↓ Skip to main content

Qualitative Differences between Bilingual Language Control and Executive Control: Evidence from Task-Switching

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
171 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Qualitative Differences between Bilingual Language Control and Executive Control: Evidence from Task-Switching
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, January 2012
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00399
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marco Calabria, Mireia Hernández, Francesca M. Branzi, Albert Costa

Abstract

Previous research has shown that highly proficient bilinguals have comparable switch costs in both directions when they switch between languages (L1 and L2), the so-called "symmetrical switch cost" effect. Interestingly, the same symmetry is also present when they switch between L1 and a much weaker L3. These findings suggest that highly proficient bilinguals develop a language control system that seems to be insensitive to language proficiency. In the present study, we explore whether the pattern of symmetrical switch costs in language switching tasks generalizes to a non-linguistic switching task in the same group of highly proficient bilinguals. The end goal of this is to assess whether bilingual language control (bLC) can be considered as subsidiary to domain-general executive control (EC). We tested highly proficient Catalan-Spanish bilinguals both in a linguistic switching task and in a non-linguistic switching task. In the linguistic task, participants named pictures in L1 and L2 (Experiment 1) or L3 (Experiment 2) depending on a cue presented with the picture (a flag). In the non-linguistic task, the same participants had to switch between two card sorting rule-sets (color and shape). Overall, participants showed symmetrical switch costs in the linguistic switching task, but not in the non-linguistic switching task. In a further analysis, we observed that in the linguistic switching task the asymmetry of the switch costs changed across blocks, while in the non-linguistic switching task an asymmetrical switch cost was observed throughout the task. The observation of different patterns of switch costs in the linguistic and the non-linguistic switching tasks suggest that the bLC system is not completely subsidiary to the domain-general EC system.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
United Kingdom 2 1%
Sweden 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 151 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 20%
Student > Master 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Researcher 10 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 5%
Other 19 12%
Unknown 64 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 38 24%
Linguistics 29 18%
Neuroscience 12 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Arts and Humanities 3 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 65 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2013.
All research outputs
#4,033,110
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,771
of 29,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,711
of 244,088 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#123
of 481 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 29,379 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 244,088 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 481 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.