring, distractor interference, AX-CPT, stop-signal reaction time

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