Non-linguistic effects of language switching training

Abstract

What is the relationship between bilingual language control (BLC) mechanisms and domain-general executive control (EC) processes? Do these two domains share some of their mechanisms? Here, we take a novel approach to this question, investigating whether short-term language switching training improves non-linguistic task switching performance. Two groups of bilinguals were assigned to two different protocols; one group was trained in language switching (switching-task training group) another group was trained in blocked language picture naming (single-block training group). Both groups performed a non-linguistic and linguistic switching task before (pre-training) and after training (post-training). Non-linguistic and linguistic switch costs decreased to a greater extent for the switching-task training than for the single-block training group from pre- to post-training. In contrast, mixing costs showed similar reductions for both groups. This suggests short-term language switching training can transfer to the non-linguistic domain for certain sub-mechanisms (i.e., switch cost). Thus, there is some overlap of the control mechanisms across domains.

What about proactive language control?

“…Moreover, they observed significant correlations between language-and task-mixing costs with short and long cue-to-stimulus intervals (r ranging from .379 to .421). Along the same lines, Prior and Gollan (2013) observed a significant correlation between language-and task-mixing costs (r = .45), as did Timmer, Calabria, and Costa (2019) after the bilingual participants had language switching training (r = .273). Timmer et al (2019), however, found no significant correlation between the two types of mixing costs in the pretraining phase (r = .198).…”

“…Along the same lines, Prior and Gollan (2013) observed a significant correlation between language-and task-mixing costs (r = .45), as did Timmer, Calabria, and Costa (2019) after the bilingual participants had language switching training (r = .273). Timmer et al (2019), however, found no significant correlation between the two types of mixing costs in the pretraining phase (r = .198). Stasenko et al (2017) found additional evidence for a difference, as language-mixing costs increased from the first to the second half of the experiment, whereas task-mixing costs decreased from the first to the second half of the experiment.…”

Active bilingualism delays the onset of mild cognitive impairment

“…in older adults Bialystok et al, 2004Bialystok et al, , 2008; for reviews see Lehtonen et al, 2018;Paap et al, 2015;Valian, 2015). The standing hypothesis is that bilinguals continuously use language control mechanisms to avoid cross-language interference and this lifelong training in control would transfer its benefits to domain-general cognitive processes, resulting in increased efficiency within the EC system (Prior & Gollan, 2013;Timmer, Calabria, & Costa, 2019). Therefore, one could expect that lifelong training of actively speaking two languages would be beneficial in counteracting the negative effects of cognitive decline in bilinguals.…”

Does language switching behavior rely on general executive functions?

“…Lastly, Timmer, Calabria, and Costa (2019) found that training on a bilingual switching task led to improvement in a general switching task. This could be taken to support the taskgenerality hypothesis, but it is also in line with the skill learning theories (and Paap's controlled dose hypothesis in particular), which imply that general EF are employed only during initial stages of language learning.…”