Uncovering the effects of bilingual language control on rational decisions: An ERP study

Abstract

A growing body of research suggests that the language in which bilinguals make decisions affects the rationality of such decisions. Furthermore, bilinguals constantly confront cross‐language interference that requires complex language control processes to resolve this competition. However, the relationship between language control and decision‐making is unclear. In the current study, we analyze electrophysiological and behavior data elicited from two groups of Chinese‐English bilinguals. One group was trained in intensive language switching and then completed the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT) and the other group completed the two tasks in the reverse order. We found that bilinguals who first received language switching training significantly scored higher on the IGT, with the score positively correlating with L1 and L2 switch costs. More importantly, training with language switching first led to an N2 component for L1 switching costs that negatively correlated with both loss feedback‐related negativity and the P3 component. These effects did not emerge among the group of bilinguals who performed the IGT first. Taken together, the findings suggest that bilinguals are assisted in making rational decisions by language control on feedback evaluation.

Genetic bases of language control in bilinguals: Evidence from an EEG study

“…Paired‐sample t‐ tests revealed that the participants' L1 was significantly stronger than their L2 in listening ( t = 16.11, p < .001), speaking ( t = 19.24, p < .001), reading ( t = 17.37, p < .001), and writing ( t = 11.97, p < .001). These self‐ratings and OPT scores are similar to intermediate Chinese–English bilinguals tested in prior research (Liu et al, 2021 ; Liu, Liang, et al, 2016 ; Liu, Schwieter, Wang, et al, 2022 ), implying that the individuals have unequal proficiency between their two languages.…”

“…To assess L1 and L2 proficiency levels of the participants, we adopted the Oxford quick placement test (OPT; Geranpayeh, 2003 ; Liu, Schwieter, Liu, et al, 2022 ; Liu, Schwieter, Wang, et al, 2022 ), and asked individuals to rate their language abilities on a six‐point scale in which “1” indicated no knowledge and “6” indicated perfect knowledge (Liu et al, 2021 ). A one‐way ANOVA was next conducted for each polymorphism and revealed no significant differences between genotypes in age, age of L2 acquisition, self‐ratings of language abilities, and OPT scores (see Table 1 ).…”

“…However, many studies have reported an N2 effect 200–400 ms after picture onset, suggesting that selective inhibition is engaged to reduce competition during lexical selection and/or phonological encoding (Cheng et al, 2010 ; Piai et al, 2014 ; Roelofs, 2003 ; Shao et al, 2014 ). The LPC has been linked to language control during lexical access, the disinhibition between languages, and the reactivation of previously suppressed lexical items (Liu et al, 2014 ; Liu, Schwieter, Wang, et al, 2022 ; Rodriguez‐Fornells et al, 2006 ). We spatially pre‐defined anterior (sensors: F5, F3, F1, Fz, F2, F4, F6, FC5, FC3, FC1, FCz, FC2, FC4, FC6) and posterior (sensors: CP5, CP3, CP1, CPz, CP2, CP4, CP6, P5, P3, P1, Pz, P2, P4, P6) ROIs, then extracted the single‐trial amplitude of these sites for the linear mixed‐effect models.…”

“…The LPC has been linked to language control during lexical access, the disinhibition between languages, and the reactivation of previously suppressed lexical items (Liu et al, 2014;Liu, Schwieter, Wang, et al, 2022;Rodriguez-Fornells et al, 2006). We spatially pre-defined anterior (sensors: F5, F3, F1, Fz, F2, F4, F6, FC5, FC3, FC1, FCz, FC2, FC4, FC6) and posterior (sensors: CP5, CP3, CP1, CPz, CP2, CP4, CP6, P5, P3, P1, Pz, P2, P4, P6) ROIs, then extracted the single-trial amplitude of these sites for the linear mixed-effect models.…”