Reactive and proactive control in bilingual word production: An investigation of influential factors

Short‐term language switching training tunes the neural correlates of cognitive control in bilingual language production

“…This is consistent with the finding of reduced switch costs induced by extensive practice in task-switching literature [e.g., Berryhill and Hughes, 2009;Karbach and Kray, 2009;Strobach et al, 2012], which was interpreted as suggesting the optimization of related control process [Strobach et al, 2014]. In the language switching literature, RTs of switch trials are usually longer than RTs of non-switch trials, referred to as the switch costs [Calabria et al, 2012;Christoffels et al, 2007;Costa and Santesteban, 2004;Costa et al, 2006;Declerck et al, 2015;Ma et al, 2016;Meuter and Allport, 1999;Verhoef et al, 2009]. According to the Inhibitory Control Model (IC Model) [Green, 1998], in the switch condition, the target language in the current trial was inhibited previously, thus efforts were required to relieve the inhibition, leading to the switch costs.…”

What about proactive language control?

“…As a matter of fact, it is one of the most elusive effects in the language control literature. Next to the reversed language dominance pattern in mixed language blocks, some studies have found no difference between L1 and L2 performance in mixed language blocks (e.g., Calabria, Branzi, Marne, Hernández, & Costa, 2015;Prior & Gollan, 2011), and other still found worse L2 than L1 performance in mixed language blocks (e.g., Ma et al, 2016;Wang, Kuhl, Chen, & Dong, 2009).…”

“…Language-mixing costs, another marker of proactive language control, reflects the performance decrease in trials that are processed in the same language as the previous trial in mixed language blocks (i.e., language-repetition trials) relative to performance in trials in pure language blocks (e.g., Christoffels et al, 2007;Declerck et al, 2013;Ma et al, 2016;Peeters & Dijkstra, 2018;Stasenko, Matt, & Gollan, 2017;Wang et al, 2009;Weissberger, Wierenga, Bondi, & Gollan, 2012). Ma et al (2016), for example, asked Chinese-English bilinguals to name digits (0-9) in Chinese or English based on a language cue (red or blue circles) in mixed and pure language blocks. The pure language blocks (counterbalanced order of Chinese and English blocks) were presented prior to the mixed language blocks.…”

“…As in most studies (e.g., Christoffels et al, 2007;Jylkkä, Lehtonen, Lindholm, Kuusakoski, & Laine, 2018;Mosca & de Bot, 2017;Peeters & Dijkstra, 2018;Prior & Gollan, 2011; however, see Declerck et al, 2013;Wang et al, 2009), these language-mixing costs were asymmetrical across languages, with larger L1 than L2 mixing costs. 1 Explanations According to Ma et al (2016), language-mixing costs occur because in pure language blocks the non-target language is proactively inhibited in order to restrict interference from the non-target language. Additionally, the target language is proactively activated.…”

“…To minimize cross-language interference, and increase the chances that words of the target language are selected, a language control process is implemented. While language control is typically viewed as one process, two types of control processes have been identified in the literature (e.g., Ma, Li, & Guo, 2016;Peeters & Dijkstra, 2018; see also Braver, 2012): reactive language control (also known as transient language control), which is the language control process that is implemented when the non-target language disrupts the selection of target language words, and proactive language control (also known as sustained language control), which is the language control process that is implemented as an anticipation of any nontarget language interference disrupting the selection of target language words. Put differently, reactive language control resolves any cross-language interference when it occurs, whereas proactive language control is a preventive control process.…”