Examining the Bilingual Advantage on Conflict Resolution Tasks: A Meta-Analysis

Donnelly, S., Brooks, P. J., & Homer, B. (2015)

발제자 : 최권득 인지과학 석사과정

SNL LAB???

Contents

Preliminaries Summary Further Reading Discussion

Bilingual Advantage

Preliminaries

Conflict Resolution Tasks - Stroop Task - Simon Task - Flanker Task

Bilingual Advantage on Conflict Resolution Tasks - Interference Cost - Global RTs

Meta-Analysis

Preliminaries

Stroop Task(Stroop, 1935)

- Conflict Resolution Tasks

-Named after John Ridley Stroop -Participants were asked to name the color

- Example of Stroop Task: Congruent vs. incongruent

Preliminaries

Simon Task(Simon & Rudell, 1967)

- Conflict Resolution Tasks

- Named after J. R Simon - Participants were told to press the “Left" or "right“ key. - The signs are randomly presented to the left or right ear. e.g., Congruent : “Left” sign to the left ear Incongruent : “Left” sign to the right ear

Preliminaries

Flanker Task(Eriksen, & Eriksen, 1974)

- Conflict Resolution Tasks

-Flanker task or Eriksen flanker task -Named for Eriksen - The Target is surrounded flanker stimuli. -Participants only have to focus on the target. e.g., H or K -> right response S or C -> left response

Preliminaries

Interference Cost

- Bilingual Advantage on Conflict Resolution Tasks

-Difference in reaction time(RT) between congruent and incongruent trials -Assumed to reflect the time to engage a domain-general inhibitory mechanism -Therefore: Smaller interference costs -> superior inhibitory control

Global RTs

-The average RT across congruent and incongruent trials -often assumed to reflect the cost of monitoring -Smaller Global RTs -> superior monitoring system

Preliminaries

Meta-Analysis

- Meta-Analysis

-Coined by Gene V. Glass(1976) -Conducting research about previous research -Statistical method for contrasting or combining the previous results -To reveal patterns among those results, disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships (Greenland & O'Rourke, 2008, p. 652) -Moderators can be included to explain variation between studies

Summary

Bilingual Advantage

- Introduction

-A great deal of research has revealed bilingual advantage on conflict resolution task e.g., Smaller interference cost & Small global RTs -These findings suggest that bilingualism might reflect superior inhibitory control and monitoring system. What makes bilingual advantage?

- Conflict Resolution system relevance to the system created when lexical items from both languages are activated(Costa et al., 2009)

- It is likely that multilingual environment improves the monitoring system because socio-linguistic cue for which language to speak might compete(Hernandez et al., 2013)

Summary

Fail to replicate

- Introduction

Two recent reviews reach different conclusions

-Some argue: interference cost(o), global RTs(X) (e.g., Luk, De Sa & Bialystok, 2011; Yang, Yang & Lust, 2011) -Others argue: Neither interference costs nor global RTs (e.g., Paap & Greenberg, 2013; Antón et al., 2014)

-Correlated background may lead to bilingual advantage (Hilchey, Saint-Aubin, & Klein, 2015) -Bilingual Advantage may seem true, but other variables and experiences related to the mechanism may often be obscured (Valian, 2015) -> The two points suggest social and linguistic backgrounds be dealt with.

Summary

Additional Moderator Variables

- Introduction

Purpose of Writing

1. Tasks - Simon, Stroop, and Flanker task often uncorrelated (Paap & Sawi, 2014) 2. Age of participants - Children & older adults may have stronger bilingual advantage

than younger adults(Bialystok et al, 2004) - However, Antón et al.(2014) and Kirk et al.(2014) failed to observe

the advantage amongst children and older adults. 3. Research Group - different populations of bilinguals - different administration of task and analysis of data (e.g., handling outliers)

1. To check if there is reliable bilingual advantage on the interference cost and the Global RTs

2. To Check if this advantage is moderated by task, age, or research group.

Summary

Literature Search and Inclusion Criteria

- Method

-PsycINFO and Other database -The references sections of recent review papers and a recent meta-analysis(de Bruin, Treccani & Della Salla, 2015) -39 studies, 73 comparisons, and 5538 participants -Criteria A) if any of the following are true : AOA(Age of Acqusition) on their second langauge is equal to or less than half their age; near equal proficiency in their languages; native or near native attainment; so on B) Study includes at least one monolingual group (defined by minimal exposure to L2) C) Participants are at least 5-year-old without psychological impairment D) Study contains RT data from at least one conflict resolution task

Summary

Data Reduction

- Method

-A three-level meta-analysis to model dependence between global RTs and interference costs. -To do so, the authors eliminate other forms of dependence between the effect sizes within studies by following some strategies(p.597)

Moderator Coding

-Four Moderator variables

1. DV(global RT and interference Costs) 2. Age – Children(~18) / Younger Adults(18 ~ 60) / Older Adults(60 ~ ) 3. Task Simon – classic Simon task and Simon Arrows task Flanker – Flank task and ANT(Attentional Networks Test) Stroop – color-letter Stroop task Other – all other tasks 4. Lab – according to the corresponding author on each study

Summary

Model

- Method

Level1. Null Model - without moderator - the pooled effect size for global RTs, and Interference costs. Level2. including DV model(e.g., cost model) Level3-1. Additive model - testing just the effect of the moderator on the pooled effect size. (e.g., cost + age model) Level3-2. Interaction Model - testing whether the moderator affected global RTs and interference cost differently. (e.g., cost * age model)

Summary - Result

Traditional random-effects meta-analyses with no moderators

Effect sizes for global RTs d = .43 (CI: .19 - .67)

Effect sizes for interference costs d = .29 (CI: .13 - .49)

Summary - Result

-Each model was compared to both the Null Model and Model 1(e.g., Cost) according to the likelihood ratio statistic -Every model fit significantly better than the Null Model (max p-value = .002; min = .34)

Summary - Discussion

It needs considerations on socio-linguistic variable (e.g, age of onset of bilingualism and frequency of use) The existing literature has treated bilingualism - as a one-dimensional - participants are either bilingual or monolingual Future work - bilingual lexical development and lexical access -> the role of executive control in bilingual management

Limitation

Further Reading

Evidence from ERPs(Morales et al., 2015)

AX-CPT :Continuous Performance Task (Rosvold et al., 1956)

Further Reading

Evidence from ERPs(Morales et al., 2015) - Components P3b(Polich, 2003) - Target categorization, context updating, and memory of task-relevant info. - Peaks at 300-600ms after stimulus at electrode site Pz N2(Folstein et al., 2008) - Conflict detection - Stimulus categorization process and conflict monitoring - Peaks at 200-350ms after stimulus at electrode site FCz P3a(Bekker et al., 2004) - Response suppression(e.g., AY trials) - Peaks at 300-600ms after stimulus at electrode site FCz

Further Reading

Evidence from ERPs(Morales et al., 2015) <-Behavioral

Results

<-ERP Results of P3b

Further Reading

Evidence from ERPs(Morales et al., 2015)

-N2 -P3a

-Age of Participants : 80.6(4.4) -80 pictures presented in a different randomized order at 2s/per picture -Recall task

Further Reading

Episodic Memory (Schroeder & Marian, 2012)

Examples of pictures

Further Reading

Older Adults and Dementia (Bialystok, Craik, & Freedman, 2007)

1. Extensive training in one specific area can affect other areas that require related cognitive function(bialystock & Depape, 2009)

2. While bilinguals only use one language, they co-activate their two languages(Bialystock et al., 2009; Kroll et al., 2006) -> language selection -> similar to the mechanism engaged in conflict resolution(Abutalebi & Green, 2007)

Discussion

Read the following Statements. Do you think these are plausible idea for explaining bilingual advantage? If not, what is your idea?

1.There is a benefit of bilingualism for executive function, but that benefit competes with other benefits that both mono and bilinguals have to varying degrees. Depending on the composition of each group in any given experiment, the other benefits may be more plentiful in the monolingual than bilingual group (or sufficiently plentiful in both groups), so that the benefits of bilingualism are invisible. This is the possibility that I favor. 2. There is no cognitive benefit of bilingualism. In experiments that have found a benefit, the effect is either due to the accidentally larger number of other positive factors, such as high SES, that bilinguals have in that particular sample, or due to the correlation of bilingualism with some other active property that is difficult to separate from bilingualism.

(Valian, 2015, p.3)

Discussion

Read the following passages and share your opinion, focusing on the methodological perspective.

Executive functions(Diamond & Lee, 2011) Cognitive flexibility – related to creativity Inhibition Working Memory Problem-solving Reasoning Planning

Discussion

Executive functions have many sub-domains(See, the box below). What other executive function could be demonstrated as bilingual advantage?

Q1. What other factors should be considered as a moderator for this meta-analysis?

Q2. Think about another task to figure out

bilingual advantage. Q3. Share more examples of bilingual

advantage and disadvantage.

Discussion

Short Discussion Questions

Thank You!!