No abstract

Background: Two-hundred one college undergraduates completed four nonverbal interference tasks (Simon, spatial Stroop, vertical Stroop, and flanker) and trait scales of self-control and impulsivity. Regression analyses tested 11 predictors of the composite interference scores derived from three of the four tasks and each task separately. The purpose of the study was to examine the relationships between laboratory measures of self-control, self-report measures, and the degree to which control might be related to extensive experience in activities that logically require self-control. Results: Fluid intelligence and sex were significant predictors of the composite measure, but bilingualism, music training, video gaming, mindfulness/meditation, self-control, impulsivity, SES, and physical exercise were not. Conclusions: Common laboratory measures of inhibitory control do not correlate with self-reported measures of selfcontrol or impulsivity and consequently appear to be measuring different constructs. Bilingualism, mindfulness/ meditation, playing action video games, and music training or performance provide weak and inconsistent improvements to laboratory measures of interference control. Flanker, Simon, and spatial Stroop effects should not be used or interpreted as measures of domain-general inhibitory control.

A large sample (N = 141) of college students participated in both a conjunctive visual search task and an ambiguous figures task that have been used as tests of selective attention. Tests for effects of bilingualism on attentional control were conducted by both partitioning the participants into bilinguals and monolinguals and by treating bilingualism as a continuous variable, but there were no effects of bilingualism in any of the tests. Bayes factor analyses confirmed that the evidence substantially favored the null hypothesis. These new findings mesh with failures to replicate language-group differences in congruency-sequence effects, inhibition-of-return, and working memory capacity. The evidence that bilinguals are better than monolinguals at attentional control is equivocal at best.

No abstract

The adaptive control hypothesis developed by Green and Abutalebi is the most influential theory of bilingual language control. The focus of this article is on the predictions that other researchers have derived based on the three different modes of interactional context described by the hypothesis. Foremost, that dual-language contexts should enhance domain-general executive functions more than single-language contexts. Several recent and ambitious behavioral tests of these predictions are reviewed. Although there was some evidence that dual-language contexts are associated with smaller switch costs, the evidence is inconsistent and there were no similar advantages for inhibitory control. The hypothesis also predicts neuroanatomical adaptations to the three types of interactional context. A careful evaluation of the relevant fMRI and ERP studies that take into account whether behavioral differences align with neuroscience differences and resolves valence ambiguities led to the conclusion that the neuroscience evidence for the hypothesis is, at best, inconsistent. The study also includes new analyses of two large-sample studies that enable the identification of relatively pure cases of single-language bilinguals, dual-language bilinguals, and dense-code switchers. Across nine different measures of executive functioning, the predicted advantage of the dual-language context never materialized. The hypotheses derived from the adaptive control hypothesis do not accurately predict behavioral performance on tests of executive functioning and do not advance our understanding as to what dimensions of bilingualism may lead to enhancements in specific components of executive functioning.