Correction: Assessing the Evidence for Asymmetrical Switch Costs and Reversed Language Dominance Effects – A Meta-Analysis

Proactive and reactive language control in bilingual language production revealed by decoding sustained potentials and electroencephalography oscillations

“…In addition, we found significant switching costs in both languages, but no asymmetry. The absence of asymmetrical switching costs in unbalanced bilinguals was also reported in previous studies using long cue‐stimulus intervals (CSIs) (e.g., Christoffels et al, 2007; Kang et al, 2018; Verhoef et al, 2009; see Gade et al, 2021a, 2021b for a recent meta‐analysis). One possible reason is that the CSI was relatively long (800 ms) in the present experiment, so that participants had enough time to prepare for naming in the target language and resolving the cross‐language conflict prior to stimulus presentation (e.g., Ma et al, 2016).…”

“…Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Costa & Santesteban, 2004;Declerck et al, 2015;Gollan & Ferreira, 2009;Li & Gollan, 2018), this result suggests that unbalanced bilinguals exerted strong inhibition on the dominant language during the mixed language naming condition. It should be noted that there are different interpretations of the reversed language dominance effect: While some researchers argue it is a strong indicator of inhibition over the dominant language (e.g., Bobb & Wodniecka, 2013;Fu et al, 2017), other scholars suggest it could also be explained with alternative mechanisms (see Gade et al, 2021aGade et al, , 2021b for related discussions), such as persistent over-activation (e.g., Declerck et al, 2015;Declerck & Koch, 2023) or lower selection threshold for the weaker L2 (Costa & Santesteban, 2004). We suppose this effect reflects inhibition over the L1, as it converges with our ERP decoding data discussed below.…”

Reassessing the role of language dominance in n—2 language repetition costs as a marker of inhibition in multilingual language switching.

“…Particularly, increased L2 activation and thus increased language competition when returning to L1 might be a viable account, too (Philipp et al, 2007). Moreover, a recent meta-analysis by Gade et al (2021a, 2021b) based on 73 published studies has found many studies showing asymmetrical switch costs (see Bobb & Wodniecka, 2013; Declerck & Philipp, 2015, for reviews), but there were also many studies that did not find this asymmetry or even found a switch costs pattern in the opposite direction (i.e., larger switch costs for L2 than for L1). The overall lack of consistent evidence for asymmetric switch costs reported by Gade et al (2021a) was recently confirmed in a reanalysis by Goldrick and Gollan (2023).…”