ARTICLE DE RECHERCHE - Recherche en IA spécialisée au MIT

ARTICLE DE RECHERCHE

Do Bilinguals Outperform Monolinguals in
Switching Tasks? Contrary Evidence for
Nonlinguistic and Linguistic Switching Tasks

un accès ouvert

journal

Ernest Mas-Herrero1,2,3
María Ruz5

, Daniel Adrover-Roig4
, and Ruth de Diego-Balaguer1,3,6

1Cognition and Brain Plasticity Unit, Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute [IDIBELL],
L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Espagne
2Department of Cognition, Development and Education Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Espagne
3Institute of Neurosciences, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Espagne
4Department of Applied Pedagogy and Educational Psychology, Institute of Research and Innovation in Education (IRIE),
University of Balearic Islands, Palma, Espagne
5Esprit, Brain and Behavior Research Center (CIMCYC). Department of Experimental Psychology. University of Granada,
Granada, Espagne
6Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Barcelona, Espagne

Mots clés: bilingualism, cognitive control, executive function, task-switching, switching cost

ABSTRAIT

The benefits of bilingualism in executive functions are highly debated. Even so, in switching
tasks, these effects seem robust, although smaller than initially thought (Gunnerud et al., 2020;
Ware et al., 2020). By handling two languages throughout their lifespan, bilinguals appear
to train their executive functions and show benefits in nonlinguistic switching tasks compared
to monolinguals. Nevertheless, because bilinguals need to control for the interference of
another language, they may show a disadvantage when dealing with task-switching paradigms
requiring language control, particularly when those are performed in their less dominant
langue. The present work explored this issue by studying bilingualism’s effects on task
switching within the visual and language domains. D'une part, our results show that
bilinguals were overall faster and presented reduced switch costs compared to monolinguals
when performing perceptual geometric judgments with no time for task preparation. On the
other hand, no bilingual advantage was found when a new sample of comparable bilinguals
and monolinguals completed a within-language switching task. Our results provide clear
evidence favoring the bilingual advantage, yet only when the task imposes greater executive
demands and does not involve language control.

INTRODUCTION

The impact of bilingualism on executive functions is an exciting but highly debated research
topic in psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Several studies suggest that both languages of
a bilingual are active during perception and production even when only one language is used
(Colomé, 2001; Rodriguez-Fornells et al., 2006; Thierry & Wu, 2007; van Heuven et al.,
2008), generating a constant conflict between the two languages (Vert & Abutalebi,
2013). Cependant, bilinguals efficiently handle both languages and show a remarkable ability
to switch between them (language switching) without apparent effort. This is particularly
noticeable in language-mixing environments where both languages are highly used.

Citation: Mas-Herrero, E., Adrover-
Roig, D., Ruz, M., & de Diego-Balaguer,
R.. (2021). Do bilinguals outperform
monolinguals in switching tasks?
Contrary evidence for nonlinguistic
and linguistic switching tasks.
Neurobiology of Language, 2(4),
586–604. https://est ce que je.org/10.1162
/nol_a_00059

EST CE QUE JE:
https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00059

Informations complémentaires:
https://doi.org/10.1162/nol_a_00059

Reçu: 29 Janvier 2021
Accepté: 4 Octobre 2021

Intérêts concurrents: Les auteurs ont
a déclaré qu'aucun intérêt concurrent
exister.

Auteur correspondant:
Ruth de Diego-Balaguer
ruth.dediego@ub.edu

Éditeur de manipulation:
Angela de Bruin

droits d'auteur: © 2021
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Publié sous Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International
(CC PAR 4.0) Licence

La presse du MIT

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

Neuroimaging studies have revealed that both language monitoring and switching engage
key brain regions of cognitive control such as the anterior cingulate cortex, the inferior frontal
gyrus, the basal ganglia, and parietal areas (Abutalebi & Vert, 2007; Garbin et al., 2010;
Rodriguez-Fornells et al., 2006; van Heuven et al., 2008). The fact that language control in
bilinguals shares, at least partially, functional and neural mechanisms with domain-general
executive control processes has led to the idea that the bilingual brain may rely on executive
functions to avoid interference from the language not currently in use and to switch between
languages (Vert & Abutalebi, 2013). Given the impact of experience on cognitive perfor-
mance (par exemple., Bengtsson et al., 2005), it has been proposed that the extensive use of executive
functions in language control may improve these functions outside the language domain,
leading to a bilingual advantage over monolinguals (Barac & Bialystok, 2012; Bialystok,
1999; Christoffels et al., 2013; Kroll & Chiarello, 2016; Luk et al., 2010; Mechelli et al.,
2004; Wiseheart et al., 2016). In this vein, results suggest that even a short language switching
training can reduce switch costs in nonlinguistic tasks, revealing the transfer of training effects
from linguistic to nonlinguistic domains (Timmer et al., 2019).

Cependant, the size and even the existence of the “bilingual advantage” is still a matter of
fervid debate (Dick et al., 2019; Paap et al., 2014, 2020; Sanchez-Azanza et al., 2017). Recent
meta-analyses suggest that such advantage is, in fact, smaller than initially thought, and it is
not an overall effect on executive functions but rather depends on the type of executive func-
tion studied. Concretely, one of the most consistent and reliable bilingual advantages through
the lifespan is a reduced switching cost in nonlinguistic task-switching paradigms (Gunnerud
et coll., 2020; Ware et al., 2020). Switching costs are usually measured as the difference
between switch and non-switch trials in blocks where tasks randomly vary (Monsell, 2003).
Responses take longer to initiate on a switch than on a stay trial, reflecting the extra processing
demands associated with reconfiguring the task sets. Notably, the bilingual advantage in
cognitive control is generally observed in the most demanding conditions, where higher
cognitive control needs to be deployed (Bialystok et al., 2006; Costa et al., 2009; Hernández
et coll., 2013).

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that bilinguals, as opposed to monolinguals, use cognitive
control even in monolingual contexts, where only one language is needed, in order to main-
tain the language in use and avoid interferences from the other language (Abutalebi & Vert,
2016; Wodniecka et al., 2021). This implies that bilinguals should have their cognitive control
abilities taxed in contexts demanding language control (je) compared to monolinguals—even
when using only one language, et (ii) compared to bilinguals’ abilities in nonlinguistic
contexts. Autrement dit, does the bilinguals’ constant need for language control affect their
ongoing general executive functions performance when simultaneously dealing with language
selection? In this sense, it is worth questioning whether the bilingual advantage in task-
switching paradigms is still present when switching needs to be performed in a context in
which language control is also demanded. This question is particularly pertinent given that
language is omnipresent in our lives. If language monitoring involves cognitive resources,
this has significant consequences when considering bilingualism’s benefits as well as disad-
vantages. Whereas the bilinguals’ training of executive functions may benefit nonlinguistic
task switching, the bilinguals’ unavoidable and continuous need for executive resources
to select the appropriate language may worsen their performance in task switching when
simultaneously dealing with language selection. Par exemple, switching between linguistic
tasks (par exemple., phonetic and semantic judgments) within one language may become more
demanding for bilinguals. Unlike monolinguals, they need to continuously overcome the
interference from the unused language in addition to engaging executive control to switch

Neurobiology of Language

587

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

between task sets. This effect may be particularly evident when performing tasks in the
second language.

To address this question, we tested two independent but comparable samples of Spanish
monolinguals and Spanish/Catalan bilinguals in two distinct task-switching paradigms with or
without language control demands. Given the evidence that the bilingualism advantage is
mainly observed under tasks involving high cognitive control demands (par exemple., Costa et al.,
2009; Hernández et al., 2013), both tasks included two conditions that differed in their cog-
nitive demands. In the low-cognitive demand condition, cues indicating which task to perform
were presented before each target so participants could focus their attention in advance on the
information relevant for the upcoming task (Easy block). In the high-cognitive demand condi-
tion, task information was only conveyed by the target color, which prevented preparation
and required rapid task-set reconfiguration (Hard block). The first is associated with smaller
switching costs than the latter due to preparatory effects (Monsell, 2003). We used this para-
digm in two experiments. In Experiment 1, bilinguals and monolinguals performed geometric
judgments (orientation or shape), and in Experiment 2, participants carried out linguistic
(phonological or semantic) judgments on Spanish words. Each experiment consisted of two
independent but comparable samples of Spanish/Catalan bilinguals and Spanish monolin-
guals. Whereas the first experiment compared switch costs outside the language domain,
the second one explored whether bilinguals’ potential advantage remains if language control
is required. Besides, in the second experiment, two groups of bilinguals were included, un
group of sequential bilinguals that learned Spanish later than Catalan and one group of simul-
taneous bilinguals that acquired Spanish and Catalan concurrently.

We hypothesized that bilinguals would present a reduced switch-cost compared to mono-
linguals for the nonlinguistic switching task in Experiment 1, particularly in the most
demanding condition, as previously reported. Cependant, if performing the task with linguistic
processing incurs an additional cost for bilinguals, these differences should vanish or even
favor monolinguals in the within-language task from Experiment 2. If so, we would also
expect bilinguals’ performance to be associated with their language dominance. Concretely,
since the within-language task-switching paradigm was conducted in Spanish, we hypothesize
that those with Catalan dominance would perform worse among bilinguals since they may
need more cognitive resources to inhibit their dominant, non-target language (Catalan)—and
par conséquent, may incur a greater cost.

EXPERIMENT 1 MATERIALS AND METHODS

Participants
One hundred and ten volunteers participated in this study: 55 Catalan–Spanish bilinguals
(âge moyen = 21.3, SD = 4.16; 43 femmes) et 55 monolingual participants (âge moyen =
20.6, SD = 2.3; 45 femmes). Six participants from the bilingual group and eight from the mono-
lingual group were not included in the analyses because they had more than 30% error rates in
at least one of the blocks. Bilinguals were born in Catalonia (in the North-East of Spain), où
they were tested. They had received a bilingual Spanish–Catalan education and were fully
fluent in the two languages, in both listening and reading skills. They also used both languages
during their daily life and were early bilinguals beginning their exposure to their L2 at ages
ranging from birth to 3.5 années (Tableau 1). En effet, all Catalan students are Spanish–Catalan
bilinguals and experience a similar degree of exposure to both languages. Par exemple,
schooling begins at 3 years of age, and the language used at school is Catalan. Cependant,

Neurobiology of Language

588

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

Tableau 1.
Experiment 1.

Language history, self-evaluated proficiency scores, and BSWQ scores for participants in

Age

Bilinguals

21.3 (0.6)

Language History Questionnaire

Use of language

3.23 (0.16)

Proficiency scores

Age of acquisition

Comprehension

Reading

Production

En écrivant

Total

BSWQ scores

Sp_Cat

Cat_Sp

Contextual

Unconscious

Dans l'ensemble

Spanish

2.9 (0.2)

3.96 (0.03)

3.69 (0.06)

3.98 (0.02)

3.73 (0.06)

3.84 (0.04)

7.37 (0.27)

8.70 (0.36)

8.02 (0.34)

6.70 (0.35)

30.78 (0.91)

Monolinguals

20.6 (0.3)

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

Catalan

2.7 (0.2)

3.96 (0.03)

3.65 (0.07)

3.98 (0.02)

3.76 (0.06)

3.84 (0.03)

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Note. Age and scores are reported as mean (standard error of the mean). BSWQ = Bilingual Switching Ques-
tionnaire. Use of language refers to the self-evaluation rates used in a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = Catalan
only; 2 = Catalan frequently, Spanish rarely; 3 = Catalan majority with Spanish at least 1/4 of the time; 4 = Equal
use of Spanish and Catalan; 5 = Spanish majority with Catalan at least 1/4 of the time; 6 = Spanish frequently;
Catalan rarely; 7 = Spanish only. For use of language, 51% of the participants provided self-ratings between 3
et 5, 43% ratings below 3, et 6% ratings above 5. Proficiency scores refer to the self-evaluation rates in a
4-point scale ranging from 4 = native speaker level to 1 = complete ignorance of the language. Sp_Cat =
Tendencies to switch from Catalan to Spanish; Cat_Sp = Tendencies to switch from Spanish to Catalan.

Spanish is most present in the media (par exemple., TV, cinema, and books). To access the university,
they all need to pass the Spanish University Access Tests that include a Spanish language exam
(as the rest of Spain, and of comparable difficulty) et, in addition, a Catalan language exam.
Donc, they are all highly fluent and familiar with both languages.

On the other hand, monolinguals were born in Andalusia (in the South of Spain), où
they were tested. Monolingual participants were educated only in Spanish except for the
English lessons that all students (bilinguals and monolinguals) received in the schooling
courses. They did not have contact with other languages during their daily lives. En effet, only
participants reporting a low frequency of English use (or other languages, including Catalan in
the case of the monolinguals) were selected for the study. En outre, only participants that
self-labeled as monolinguals were included in the monolingual group. Bilinguals and

Neurobiology of Language

589

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

monolinguals were all university students and had comparable socio-cultural environments.
They were paid cash or course credits for their participation, and they all signed a consent
form approved by the local ethics committee.

Language questionnaires

The Spanish version of the Language History Questionnaire (LHQ; de Diego-Balaguer et al.,
2005; Weber-Fox & Neville, 1996) was administered to all bilingual participants. The LHQ
informs about language use in different life stages (kindergarten, school, high school, and as
an adult) and scenarios (school, university, home, or others) in a Likert-like item of seven
options, adapted to Catalan/Spanish university students, depuis 1 = Catalan only; 2 = Catalan
frequently, Spanish rarely; 3 = Catalan majority with Spanish at least 1/4 of the time; 4 = Equal
use of Spanish and Catalan; 5 = Spanish majority with Catalan at least 1/4 of the time; 6 =
Spanish frequently; Catalan rarely; 7 = Spanish only. The average score was used to measure
their Spanish/Catalan dominance (higher values indicate Spanish dominance, lower values,
Catalan). We also evaluated the self-assessed proficiency in the oral, written, and comprehen-
sion domains for each language using four-point Likert items ranging from 4 = native speaker
level to 1 = complete ignorance of the language (Tableau 1). Bilingual participants also
responded to the Bilingual Switching Questionnaire (BSWQ; Rodriguez-Fornells et al.,
2012). The BSWQ included 12 questions representing four subscales: (1) Tendencies to switch
from Catalan to Spanish (par exemple., “When I cannot find a word in Catalan, I tend to produce it in
Spanish right away”), (2) Tendencies to switch from Spanish to Catalan (par exemple., “When I cannot
find a word in Spanish, I tend to produce it in Catalan right away”), (3) Contextual switches
(par exemple., “There are situations in which I always switch between languages”), et (4) Unattended
switches (par exemple., “It is difficult for me to control switching between languages during a conver-
sation”). The answers were given on a 5-point scale.

Stimuli and procedure

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

We used a nonlinguistic switching paradigm adapted from González-García and colleagues
(2016; voir la figure 1), which was programmed in E-prime 2.0 (https://pstnet.com/). Participants
were asked to classify figures on a trial-by-trial basis, depending on either their shape (ellipse
or rectangle) or based on their orientation (horizontal or vertical). The task included two inde-
pendent experimental blocks, each consisting of 112 trials (for a total of 224 trials). In the Easy
block, colored cues (orange or yellow) presented before the targets (displayed in black)
informed participants about the task to perform (shape or orientation judgments; color-task
associations were counterbalanced across participants). In the Hard block, task information
was conveyed by the color (orange or yellow) of the target figures (Chiffre 1). The order of
presentation of both blocks was counterbalanced across participants. Half of the cue stimuli
were ellipses, and the other half were rectangles. For each shape, half of the stimuli were in a
horizontal, and the other half were in a vertical orientation. Target figures were filled with dif-
ferent lines and points (28 patterns of horizontal, vertical, diagonal, curved lines, and points
for a total of 112 different designs) to visually create differentiated figures (and match the num-
ber of differentiated stimuli in Experiment 2). In total, 112 different stimuli were repeated twice,
once per task. On each block, half of the trials were switch (56 trials), and the other half were
non-switch trials (56 trials). Half of the switch (28) and the non-switch trials (28) involved
shape judgments, and the other half (28 et 28, respectivement), orientation judgments. For each
judgment, half of the switch (14) and non-switch trials (14) involved ellipses, and the other half
(14 et 14, respectivement), rectangles. The order of presentation was randomized within each

Neurobiology of Language

590

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

Chiffre 1. Sequence of events in the two types of blocks used in Experiment 1. Easy blocks included colored squares with black targets (gauche
panel) and Hard blocks included white squares and colored targets (right panel).

block and participant. Stimuli size was 2.5 × 1 cm, and they were included in a grey box (3.5 ×
1.25 cm), which matched the background display color.

Participants were placed 60 cm in front of a 17” computer screen. They were instructed to
respond using the index and middle fingers of their right hand (the assignment of fingers to
responses was counterbalanced across participants). Before performing the experimental
session, all participants were familiarized with the task by completing a short training session
(5 min, 48 trials) with a different set of figures. A grey background remained during the whole
task. Each trial started with a fixation cross presented with a random duration from 1,500 ms
à 2,500 ms. In the Easy block, the task cue (either yellow or orange) appeared from 1,500 ms
à 2,500 ms in the screen center. Afterward, the target figure appeared in black typeface for
190 ms. Targets were presented very rapidly to ensure participants were very attentive to the
cue and target during the task. Similar short stimulus durations are frequent in experiments
recording electroencephalography (par exemple., Ruz & Nobre, 2008), et le 190 ms durations
employed were enough for perceiving the figures comfortably. After the target, a fixation
cross remained in the center of the screen for 2 s. During this time, participants had to respond
(Chiffre 1). UN 100 ms beep immediately followed out-of-time and incorrect responses. In each
trial, the cue indicated the specific task to respond.

In the Hard blocks, the sequence of trials was the same except for the colored cues, lequel
were replaced with white uninformative squared stimuli (Chiffre 1, right panel). Participants
were informed about the task to be performed by the color in which the target was displayed
(either orange or yellow). The relation between the color and task was counterbalanced across
participants and was the same in Easy and Hard blocks for a given participant.

Statistical analysis

To test the impact of bilingualism in task-switching performance, we performed linear mixed
modeling in R (version 4.0.2) (https://www.npackd.org/p/r/4.0.2) and RStudio (https://www.rstudio
.com/) using the lme4 package (Bates, Mächler, et coll., 2015). Across all included participants,
21,504 trials were collected. The first trial in a block and trials preceded by an error were
excluded from the analysis (10.5% of trials), resulting in 19,235 trials to be analyzed.

Neurobiology of Language

591

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

Accuracy data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed-effects modeling (using the
glmer function). The dependent variable was assumed to have a binomial distribution, and a
logit link function was applied. We then generated a model based on a large body of research
investigating bilingualism’s impact on cognitive control and task switching in particular.
Spécifiquement, based on the results of previous studies showing a bilingual advantage on
task switching, and specifically in highly demanding experimental conditions, we included
a 3-way interaction between Switching (Non-Switch and Switch), Difficulty (Easy and Hard),
and Group (Bilinguals and Monolinguals). To control for differences in performance between
tasks, we also included Task (Orientation and Shape) as a factor. For all models reported, nous
followed the same three-step strategy. D'abord, we fit each model with the maximal random effects
structure, including subjects’ random intercepts, within-subjects random slopes (for Switching,
Difficulty, and Task), and their interactions (Switching * Difficulty). If the full random structure
model did not converge, we then removed correlations between random slopes. Enfin, if the
resulting model still did not converge, we removed all random slopes accounting for less than
1% of the variance (Bates, Kliegl, et coll., 2015; Declerck et al., 2020). This three-step strategy
always resulted in convergence.

For analysis involving reaction times (RT), trials in which participants responded incorrectly
were discarded (8.7% of trials). We also discarded RTs above and below 3 SDs of each par-
ticipant’s mean within each block (6.90% of trials; 561 Stay and 645 Switch trials were dis-
carded), resulting in 16,344 trials analyzed. We applied a log-transformation to correct for the
observed skewed distributions of the data. The RT data were analyzed using linear mixed-
effects regression modeling with the lmer function, including the same main factors and inter-
actions as in the accuracy analysis and following the same model-fitting strategies.

The effects of the different predictors and their interactions on participants’ RT and accu-
racy were assessed through likelihood ratio tests using the car package in R (https://cran.r
-project.org/web/packages/car/index.html). These tests were based on Type 3 sums of squares.
Following a significant interaction, pairwise post hoc contrasts were carried out using the
emmeans package in R (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/emmeans/index.html). All data
from Experiments 1 et 2 as well as the scripts used can be found here: https://osf.io/795wx
/?view_only=d15b25249a5e42cf842b65b23c88a6b6.

EXPERIMENT 1 RÉSULTATS

Using linear mixed modeling (see Experiment 1 Materials and Methods), we investigated bilin-
gualism’s impact on nonlinguistic task switching across different levels of cognitive demands.
D'abord, we looked at the participants’ accuracy (Chiffre 2). Participants were more accurate in
Non-Switch than Switch trials [β = 0.44, SE = 0.12, χ2(1) = 24.76, p < 0.001], in Easy than Hard blocks [β = 0.36, SE = 0.11, χ2(1) = 42.91, p < 0.001], and performing shape than orientation judgments [β = 0.26, SE = 0.08, χ2(1) = 11.19, p < 0.001]. Notably, Bilinguals were more accurate than Monolinguals as revealed by a main effect of Group [β = 0.70, SE = 0.19, χ2(1) = 13.27, p < 0.001]. No interactions were found significant (all ps > 0.16).

Regarding RT (Chiffre 3), participants were faster in Non-Switch than Switch trials [β = 0.04,
SE = 0.003, χ2(1) = 215.34, p < 0.001], in Easy than Hard blocks [β = 0.17, SE = 0.008, χ2(1) = 350.60, p < 0.001], and in shape than orientation judgments [β = 0.01, SE = 0.004, χ2(1) = 9.85, p = 0.002]. However, the interaction between Switching and Difficulty was significant [β = 0.03, SE = 0.005, χ2(1) = 42.21, p < 0.001], reflecting an increased switching cost in Hard as compared to Easy blocks. The results also revealed a significant 3-way interaction between Switching, Difficulty, and Group [β = 0.03, SE = 0.01, χ2(1) = 10.13, p = 0.001]. In the Easy Neurobiology of Language 592 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u n o / l / l a r t i c e - p d f / / / / 2 4 5 8 6 1 9 7 9 7 0 7 n o _ a _ 0 0 0 5 9 p d / . l f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks? Figure 2. Partial effects (with 95% confidence intervals) representing the estimated accuracy for both groups in Experiment 1 under Easy and Hard conditions. Bilinguals were more accurate than monolinguals throughout the task. The plot was calculated using the ggpredict function from the ggeffects package in R (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggeffects/index.html). block, switch costs were comparable between groups, although with a tendency for a larger switch cost in bilinguals than for monolinguals (t ratio = −1.8, p = 0.063). Further post hoc analysis did not reveal, however, any group effect in Stay (t ratio = 1.01, p = 0.31) or Switch trials (t ratio = 0.21, p = 0.83) in the Easy block. On the other hand, in the Hard block, bilin- guals presented a reduced switch cost compared to monolinguals (t ratio = 2.26, p = 0.026), specifically due to faster RTs in Switch trials in the bilingual group (t ratio = 2.00, p = 0.049). No group differences were found in Stay trials (t ratio = 1.12, p = 0.27). These findings fit well with previous studies showing a reduced switching cost in bilinguals compared to monolin- guals under the most demanding conditions. Figure 3. Partial effects (with 95% confidence intervals) representing the estimated reaction times (RTs; log transformation) for both groups in Experiment 1 under Easy and Hard conditions. Bilinguals presented reduced switch costs in the Hard block compared to monolinguals while no differences were found in the Easy condition. The plot was calculated using the ggpredict function from the ggeffects package in R (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggeffects/index.html). Neurobiology of Language 593 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u n o / l / l a r t i c e - p d f / / / / 2 4 5 8 6 1 9 7 9 7 0 7 n o _ a _ 0 0 0 5 9 p d / . l f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks? EXPERIMENT 2 MATERIALS AND METHODS Participants One hundred and sixty-five participants were included in this study. Given that the task involves language control, bilinguals were selected depending on whether they reported speaking with both parents in Catalan and their contact with Spanish started after their L1 (sequential bilin- guals, L1Cat group, N = 55), or whether they spoke with one parent in Catalan and with the other in Spanish, starting the contact with both languages simultaneously (simultaneous bilin- guals, L1Cat/Sp group, N = 55). In the monolingual group participants spoke only in Spanish with both parents (N = 55). The three groups were equivalent in terms of age and sex distribu- tion [L1Cat group: 45 women (mean age = 20.6, SD = 2.4); L1Cat/Sp group: 44 women (mean age = 20.6, SD = 3.1); monolingual group: (40 women, mean age = 21, SD = 3.6]. As in Exper- iment 1, both groups of bilingual participants completed the LHQ and the BSWQ. Although both groups of bilinguals were highly proficient in both languages (values higher than 3.5 on a scale of 4, see Table 2), they differed in their own perceived proficiency level in Catalan and Spanish. The L1Cat group reported feeling more proficient in Catalan than in Span- ish [t(48) = −5.6, p < 0.001] while L1Cat/Sp bilinguals reported feeling equally proficient in both [t(48) = 1.3, p = 0.19]. In addition, both groups showed comparable scores in the contextual [t(94) = 1.18, p = 0.24] and unattended facets [t(94) = 0.99, p = 0.99] of the BSWQ. However, the L1Cat group tended to switch more from Spanish to Catalan than the L1Cat/Sp group [t(94) = 2.59, p = 0.011], while the latter tended to switch more from Catalan to Spanish than the L1Cat group [t(94) = 2.28, p = 0.025], consistent with their language dominance. Besides, when considering both groups of bilinguals together (L1Cat/Sp and L1Cat), they showed similar LHQ [Language dominance: t(141) = 1.70, p = 0.09; Proficiency in Spanish: t(133) = 1.16, p = 0.25; Proficiency in Catalan: t(133) = 1.34, p = 0.18] and BSWQ scores [Spanish Switch: t(133) = 0.30, p = 0.77; Catalan Switch: t(133) = 1.65, p = 0.10; Contextual Switch: t(133) = 0.89, p = 0.38; Unattended Switch t(133) = 0.72, p = 0.47; Overall Switch: t(133) = 0.64, p = 0.52] compared to the bilingual group of Experiment 1. They were also comparable in terms of age and gender ( ps > 0.8), and were students of the same university as the bilingual group of
Experiment 1. All groups from Experiment 2, including monolinguals, were equivalent in terms
of verbal IQ as measured by the vocabulary subscale from the verbal scale of the Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale—Third Edition ( WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997) (F < 1; see Table 2). All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision. Seven participants from the L1Cat group, eight from the L1Cat/Sp, and nine from the monolingual group were not included in the analysis because they had error rates larger than 30% in the experimental task. One participant from the L1Cat and one from the L1Cat/Sp did not complete the full experiment due to technical problems but were included in the analysis since they completed >85% of the
task (completing 199 et 202 trials, respectivement, out of 224). As in Experiment 1, all volun-
teers were university students. Bilinguals were born and tested in Catalonia, and monolinguals
were born and tested in Andalusia. As in Experiment 1, only participants reporting a low
frequency of English use (or other languages) were selected for the study. All monolingual par-
ticipants self-labeled as monolinguals. They were paid cash or course credits for their partic-
ipation, and they all signed a consent form approved by the local ethics committee.

Stimuli and Procedure

We used the same switching paradigm as in Experiment 1 but including linguistic stimuli
instead of geometric shapes, and using green or blue for the color of the cues (Chiffre 4). Based

Neurobiology of Language

594

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

Tableau 2.

Language history, self-evaluated proficiency scores, and BSWQ scores for the two bilingual groups in Experiment 2.

Age

L1Cat

20.69 (0.34)

Vocabulary ( WAIS-III)

44.10 (0.66)

Language History Questionnaire

Use of Language

1.95 (0.07)

Proficiency scores

Age of acquisition

Spanish

3.9 (0.2)

Catalan

2.2 (0.07)

L1Cat/Sp

20.55 (0.45)

44.15 (0.60)

3.84 (0.09)

Spanish

2.4 (0.1)

Catalan

2.5 (0.12)

Comprehension

3.85 (0.05)

3.96 (0.03)

3.98 (0.02)

4 (0)

Monolinguals
46

21.00 (0.53)

43.76 (0.77)

Reading

Production

En écrivant

Total

BSWQ scores

Sp_Cat

Cat_Sp

Contextual

Unattended

Dans l'ensemble

3.54 (0.08)

3.79 (0.07)

3.85 (0.05)

3.72 (0.07)

3.90 (0.04)

3.98 (0.02)

4 (0)

3.31 (0.09)

3.90 (0.04)

3.83 (0.06)

3.74 (0.06)

3.65 (0.05)

3.91 (0.03)

3.87 (0.03)

6.43 (0.32)

9.87 (0.28)

7.44 (0.35)

6.70 (0.40)

30.45 (0.92)

8.77 (0.37)

8.79 (0.32)

7.85 (0.43)

7.44 (0.45)

32.85 (1.15)

Note. Age and scores are reported as mean (standard error of the mean). BSWQ = Bilingual Switching Questionnaire. WAIS-III = Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale (Wechsler, 1997). Sp_Cat = Tendencies to switch from Catalan to Spanish; Cat_Sp = Tendencies to switch from Spanish to Catalan; L1Cat = sequential
Catalan dominant bilinguals; L1Cat/Sp = simultaneous balanced bilinguals.

on the color cue, participants were asked to perform either phonological (decide whether a
word had two or three syllables) or semantic judgments (decide whether a word represented
something natural or human-made) for upcoming Spanish target words. The task was divided
into two blocks (Easy and Hard) as in Experiment 1.

We used two lists of 56 concrete words as targets. Words were matched between lists in
number of letters (M = 5.7, SD = 0.7) and surface frequency (M = 26.5, SD = 5.2) (Alameda &
Cuetos, 1995). Half of the words in each list represented natural items, and the other half a set
of artificial items or human-made objects. In each set, half of the stimuli were bisyllabic words,
and the other half were trisyllabic. Half of the words were cognates in each of these sets, et
the other half were non-cognates.

As in Experiment 1, a total of 112 different stimuli were presented twice, once per block
(Easy, Hard). Words were presented in black Arial 22-point typeface inside a grey 3.5 cm ×
1.25 cm box (which matched the background color of the display).

Neurobiology of Language

595

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

Chiffre 4.
typeface (left panel), and the Hard block included white squares and words in colored typeface (right panel).

Sequence of events in the two types of blocks used in Experiment 2. Easy block included colored squares with words in black

Statistical Analysis

The same analyses as in Experiment 1 were performed but with three language groups (L1Cat,
L1Cat/Sp, and Monolinguals) and Cognate status (cognates and non-cognates) as a fifth factor.
Across all included participants, 31,538 trials were collected. From those, 26,783 trials (85%)
were included in the final Accuracy analysis. For the RT analysis, (je) incorrect trials (8.7% of trials)
et (ii) RTs above and below 3 SD of each participant’s mean within each block (6.90% of trials,
621 Stay and 673 Switch trials) were discarded, resulting in 21,956 trials being finally included.

A big model, including both experiments, was also built to investigate potential interactions
between experiments, including the 4-way interaction between Switching, Difficulty, Groupe,
and Experiment. Enfin, in this last analysis, the two groups of bilinguals of Experiment 2
(L1Cat and L1Cat/Sp) were merged into one bilingual group.

EXPERIMENT 2 RÉSULTATS

As in Experiment 1, we implemented linear mixed modeling (see Experiment 2 Materials
and Methods) to investigate bilingualism’s impact on a verbal task-switching paradigm.
Concerning accuracy rates, participants were more accurate in Non-switch than Switch trials
[β = 0.24, SE = 0.04, χ2(1) = 42.73, p < 0.001], and in the Easy than Hard block [β = 0.28, SE = 0.04, χ2(1) = 42.16, p < 0.001]. Crucially, no main effect of Group or interactions including Group were found significant (all ps > 0.06; Chiffre 5).

RT analysis revealed that participants were faster in Non-Switch than in Switch trials [β =
0.04, SE = 0.002, χ2(1) = 343.02, p < 0.001], and in the Easy than the Hard block [β = 0.09, SE = 0.004, χ2(1) = 389.91, p < 0.001]. In addition, participants presented larger switching costs in the Hard than the Easy block [Switching * Difficulty: β = 0.02, SE = 0.004, χ2(1) = 32.79, p < 0.001]. No other main effects or interactions were found significant (all ps >
0.21). Ainsi, no bilingual advantage was present in Experiment 2. (Voir la figure 6.)

To compare the effects observed in the two experiments, we ran a model with both exper-
iments, including the 4-way interaction between Switching, Difficulty, Groupe, and Experiment.
Concerning accuracy, the interaction between Group and Experiment was found significant
[β = 0.53, SE = 0.19, χ2(1) = 7.57, p = 0.006]. The bilingual advantage on accuracy from

Neurobiology of Language

596

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

Chiffre 5. Partial effects (avec 95% intervalles de confiance) representing the estimated accuracy for the
three groups in Experiment 2 under Easy and Hard conditions. No differences among groups were
found significant. The plot was calculated using the ggpredict function from the ggeffects package
in R (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggeffects/index.html). L1Cat = sequential Catalan dom-
inant bilinguals; L1Cat/Sp = simultaneous balanced bilinguals.

Experiment 1 (z ratio = 4.69, p < 0.001) was greater than in Experiment 2, where no bilingual advantage existed (z ratio = 1.29, p = 0.20). Finally, a 3-way interaction between Switching, Group, and Experiment was found significant [β = 0.40, SE = 0.14, χ2(1) = 7.71, p = 0.005]. This interaction revealed that the Group × Experiment interaction previously described was greater for Stay (z ratio = 3.49, p < 0.005) than Switch trials (z ratio = 1.64, p = 0.10) Regarding RT, the 4-way interaction between Switching, Difficulty, Experiment, and Group was found significant [β = 0.04, SE = 0.01, χ2(1) = 10.61, p < 0.001]. Bilinguals showed a smaller switching cost than monolinguals in the Hard condition only in Experiment 1 (t ratio = 2.86, p = 0.005). Figure 6. Partial effects (with 95% confidence intervals) representing the estimated reaction times (RTs; log transformation) for the three groups in Experiment 2 under Easy and Hard conditions. No differences among groups were found significant. The plot was calculated using the ggpredict function from the ggeffects package in R (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggeffects/index.html). L1Cat = sequential Catalan dominant bilinguals; L1Cat/Sp = simultaneous balanced bilinguals. Neurobiology of Language 597 l D o w n o a d e d f r o m h t t p : / / d i r e c t . m i t . e d u n o / l / l a r t i c e - p d f / / / / 2 4 5 8 6 1 9 7 9 7 0 7 n o _ a _ 0 0 0 5 9 p d . / l f b y g u e s t t o n 0 7 S e p e m b e r 2 0 2 3 Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks? Finally, we also examined whether language dominance, as measured by the LHQ (see Experiment 2 Materials and Methods), influenced bilinguals’ performance. We ran a model including the 4-way interaction between Switching, Difficulty, Language dominance, and Experiment for bilinguals’ accuracy and RT data. Regarding accuracy, no main effect of language dominance nor any interaction with other factors was found significant (all ps > 0.10). Similar
findings were found with the RT data, with no main effect of language dominance or interaction
between language dominance and any other factor (all ps > 0.09).

DISCUSSION
The main goal of the current study was to investigate whether the bilinguals’ engagement of
executive functions to manage two languages hinders the potential bilingual advantage in
task-switching functions when shifting between tasks involving language processing. A large
body of research has specifically investigated the impact of bilingualism on nonlinguistic task-
switching functions, offering contradictory results (Barac & Bialystok, 2012; Brito et al., 2016;
Crivello et al., 2016; de Bruin et al., 2015; Garbin et al., 2010; Gold et al., 2013; Hartanto &
Lequel, 2019; Hernández et al., 2013; Houtzager et al., 2017; Kuipers & Westphal, 2021;
Marzecová et al., 2013; Mor et al., 2015; Moradzadeh et al., 2015; Paap & Greenberg,
2013; Paap & Sawi, 2014; Poulin-Dubois et al., 2011; Prior & Gollan, 2011; Prior & Mac-
Whinney, 2010; Rodríguez-Pujadas et al., 2013; Shulley & Shake, 2016; Stasenko et al.,
2017; Wiseheart et al., 2016; Woumans et al., 2019). Nevertheless, recent meta-analyses indi-
cate that, although much smaller than initially thought, there is a certain bilingual advantage in
nonlinguistic task-switching paradigms (Gunnerud et al., 2020; Ware et al., 2020). In agree-
ment with this hypothesis, our results indicate that bilinguals presented reduced switch costs
and were more accurate in a nonlinguistic discrimination task.

The differences in switch-cost magnitudes were due to faster responses of bilinguals in
switch trials. Notably, this effect was confined to the most demanding condition, dans lequel
participants could not prepare in advance (Monsell, 2003). These findings align with previous
reports showing that the bilingual advantage is generally observed only in the most demanding
situations (Bialystok et al., 2006; Costa et al., 2009; Hernández et al., 2013). A recent study
(Kuipers & Westphal, 2021) has provided further evidence in favor of this hypothesis by
manipulating task complexity, just as was done in the present study. The study manipulated
the temporal interval between the cue and the target and observed a bilingual advantage in
executive functions only in those conditions that were more demanding (c'est à dire., when partici-
pants had less time to prepare).

En outre, bilinguals were overall more accurate in the nonlinguistic task switching par-
adigm than monolinguals. While similar overall effect on bilinguals’ performance in executive
function tasks has been observed in some studies (Hartanto & Lequel, 2019; Soveri et al., 2011),
others have restricted this effect to a larger domain-general global accuracy (Sanchez-Azanza
et coll., 2020). This bilinguals’ advantage has been suggested to reveal their ability to manage
tasks that involve mixing trials of different types, which would reflect better monitoring pro-
cesses in this group as a consequence of the need to constantly evaluate the language to be
used in each communicative context (Barac & Bialystok, 2012; Costa et al., 2009). Taken
ensemble, our results suggest that bilingualism may boost both monitoring and switching abil-
ities in nonlinguistic task-switching paradigms.

The bilingual advantage in nonlinguistic task-switching paradigms fits well with the idea that
bilinguals’ cognitive benefits are more likely to appear on tasks similar to bilingual language
utiliser, such as switching tasks, rather than inhibition or working memory tasks. The competition

Neurobiology of Language

598

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

between two tasks in task-switching paradigms may be comparable to the continuous activa-
tion and competition of two different languages in bilinguals. En effet, the brain circuits under-
lying language control and nonlinguistic task switching partially overlap. Neuroimaging studies
have revealed a cortico-subcortical network implicated in language control that overlaps with
the domain-general executive control network (ECN), including the anterior cingulate cortex,
inferior frontal cortex, basal ganglia, and parietal cortices (Abutalebi & Vert, 2007, 2016;
Baumgart & Billick, 2018; De Baene et al., 2015; Garbin et al., 2010; Rodriguez-Fornells
et coll., 2006; van Heuven et al., 2008; Weissberger et al., 2015). Most of these regions are
not typically involved in monolingual language processing (par exemple., Friederici, 2011). Neuroplas-
ticity changes in the bilingual brain due to the extra training that language control represents
may lead them to recruit the ECN more efficiently than matched monolinguals (Abutalebi et al.,
2012), causing behavioral advantages on cognitive control tasks (Del Maschio et al., 2018;
Timmer et al., 2019). On the other hand, neuroimaging studies have shown that bilinguals,
compared to monolinguals, recruit brain regions involved in language control when performing
nonlinguistic cognitive tasks, particularly in task-switching paradigms (Garbin et al., 2010;
Rodríguez-Pujadas et al., 2013). Cependant, the additional recruitment of language control brain
circuits do not always turn into a benefit when bilinguals perform nonlinguistic cognitive tasks.
Par exemple, transcranial direct current stimulation over the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
(DLPFC), considered to be crucial for language control (Abutalebi & Vert, 2016; Klaus &
Schutter, 2018), impairs nonlinguistic task switching but aids language control in bilinguals
(Vaughn et al., 2021). This may suggest that, although language and cognitive control rely
on partially overlapping brain areas, the implication of specific ECN regions such as the left
DLPFC is opposite when it comes to cognitive or language control.

Donc, could the bilingual advantage source lead to a cost when performing task
switching demanding language control? Although bilinguals are remarkably efficient in con-
trolling interference from the non-target language, tasks involving language control may
become more demanding for bilinguals than monolinguals. Our findings do support this
hypothèse. Concretely, we show that the bilingual advantage observed in nonlinguistic task
switching vanishes when language is present. Notably, the lack of group effects in the within-
language task-switching paradigm could not be attributed to worse overall performance in
bilinguals than monolinguals and, donc, due to slower lexical access and processing of
the Spanish language in bilinguals (Bialystok et al., 2009). D'abord, both groups presented com-
parable accuracy and RTs throughout the task. Deuxième, bilingual and monolingual participants
did not differ in their verbal abilities (evaluated by WAIS-III in Spanish). Enfin, all bilingual
groups reported high levels of proficiency in both languages.

Previous studies investigating the bilingual advantage in task switching have also used lin-
guistic material (Brito et al., 2016; Brun, 2015). In both studies, participants had to switch
between classifying objects and words. Cependant, the authors did not investigate any potential
effect of task or interaction between task performance and differences in language dominance
among bilinguals. En outre, Prior and Gollan (2013) used a color-shape switching task in
which participants produced verbal responses in their dominant language. Notably, none of
them found a bilingual advantage in switching costs. Our findings thus provide a new perspec-
tive to interpret these null effects. C'est, the additional cognitive demands imposed on bilin-
guals when dealing with tasks involving language control make their performance comparable
to that of monolinguals. Our findings also speak of the bilingual advantage’s fragility, which is
only observable in high demanding conditions that do not require linguistic processing.

Cependant, contrary to our initial hypothesis, we did not find any effect of language domi-
nance or use. Similar neural mechanisms seem to underlie L1 and L2 processing in the

Neurobiology of Language

599

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

bilingual brain (Abutalebi, 2008; Perani et al., 1998). Cependant, L2 tends to show a more
extended pattern of activations than L1, which depends on the level of proficiency in L2
and likely reflects the more effortful processing of the second language to avoid interference
from L1, mainly when there is a strongly dominant L1 (Abutalebi, 2008). Nous, donc,
hypothesized that individuals with strong Catalan dominance would require more resources
than Spanish dominant bilinguals to avoid interference from the non-target language (Catalan)
during task performance. The lack of behavioral differences between Catalan and Spanish-
dominant bilinguals and the absence of significant correlations with language use measures
indicate that language dominance did not incur any cost or benefit in the tested population.
Cependant, it is important to note the high proficiency levels and use of both languages in the
bilingual population tested. The inclusion of different bilingual groups with larger language
dominance and use differences may be more convenient to test for potential language dom-
inance effects, avoiding any ceiling effect due to high proficiency and use.

Limitations

The current study also presents several limitations that need to be considered. One limitation is
the between-participants design employed. Cependant, Monolinguals and Bilinguals from
Experiments 1 et 2 included students from the same university (University of Barcelona
and University of Granada, respectivement), of similar age and with similar gender proportion,
et, donc, were comparable across experiments. En outre, the language backgrounds
of the different groups of bilinguals were comparable as well. A second limitation is the lack of
control for socioeconomic differences between groups, particularly considering that bilinguals
and monolinguals were recruited from different geographic areas, bien que, as stated earlier,
they were all university students of similar age and gender (from Catalonia and Andalusia,
respectivement). Previous studies have shown that socioeconomic status (SES) correlates with
measures of cognitive performance and language ability throughout development, with higher
SES associated with better outcomes (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002; Sirin, 2005). Cependant, it is
important to note that our findings revealed not only a main effect of bilingualism in the non-
linguistic task-switching paradigm but also differences between the Spanish/Catalan bilinguals
from Experiments 1 et 2 as a function of the type of task performed. Notably, these two
groups of bilinguals were recruited from the same university and showed similar proficiency
and language use. Donc, we find it very unlikely that the main findings reported here—an
interaction between bilingualism and language control in task switching—are driven by
uncontrolled SES differences or our between-participants design. Cependant, we acknowledge
that further studies involving within-participant designs and controlling for SES may provide
important insights into the role of language control and SES in executive function skills.

A third limitation to consider is the different nature and difficulty of the tasks used in both
experiments despite sharing the same task schema and timing. En effet, participants in
Experiment 1 (nonlinguistic switching task) were faster and more accurate than participants
in Experiment 2 (within-language switching task), regardless of the language group they
belonged to (Bilinguals or Monolinguals). Cependant, we believe this difference in task difficulty
plays in favor of our conclusions. As previously stated, the bilingual advantage is generally
found in highly demanding scenarios, and therefore, we would expect an even greater
bilingual advantage in the within-language task. Encore, this was not the case, rather the opposite.
Cependant, further studies with non- and within-language task switching paradigms of similar
difficulty may help disentangle the contribution of task difficulty to our findings and the poten-
tial interactions between task difficulty and the bilingual advantage in executive functions.

Neurobiology of Language

600

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

Conclusions

In sum, the present study suggests that the heightened levels of training that bilinguals have on
dealing with two languages during their daily lives benefit their task-switching skills compared
to monolinguals, but only when the task imposes greater executive demands and does not
involve language control. When the tasks require participants to perform judgments on words,
the bilinguals’ reduction in switching costs observed with nonlinguistic material vanishes, et
bilinguals’ and monolinguals’ performance is equated. This is the first behavioral evidence that
language control demands may limit the bilingual advantage in general-domain executive
les fonctions. These findings have important implications and open new avenues of research
on investigating the bilingual mind and its potential benefits on executive functions.

REMERCIEMENTS

This work was supported by the BFU2017-87109-P Grant from the Spanish Ministerio de
Ciencia e Innovación (Ruth de Diego-Balaguer), which is part of Agencia Estatal de Investiga-
ción (AEI) (co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund [ERDF]—a way to build
Europe) and CERCA Programme / Generalitat de Catalunya for institutional support to IDIBELL.
Ernest Mas-Herrero received support of “la Caixa” Foundation (ID 100010434) and from the
European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie
Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 847648 (LCF/BQ/PI20/11760001).

INFORMATIONS SUR LE FINANCEMENT

Ruth de Diego-Balaguer, Ministerio de Ciencia e innovación, Award ID: BFU2017-87109-P.
Ernest Mas-Herrero, “la Caixa” Foundation (https://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010434), Award
ID: LCF/BQ/PI20/11760001.

CONTRIBUTIONS DES AUTEURS
Ernest Mas-Herrero: Conceptualisation: Supporting; Analyse formelle: Lead; Écriture – originale
brouillon: Equal; Rédaction – révision & édition: Equal. Daniel Adrover-Roig: Analyse formelle: Support-
ing; Rédaction – ébauche originale: Supporting; Rédaction – révision & édition: Supporting. María Ruz:
Conceptualisation: Equal; Analyse formelle: Supporting; Méthodologie: Equal; Surveillance:
Supporting; Rédaction – ébauche originale: Supporting; Rédaction – révision & édition: Supporting. Ruth
de Diego-Balaguer: Conceptualisation: Equal; Analyse formelle: Supporting; Surveillance: Lead;
Rédaction – ébauche originale: Equal; Rédaction – révision & édition: Equal.

RÉFÉRENCES

Abutalebi, J.. (2008). Neural aspects of second language repre-
sentation and language control. Acta Psychologica, 128(3),
466–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2008.03.014,
PubMed: 18479667

Abutalebi, J., Della Rosa, P.. UN., Vert, D. W., Hernandez, M.,
Scifo, P., Keim, R., Cappa, S. F., & Costa, UN. (2012). Bilingualism
tunes the anterior cingulate cortex for conflict monitoring. Cere-
bral Cortex, 22(9), 2076–2086. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor
/bhr287, PubMed: 22038906

Abutalebi, J., & Vert, D. [W.] (2007). Bilingual language produc-
tion: The neurocognition of language representation and control.
Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(3), 242–275. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1016/j.jneuroling.2006.10.003

Abutalebi, J., & Vert, D. W. (2016). Neuroimaging of language
control in bilinguals: Neural adaptation and reserve. Bilingualism:

Language and Cognition, 19(4), 689–698. https://est ce que je.org/10.1017
/S1366728916000225

Alameda, J.. R., & Cuetos, F. (1995). Diccionario de las unidades Lin-
güísticas del Castellano: Volumen I: Orden Alfabético / Volumen
II: Orden por Frecuencias. [Dictionary of Spanish Linguistic
Units: Volume I: Alphabetical Order / Volume II: Order by
Frequencies.] Servicio de publicaciones de la Universidad de
Oviedo. [Publications service of the University of Oviedo.]

Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2012). Bilingual effects on cognitive and
linguistic development: Role of language, cultural background,
and education. Child Development, 83(2), 413–422. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01707.x, PubMed:
22313034

Bates, D., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., & Baayen, H. (2015). Parsimoni-

ous mixed models. ArXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/1506.04967

Neurobiology of Language

601

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear
mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software,
67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01

Baumgart, C. Q., & Billick, S. B. (2018). Positive cognitive effects of
bilingualism and multilingualism on cerebral function: A review.
Psychiatric Quarterly, 89(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007
/s11126-017-9532-9, PubMed: 28895004

Bengtsson, S. L., Nagy, Z., Skare, S., Forsman, L., Forssberg, H., &
Ullén, F. (2005). Extensive piano practicing has regionally spe-
cific effects on white matter development. Neurosciences naturelles,
8, 1148–1150. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn1516, PubMed:
16116456

Bialystok, E. (1999). Cognitive complexity and attentional control
in the bilingual mind. Child Development, 70(3), 636–644.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00046

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. je. M., Vert, D. W., & Gollan, T. H. (2009).
Bilingual minds. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
10(3), 89–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100610387084,
PubMed: 26168404

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. je. M., & Ryan, J.. (2006). Executive control in a
modified antisaccade task: Effects of aging and bilingualism.
Journal de psychologie expérimentale: Apprentissage, Mémoire, et
Cognition, 32(6), 1341–1354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278
-7393.32.6.1341, PubMed: 17087588

Bradley, R.. H., & Corwyn, R.. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and
child development. Revue annuelle de psychologie, 53(1),
371–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901
.135233, PubMed: 11752490

Brito, N. H., Murphy, E. R., Vaidya, C., & Barr, R.. (2016). Do bilin-
gual advantages in attentional control influence memory encod-
ing during a divided attention task? Bilingualism: Language and
C o g n i t i o n , 1 9 ( 3 ) , 6 2 1 – 6 2 9 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 0 1 7
/S1366728915000851, PubMed: 28751828

Brun, J.. M.. (2015). Task-switching in bilinguals: Further investiga-
tion of the bilingual advantage [Master’s thesis, Illinois State
University]. Theses and Dissertations. https://doi.org/10.30707
/ETD2015.Brown.J

Christoffels, je. K., Kroll, J.. F., & Bajo, M.. T. (2013). Introduction à
bilingualism and cognitive control. Frontiers in Psychology, 4,
Article 199. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00199,
PubMed: 23616780

Colomé, À. (2001). Lexical activation in bilinguals’ speech produc-
tion: Language-specific or language-independent? Journal de
Memory and Language, 45(4), 721–736. https://doi.org/10.1006
/jmla.2001.2793

Costa, UN., Hernández, M., Costa-Faidella, J., & Sebastián-Gallés, N.
(2009). On the bilingual advantage in conflict processing: Now
you see it, now you don’t. Cognition, 113(2), 135–149. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.08.001, PubMed: 19729156
Crivello, C., Kuzyk, O., Rodrigues, M., Friend, M., Zesiger, P., &
Poulin-Dubois, D. (2016). The effects of bilingual growth on
toddlers’ executive function. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychologie, 141, 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015
.08.004, PubMed: 26402219

De Baene, W., Duyck, W., Brass, M., & Carreiras, M.. (2015). Cerveau
circuit for cognitive control is shared by task and language
switching. Journal des neurosciences cognitives, 27(9), 1752–1765.
https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00817, PubMed: 25901448

de Bruin, UN., Bak, T. H., & Della Sala, S. (2015). Examining the
effects of active versus inactive bilingualism on executive control
in a carefully matched non-immigrant sample. Journal de
Memory and Language, 85, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml
.2015.07.001

Declerck, M., Kleinman, D., & Gollan, T. H. (2020). Which bilin-
guals reverse language dominance and why? Cognition, 204,
Article 104384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020
.104384, PubMed: 32634738

de Diego-Balaguer, R., Sebastián-Gallés, N., Díaz, B., & Rodríguez-
Fornells, UN. (2005). Morphological processing in early bilinguals:
An ERP study of regular and irregular verb processing. Cognitive
Brain Research, 25(1), 312–327. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.cogbrainres.2005.06.003, PubMed: 16023332

Del Maschio, N., Sulpizio, S., Gallo, F., Fedeli, D., Weekes, B. S., &
Abutalebi, J.. (2018). Neuroplasticity across the lifespan and aging
effects in bilinguals and monolinguals. Brain and Cognition, 125,
118–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2018.06.007,
PubMed: 29990701

Dick, UN. S., Garcia, N. L., Pruden, S. M., Thompson, W. K., Hawes,
S. W., Sutherland, M.. T., Riedel, M.. C., Laird, UN. R., & González,
R.. (2019). No evidence for a bilingual executive function advan-
tage in the nationally representative ABCD study. Nature Human
Behaviour, 3, 692–701. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019
-0609-3, PubMed: 31110341

Friederici, UN. D. (2011). The brain basis of language processing:
From structure to function. Physiological Reviews, 91(4),
1357–1392. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00006.2011,
PubMed: 22013214

Garbin, G., Sanjuan, UN., Forn, C., Bustamante, J.. C., Rodriguez-
Pujadas, UN., Belloch, V., Hernandez, M., Costa, UN., & Ávila, C.
(2010). Bridging language and attention: Brain basis of the
impact of bilingualism on cognitive control. NeuroImage,
53(4), 1272–1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010
.05.078, PubMed: 20558314

Gold, B. T., Kim, C., Johnson, N. F., Kryscio, R.. J., & Forgeron, C. D.
(2013). Lifelong bilingualism maintains neural efficiency for cog-
nitive control in aging. Journal des neurosciences, 33(2), 387–396.
https://doi.org/10.1523/ JNEUROSCI.3837-12.2013, PubMed:
23303919

González-García, C., Mas-Herrero, E., de Diego-Balaguer, R., &
Ruz, M.. (2016). Task-specific preparatory neural activations in
low-interference contexts. Structure et fonction du cerveau, 221(8),
3997–4006. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00429-015-1141-5,
PubMed: 26573443

Vert, D. W., & Abutalebi, J.. (2013). Language control in bilin-
guals: The adaptive control hypothesis. Journal of Cognitive Psy-
cologie, 25(5), 515–530. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911
.2013.796377, PubMed: 25077013

Gunnerud, H. L., ten Braak, D., Reikerås, E. K. L., Donolato, E., &
Melby-Lervåg, M.. (2020). Is bilingualism related to a cognitive
advantage in children? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 146(12), 1059–1083. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1037/bul0000301, PubMed: 32914991

Hartanto, UN., & Lequel, H. (2019). Does early active bilingualism
enhance inhibitory control and monitoring? A propensity-
matching analysis. Journal de psychologie expérimentale: Apprentissage,
Mémoire, et cognitif, 45(2), 360–378. https://doi.org/10.1037
/xlm0000581, PubMed: 29985036

Hernández, M., Martine, C. D., Barceló, F., & Costa, UN. (2013).
Where is the bilingual advantage in task-switching? Journal de
Memory and Language, 69(3), 257–276. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016
/j.jml.2013.06.004

Houtzager, N., Lowie, W., Sprenger, S., & de Bot, K. (2017). A bilin-
gual advantage in task switching? Age-related differences
between German monolinguals and Dutch-Frisian bilinguals.
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 20(1), 69–79. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1017/S1366728915000498

Neurobiology of Language

602

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

Klaus, J., & Schutter, D. J.. (2018). The role of left dorsolateral
prefrontal cortex in language processing. Neurosciences, 377,
197–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.03.002,
PubMed: 29534975

Kroll, J.. F., & Chiarello, C. (2016). Language experience and the
brain: Variability, neuroplasticity, and bilingualism. Language,
Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(3), 345–348. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1080/23273798.2015.1086009

Kuipers, J.. R., & Westphal, K. H. (2021). Auditory processing and
high task demands facilitate the bilingual executive control
advantage in young adults. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 57,
Article 100954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2020.100954
Luk, G., Anderson, J.. UN. E., Craik, F. je. M., Grady, C., & Bialystok, E.
(2010). Distinct neural correlates for two types of inhibition in
bilinguals: Response inhibition versus interference suppression.
Brain and Cognition, 74(3), 347–357. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.bandc.2010.09.004, PubMed: 20965635

Marzecová, UN., Bukowski, M., Correa, Á., Boros, M., Lupiáñez,
J., & Wodniecka, Z. (2013). Tracing the bilingual advantage
in cognitive control: The role of flexibility in temporal prepa-
ration and category switching. Journal of Cognitive Psychology,
25(5), 586–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2013
.809348

Mechelli, UN., Crinion, J.. T., Noppeney, U., O’Doherty, J.,
Ashburner, J., Frackowiak, R.. S., & Prix, C. J.. (2004). Structural
plasticity in the bilingual brain. Nature, 431, Article 757. https://
doi.org/10.1038/431757a, PubMed: 15483594

Monsell, S. (2003). Task switching. Tendances des sciences cognitives,
7(3), 134–140. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00028-7,
PubMed: 12639695

Mor, B., Yitzhaki-Amsalem, S., & Prior, UN. (2015). The joint effect of
bilingualism and ADHD on executive functions. Journal de
Attention Disorders, 19(6), 527–541. https://est ce que je.org/10.1177
/1087054714527790, PubMed: 24681900

Moradzadeh, L., Blumenthal, G., & Wiseheart, M.. (2015). Musical
entraînement, bilingualism, and executive function: A closer look at
task switching and dual-task performance. Sciences cognitives,
39(5), 992–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12183, PubMed:
25289704

Paap, K. R., Anders-Jefferson, R., Zimiga, B., Mason, L., &
Mikulinsky, R.. (2020). Interference scores have inadequate
concurrent and convergent validity: Should we stop using the
flanker, Simon, and spatial Stroop tasks? Cognitive Research:
Principles and Implications, 5, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.1186
/s41235-020-0207-y, PubMed: 32056032

Paap, K. R., & Greenberg, Z. je. (2013). There is no coherent
evidence for a bilingual advantage in executive processing.
Psychologie Cognitive, 66(2), 232–258. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.cogpsych.2012.12.002, PubMed: 23370226

Paap, K. R., Johnson, H. UN., & Sawi, Ô. (2014). Are bilingual advan-
tages dependent upon specific tasks or specific bilingual experi-
ences? Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(6), 615–639. https://
doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2014.944914

Paap, K. R., & Sawi, Ô. (2014). Bilingual advantages in executive
functioning: Problems in convergent validity, discriminant
validity, and the identification of the theoretical constructs. Fron-
tiers in Psychology, 5, Article 962. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg
.2014.00962, PubMed: 25249988

Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Galles, N. S., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S.,
Bettinardi, V., Cappa, S. F., Fazio, F., & Mehler, J.. (1998). Le
bilingual brain. Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second
langue. Cerveau, 121(10), 1841–1852. https://est ce que je.org/10.1093
/brain/121.10.1841, PubMed: 9798741

Poulin-Dubois, D., Blaye, UN., Coutya, J., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Le
effects of bilingualism on toddlers’ executive functioning. Journal
of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(3), 567–579. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2010.10.009, PubMed: 21122877

Prior, UN., & Gollan, T. H. (2011). Good language-switchers are good
task-switchers: Evidence from Spanish–English and Mandarin–
English bilinguals. Journal of the International Neuropsycholog-
ical Society, 17(4), 682–691. https://est ce que je.org/10.1017
/S1355617711000580, PubMed: 22882810

Prior, UN., & Gollan, T. H. (2013). The elusive link between language
control and executive control: A case of limited transfer. Journal
of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5), 622–645. https://est ce que je.org/10.1080
/20445911.2013.821993, PubMed: 24688756

Prior, UN., & MacWhinney, B. (2010). A bilingual advantage in
task switching. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 13(2),
253–262. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728909990526

Rodriguez-Fornells, UN., Krämer, U. M., Lorenzo-Seva, U., Festman,
J., & Münte, T. F. (2012). Self-assessment of individual differences
in language switching. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, Article 388.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00388, PubMed: 22291668
Rodriguez-Fornells, UN., van der Lugt, UN., Rotte, M., Britti, B.,
Heinze, H.-J., & Münte, T. F. (2006). Second language interferes
with word production in fluent bilinguals: Brain potential and
functional imaging evidence. Journal des neurosciences cognitives,
17(3), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1162/0898929053279559,
PubMed: 15814002

Rodríguez-Pujadas, UN., Sanjuán, UN., Ventura-Campos, N., Román,
P., Martine, C., Barceló, F., Costa, UN., & Avila, C. (2013). Bilinguals
use language-control brain areas more than monolinguals to
perform non-linguistic switching tasks. PLOS ONE, 8(9), Article
e73028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0073028,
PubMed: 24058456

Ruz, M., & Nobre, UN. C. (2008). Attention modulates initial stages
of visual word processing. Journal des neurosciences cognitives,
20(9), 1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20119,
PubMed: 18345981

Sanchez-Azanza, V. UN., López-Penadés, R., & Adrover-Roig, D.
(2020). More similitudes than differences between bilinguals
and monolinguals on speeded and demand-varying executive
tasks. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 35(8), 992–1009.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1706752

Sanchez-Azanza, V. UN., López-Penadés, R., Buil-Legaz, L., Aguilar-
Mediavilla, E., & Adrover-Roig, D. (2017). Is bilingualism losing
its advantage? A bibliometric approach. PLOS ONE, 12(4).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176151, PubMed:
28426797

Shulley, L. J., & Shake, M.. C. (2016). Investigating the relationship
between bilingualism, cognitive control, and mind wandering.
Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 28(3), 257–274. https://doi.org
/10.1080/20445911.2015.1128438

Sirin, S. R.. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achieve-
ment: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational
R e s e a r c h , 7 5 ( 3 ) , 4 1 7 – 4 5 3 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 3 1 0 2
/00346543075003417

Soveri, UN., Laine, M., Hämäläinen, H., & Hugdahl, K. (2011).
Bilingual advantage in attentional control: Evidence from the
forced-attention dichotic listening paradigm. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 14(3), 371–378. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1017/S1366728910000118

Stasenko, UN., Matt, G. E., & Gollan, T. H. (2017). A relative bilin-
gual advantage in switching with preparation: Nuanced explora-
tions of the proposed association between bilingualism and task
switching. Journal de psychologie expérimentale: General, 146(11),

Neurobiology of Language

603

D
o
w
n
o
un
d
e
d

F
r
o
m
h

t
t

:
/
/

d
je
r
e
c
t
.

je
t
.

e
d
toi
n
o

je
/

un
r
t
je
c
e
–
p
d

F
/

2
4
5
8
6
1
9
7
9
7
0
7
n
o
_
un
_
0
0
0
5
9
p
d

b
oui
g
toi
e
s
t

o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3

Do bilinguals outperform monolinguals in switching tasks?

1527–1550. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000340, PubMed:
28714710

Thierry, G., & Wu, Oui. J.. (2007). Brain potentials reveal unconscious
translation during foreign-language comprehension. Procédure
of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(30) 12530–12535.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0609927104, PubMed: 17630288
Timmer, K., Calabria, M., & Costa, UN. (2019). Non-linguistic effects
of language switching training. Cognition, 182, 14–24. https://est ce que je
.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.09.001, PubMed: 30212652

van Heuven, W. J.. B., Schriefers, H., Dijkstra, T., & Hagoort, P..
(2008). Language conflict in the bilingual brain. Cortex cérébral,
18(11), 2706–2716. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/ bhn030,
PubMed: 18424776

Vaughn, K. UN., Watlington, E. M., Linares Abrego, P., Tamber-
Rosenau, B. J., & Hernandez, UN. E. (2021). Prefrontal transcranial
direct current stimulation (tDCS) has a domain-specific impact
on bilingual language control. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
ogy: General, 150(5), 996–1007. https://doi.org/10.1037
/xge0000956, PubMed: 33104382

Ware, UN. T., Kirkovski, M., & Lum, J.. UN. G. (2020). Meta-analysis
reveals a bilingual advantage that is dependent on task and
âge. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 1458. https://est ce que je.org/10
.3389/fpsyg.2020.01458, PubMed: 32793026

Weber-Fox, C. M., & Neville, H. J.. (1996). Maturational constraints
on functional specializations for language processing: ERP and

behavioral evidence in bilingual speakers. Journal of Cognitive
Neurosciences, 8(3), 231–256. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.1996
.8.3.231, PubMed: 23968150

Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler adult intelligence scale—Third
edition manual. The Psychological Corporation. https://doi.org
/10.1037/t49755-000

Weissberger, G. H., Gollan, T. H., Bondi, M.. W., Clark, L. R., &
Wierenga, C. E. (2015). Language and task switching in the
bilingual brain: Bilinguals are staying, not switching, experts.
Neuropsychologie, 66, 193–203. https://est ce que je.org/10.1016/j
.neuropsychologia.2014.10.037, PubMed: 25446970

Wiseheart, M., Viswanathan, M., & Bialystok, E. (2016). Flexibility
in task switching by monolinguals and bilinguals. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 19(1), 141–146. https://est ce que je.org/10
.1017/S1366728914000273, PubMed: 26877705

Wodniecka, Z., Casado, UN., Kałamała, P., Marecka, M., Timmer, K.,
& Wolna, UN. (2021). The dynamics of language experience and
how it affects language and cognition. In K. D. Federmeier &
H.-W. Huang (Éd.), The psychology of learning and motivation
(Vol. 72, Adult and second language learning, pp. 235–281).
Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.plm.2020.02.005
Woumans, E., Van Herck, S., & Struys, E. (2019). Shifting gear in the
study of the bilingual advantage: Language switching examined
as a possible moderator. Behavioral Sciences, 9(8), Article 86.
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs9080086, PubMed: 31443154