Barbara Treccani

Cognitive Advantage in Bilingualism An Example of Publication Bias

It is a widely held belief that bilinguals have an advantage over monolinguals in executive-control tasks, but is this what all studies actually demonstrate? The idea of a bilingual advantage may result from a publication bias favoring studies with positive results over studies with null or negative effects. To test this hypothesis, we looked at conference abstracts from 1999 to 2012 on the topic of bilingualism and executive control. We then determined which of the studies they reported were subsequently published. Studies with results fully supporting the bilingual-advantage theory were most likely to be published, followed by studies with mixed results. Studies challenging the bilingual advantage were published the least. This discrepancy was not due to differences in sample size, tests used, or statistical power. A test for funnel-plot asymmetry provided further evidence for the existence of a publication bias.

Neglect impairs explicit processing of the mental number line

Converging evidence suggests that visuospatial attention plays a pivotal role in numerical processing, especially when the task involves the manipulation of numerical magnitudes. Visuospatial neglect impairs contralesional attentional orienting not only in perceptual but also in numerical space. Indeed, patients with left neglect show a bias toward larger numbers when mentally bisecting a numerical interval, as if they were neglecting its leftmost part. In contrast, their performance in parity judgments is unbiased, suggesting a dissociation between explicit and implicit processing of numerical magnitude. Here we further investigate the consequences of these visuospatial attention impairments on numerical processing and their interaction with task demands. Patients with right hemisphere damage, with and without left neglect, were administered both a number comparison and a parity judgment task that had identical stimuli and response requirements. Neglect patients’ performance was normal in the parity task, when processing of numerical magnitude was implicit, whereas they showed characteristic biases in the number comparison task, when access to numerical magnitude was explicit. Compared to patients without neglect, they showed an asymmetric distance effect, with slowing of the number immediately smaller than (i.e., to the left of) the reference and a stronger SNARC effect, particularly for large numbers. The latter might index an exaggerated effect of number-space compatibility after ipsilesional (i.e., rightward) orienting in number space. Thus, the effect of neglect on the explicit processing of numerical magnitude can be understood in terms of both a failure to orient to smaller (i.e., contralesional) magnitudes and a difficulty to disengage from larger (i.e., ipsilesional) magnitudes on the number line, which resembles the disrupted pattern of attention orienting in visual space.

Spatial negative priming in bilingualism.

Balanced bilinguals have been shown to have an enhanced ability to inhibit distracting information. In this study, we investigated the hypothesis that the bilinguals’ efficiency in inhibitory control can be advantageous in some conditions, but disadvantageous in others—for example, negative priming conditions, in which previously irrelevant information becomes relevant. Data collected in a target-stimulus locating task from 29 early bilingual adults and 29 age-matched monolinguals showed that the bilinguals’ greater inhibition of irrelevant spatial information (i.e., the position of a distractor stimulus) resulted in a smaller effect of the distractor presence (i.e., a smaller difference in error rates in trials with and without distractors) and a larger negative priming effect (i.e., a larger difference between the error rates shown in trials wherein the target position corresponded to the position of the previous-trial distractor and trials wherein the target was presented in a previously vacant position). These findings support the hypothesis of specific nonlinguistic cognitive effects of bilingualism on inhibitory control functions, which are not necessarily reflected in cognitive advantages.

Larger, smaller, odd or even? Task-specific effects of optokinetic stimulation on the mental number space

Previous studies have shown that number processing can induce spatial biases in perception and action and can trigger the orienting of visuospatial attention. Few studies, however, have investigated how spatial processing and visuospatial attention influences number processing. In the present study, we used the optokinetic stimulation (OKS) technique to trigger eye movements and thus overt orienting of visuospatial attention. Participants were asked to stare at OKS, while performing parity judgements (Experiment 1) or number comparison (Experiment 2), two numerical tasks that differ in terms of demands on magnitude processing. Numerical stimuli were acoustically presented, and participants responded orally. We examined the effects of OKS direction (leftward or rightward) on number processing. The results showed that rightward OKS abolished the classic number size effect (i.e., faster reaction times for small than large numbers) in the comparison task, whereas the parity task was unaffected by OKS direction. The effect of OKS highlights a link between visuospatial orienting and processing of number magnitude that is complementary to the more established link between numerical and visuospatial processing. We suggest that the bidirectional link between numbers and space is embodied in the mechanisms subserving sensorimotor transformations for the control of eye movements and spatial attention.

Flanker and Simon effects interact at the response selection stage

The present study aimed at investigating the processing stage underlying stimulus–stimulus (S–S) congruency effects by examining the relation of a particular type of congruency effect (i.e., the flanker effect) with a stimulus–response (S–R) spatial correspondence effect (i.e., the Simon effect). Experiment 1 used a unilateral flanker task in which the flanker also acted as a Simon-like accessory stimulus. Results showed a significant S–S Congruency × S–R Correspondence interaction: An advantage for flanker–response spatially corresponding trials was observed in target–flanker congruent conditions, whereas, in incongruent conditions, there was a noncorresponding trials’ advantage. The analysis of the temporal trend of the correspondence effects ruled out a temporal-overlap account for the observed interaction. Moreover, results of Experiment 2, in which the flanker did not belong to the target set, demonstrated that this interaction cannot be attributed to perceptual grouping of the target–flanker pairs and referential coding of the target with respect to the flanker in the congruent and incongruent conditions, respectively. Taken together, these findings are consistent with a response selection account of congruency effects: Both the position and the task-related attribute of the flanker would activate the associated responses. In noncorresponding-congruent trials and corresponding-incongruent trials, this would cause a conflict at the response selection stage.

When co-action eliminates the Simon effect: disentangling the impact of co-actor's presence and task sharing on joint-task performance

This study aimed at assessing whether the mere belief of performing a task with another person, who is in charge of the complementary part of the task, is sufficient for the so-called joint Simon effect to occur. In all three experiments of the study, participants sat alone in a room and underwent two consecutive Go/NoGo tasks that were identical except for the instructions. In Experiment 1, participants performed the task first individually (baseline task), and then either co-acting with another person who responded from an unknown location to the NoGo stimuli (joint task) or imaging themselves responding to the NoGo stimuli (imaginative task). Relative to the baseline, the instructions of the imaginative task made the Simon effect occur, while those of the joint task were ineffective in eliciting the effect. This result suggests that sharing a task with a person who is known to be in charge of the complementary task, but is not physically present, is not sufficient to induce the representation of an alternative response able to produce interference, which happens instead when the instructions explicitly require to imagine such a response. Interestingly, we observed that when the Simon effect was already present in the baseline task (i.e., when the response alternative to the Go response was represented in the individual task due to non-social factors), it disappeared in the joint task. We propose that, when no information about the co-actors position is available, the division of labor between the participant and co-actor allows participants to filter out the possible (incidental) representation of the alternative response from their task representation, thus eliminating potential sources of interference. This account is supported by the results of Experiments 2 and 3 and suggests that under certain circumstances task-sharing may reduce the interference produced by the irrelevant information, rather than increase it.

Influence on Simon and SNARC effects of a nonspatial stimulus-response mapping: between-task logical recoding.

In 4 experiments, we intermixed trials in which the stimulus color was relevant with trials where participants had to judge the stimulus shape or parity and found that the logical-recoding rule (Hedge & Marsh, 1975) applied to the relevant dimension in a task can generalize to the irrelevant dimension of the other task. The mapping assigned to participants in color-relevant trials modulated the Simon and SNARC (spatial-numerical association of response codes) effects (Simon & Small, 1969; Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993) observed in shape- and parity-relevant trials. Standard effects were obtained when color-relevant trials required participants to respond by pressing a key of the same color as the stimulus, whereas an alternate-color mapping caused either the disappearance or reversal of the effects. The present results demonstrate that for between-task transfer effects to occur the critical dimensions in the two alternative tasks do not have to share the same representation nor need the stimuli of the two tasks have any feature in common.

Spatial coding of object typical size: evidence for a SNARC-like effect

The present study aimed to assess whether the representation of the typical size of objects can interact with response position codes in two-choice bimanual tasks, and give rise to a SNARC-like effect (faster responses when the representation of the typical size of the object to which the target stimulus refers corresponds to response side). Participants performed either a magnitude comparison task (in which they were required to judge whether the target was smaller or larger than a reference stimulus; Experiment 1) or a semantic decision task (in which they had to classify the target as belonging to either the category of living or non-living entities; Experiment 2). Target stimuli were pictures or written words referring to either typically large and small animals or inanimate objects. In both tasks, participants responded by pressing a left- or right-side button. Results showed that, regardless of the to-be-performed task (magnitude comparison or semantic decision) and stimulus format (picture or word), left responses were faster when the target represented typically small-sized entities, whereas right responses were faster for typically large-sized entities. These results provide evidence that the information about the typical size of objects is activated even if it is not requested by the task, and are consistent with the idea that objects’ typical size is automatically spatially coded, as has been proposed to occur for number magnitudes. In this representation, small objects would be on the left and large objects would be on the right. Alternative interpretations of these results are also discussed.

How to cook a SNARC? Space may be the critical ingredient, after all: a comment on Fischer, Mills, and Shaki (2010).

Recently, Brain and Cognition published a paper by Fischer et al. (2010) that touches on some important points about the origin and nature of the SNARC (Spatial–Numerical Association of Response Codes) effect (Dehaene, Bossini, & Giraux, 1993), that is, the tendency shown by Western adults (i.e., people who normally read and write from left to right) to react faster to relatively small numbers when a left response is required and to larger numbers when a right response is required. This phenomenon is thought to reflect a key characteristic of the cognitive representation of numbers. In particular, it is assumed to reflect the fact that the representation of the number semantic value (i.e., the number magnitude) is spatial in nature (Dehaene et al., 1993). According to Dehaene et al. (1993), when a given number is presented, its magnitude is automatically processed and encoded as a particular position on a mental number line. The orientation of this mental number line is thought to depend on the direction of reading habits. In left-toright readers, it is oriented from left to right. Consequently, small numbers are represented relatively on the left and large numbers are represented relatively on the right, thus being associated with left and right responses, respectively. Accordingly, the SNARC effect would result from the fact that responses are faster when the response position corresponds to the position of the presented number on the mental number line. The SNARC effect has been consistently observed (at least with Western adult participants) across different tasks, materials, and response modalities (see Fias & Fischer, 2005, Wood, Nuerk, Willmes, & Fischer, 2008, for reviews). As underlined by Fischer et al. (2010), the SNARC effect has also been proved to be affected substantially by training. In their study, Fischer et al. showed that this effect is indeed surprisingly capable of being modulated. They administered a parity judgement task to both left-to-right and right-to-left readers (English and Hebrew readers, respectively): Participants were asked to judge the parity status (odd vs. even) of centrally-presented numbers (ranging from 1 to 9) by pressing a left or right key (e.g., they had to press the left key when an odd number was presented and the right key when an even number was presented). This task was performed twice, once before

The Connection Is in the Data: We Should Consider Them All

We recently published an article examining the existence of a publication bias in the literature on bilingualism and executive functioning and found that results supporting a bilingual advantage were more likely to be published than results challenging such an advantage (de Bruin, Treccani, & Della Sala, 2015). We are not part of a camp that is for or against the bilingual-advantage hypothesis and have in fact published a study supporting this hypothesis ourselves (Treccani, Argyri, Sorace, & Della Sala, 2009). However, we think that publication biases should be taken seriously and that researchers should not shy away from investigating their possible sources (cf. Ferguson & Heene, 2012). In our article, we argued that all the data should be considered, not just selected data supporting a particular theory. Bialystok, Kroll, Green, MacWhinney, and Craik (2015) questioned the importance and reliability of our findings. Bialystok and her colleagues hold very strong views on the argued cognitive advantage of bilingualism. This may be why they label our conclusions, which are dissonant with their views, as “errors.”