Earlier and more distributed neural networks for bilinguals than monolinguals during switching

On the flexibility of bilingual language control: The effect of language context

“…In the dominant language context the LPC showed greater positivity for the non-dominant than the dominant language, mirroring the behavioral global slowing of L1. This result is in line with language switching studies showing greater positivity for L2 than L1 naming suggesting the role of inhibitory control to achieve efficient naming in both languages (Liu et al, 2016(Liu et al, , 2014Timmer et al, 2017b). In contrast, this language modulation in the LPC was not present during the non-dominant L2 context suggesting an absence of adjusting activation levels for a whole language on a global level (or increase inhibition for L2 making the two languages equally 'slower'?…”

“…This effect is supposed to come about from exerting a global control over all L1 representations, in such a way that their retrieval is slowed down as compared to L2 (Bobb & Wodniecka, 2013;Christoffels et al, 2007;Costa & Santesteban, 2004;De Groot & Christoffels, 2006;Gollan & Ferreira, 2009;Kroll, Bobb, Misra & Guo, 2008;Misra, Guo, Bobb & Kroll, 2012). Previous studies identified global slowing in the LPC with greater positivity for L2 than L1 picture naming (Liu et al, 2016(Liu et al, , 2014Timmer et al, 2017b). This pattern was found for participants who were good at inhibitory control, but not for participants with worse inhibitory control.…”

“…In contrast to the N2, the LPC component has shown consistent results, with more positivity for switch trials than nonswitch trials during the lexical selection phase of language production (Jackson et al, 2001;Liu et al, 2014;Martin et al, 2013;Timmer et al, 2017b). This suggests that on a switch trial it is more complex to make the stimulus-response linkage (i.e., name the picture) because the previously suppressed language needs to be accessed again.…”

“…In our study we also record participants' brain activity by means of event-related potentials. Here, we expect language context to modulate the N2 (Christoffels, Firk & Schiller, 2007;Jackson et al, 2001;Verhoef et al, 2009) and the Late Positive Component (LPC) associated with language switch costs (Jackson et al, 2001;Liu, Liang, Dunlap, Fan & Chen, 2016;Liu, Rossi, Zhou & Chen, 2014;Martin, Strijkers, Santesteban, Escera, Hartsuiker & Costa, 2013;Timmer, Grundy & Bialystok, 2017b). The N2 in language switching has been related to response selection (e.g., Jackson, Jackson & Roberts, 1999;Konishi, Nakajima, Uchida, Kameyama, Nakahara, Sekihara & Miyashita, 1998) and conflict monitoring (e.g., Nieuwenhuis, Yeung, van den Wildenberg & Ridderinkhof, 2003;van Veen & Carter, 2002), and more general cognitive control processes (for a review see Folstein & Van Petten, 2008).…”

“…The N2 in language switching has been related to response selection (e.g., Jackson, Jackson & Roberts, 1999;Konishi, Nakajima, Uchida, Kameyama, Nakahara, Sekihara & Miyashita, 1998) and conflict monitoring (e.g., Nieuwenhuis, Yeung, van den Wildenberg & Ridderinkhof, 2003;van Veen & Carter, 2002), and more general cognitive control processes (for a review see Folstein & Van Petten, 2008). Regarding the switch cost, Christoffels and colleagues (2007) found enlarged negativities for nonswitch over switch trials, while Jackson and colleagues found the opposite pattern, and yet others did not find modulation of the N2 in relation to the switch cost (Liu et al, 2016(Liu et al, , 2014Martin et al, 2013;Timmer et al, 2017b). Nor did the (a)symmetry of switch costs in the N2 reveal a consistent pattern between these studies.…”