What’s easier: Doing what you want, or being told what to do? Cued versus voluntary language and task switching.

Abstract

The current study contrasted cued versus voluntary switching to investigate switching efficiency and possible sharing of control mechanisms across linguistic and non-linguistic domains. Bilinguals switched between naming pictures in Spanish versus English or between reading numbers aloud versus adding their digits, either without or with repetition of stimuli, and with fewer requirements as to when and how much they had to switch relative to previous instantiations of voluntary switching. Without repetition (Experiment 1), voluntary responses were faster than cued responses on both stay and switch trials (especially in the non-linguistic switching task), whereas in previous studies the voluntary advantage was restricted to switch-cost reduction. Similarly, when targets were presented repeatedly (Experiment 2), voluntary responses were faster overall for both linguistic and non-linguistic switching, though here the advantage tended to be larger on switch trials. Experiment 3 confirmed the overall voluntary speed advantage for the read-add task in monolinguals, and revealed a reduction in switch costs only for a different non-linguistic task (size-parity judgments). These results reveal greater overall advantages for voluntary over cued switching than previously reported, but also that the precise manifestation of the voluntary advantage can vary with different tasks. In the linguistic domain, lexical inaccessibility introduces some unique control mechanisms, and repetition may magnify cross-domain overlap in control mechanisms. Finally, under some limited conditions, cost-free switches were found in both linguistic and non-linguistic domains; however, suspension of top-down control may be restricted to language or highly automatic tasks.

Voluntary language switching in English–Spanish bilingual children

“…Switching costs are assessed by comparing performance on switch trials , when participants are asked to switch into a different language from the one used on the previous trial, to performance on stay trials , when they use the same language as on the previous trial. Consistent with the predictions of the IC model, studies using a variety of paradigms have revealed asymmetrical switching costs in unbalanced bilinguals (e.g., Campbell, 2005; Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Filippi, Karaminis, & Thomas, 2014; Gollan, Kleinman, & Wierenga, 2014; Hernandez & Kohnert, 1999; Jackson, Swainson, Cunnington, & Jackson, 2001; Linck, Schwieter, & Sunderman, 2012; Martin et al, 2013; Meuter & Allport, 1999; Peeters, Runnqvist, Bertrand, & Grainger, 2014; Philipp, Gade, & Koch, 2007; Wang, Kuhl, Chen, & Dong, 2009; Wang, Xue, Chen, Xue, & Dong, 2007) and symmetrical switching costs in balanced bilinguals switching between languages of equal proficiency (e.g., Calabria, Hernandez, Branzi, & Costa, 2011; Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Costa, Santesteban & Ivanova, 2006; Martin et al, 2013), although there have also been exceptions to these findings (e.g., Calabria et al, 2011; Christoffels, Firk, & Schiller, 2007; Costa & Santesteban, 2004; Costa et al, 2006; Declerck, Koch, & Philipp, 2012; Martin et al, 2013; Prior & Gollan, 2011; Tarlowski, Wodniecka, & Marzecova, 2013; Verhoef, Roelofs, & Chwilla, 2009, 2010; Weissberger, Wierenga, Bondi, & Gollan, 2012). …”

“…While examinations of switching costs have yielded inconsistent findings and appear to be influenced by a variety of methodological factors (e.g., Bobb & Wodniecka, 2013; Gollan, et al, 2014; Runnqvist et al, 2014), there are other ways to measure inhibition within the language switching paradigm. In addition to switching costs , which are believed to index trial-to-trial fluctuations in the control needed to select the correct word in the correct language, global mixing costs are believed to index more sustained control processes (e.g., Christoffels et al, 2007; Monsell, 2003; Prior & MacWhinney, 2010; Rubin & Meiran, 2005).…”

“…In two studies that employed a voluntary switching paradigm (Gollan & Ferreira, 2009; Gollan et al, 2014), English-Spanish bilingual adults completed a timed picture-naming task with a single-language naming condition, in English and Spanish, and an either-language naming condition, in which they were told to name the pictures as quickly as possible in whichever language occurred to them first. Under these voluntary switching conditions, it was possible to contrast the inhibitory account of language switching with a “lexical accessibility-only account” (Gollan & Ferreira, 2009, p. 642).…”

If you stay, it might be easier: Switch costs from comprehension to production in a joint switching task.

“…It must be noted that, unlike Gollan and Ferreira (2009) and Gollan et al (2014), we familiarized our participants with the pictures' L2 names, and we also stressed the importance of using L2 for "at least some" of the pictures. It is possible that these two aspects of our procedure made the selection of L2 names somewhat more likely despite the lack of explicit instructions to use L2 as often as L1.…”

A relative bilingual advantage in switching with preparation: Nuanced explorations of the proposed association between bilingualism and task switching.

“…These findings suggest minimal sharing between language control and executive control mechanisms (see also Gollan, Kleinman, & Wierenga, 2015; Gollan, Sandoval, & Salmon, 2011; Prior & Gollan, 2013). Indeed, Gollan et al, (2014) suggested that even when similar patterns are found, different underlying cognitive mechanisms might be involved. For example, switching costs are reduced in both domains when switches are voluntary instead of cued.…”