Francesca M. Branzi

Qualitative differences between bilingual language control and executive control: evidence from task-switching

Previous research has shown that highly proficient bilinguals have comparable switch costs in both directions when they switch between languages (L1 and L2), the so-called “symmetrical switch cost” effect. Interestingly, the same symmetry is also present when they switch between L1 and a much weaker L3. These findings suggest that highly proficient bilinguals develop a language control system that seems to be insensitive to language proficiency. In the present study, we explore whether the pattern of symmetrical switch costs in language switching tasks generalizes to a non-linguistic switching task in the same group of highly proficient bilinguals. The end goal of this is to assess whether bilingual language control (bLC) can be considered as subsidiary to domain-general executive control (EC). We tested highly proficient Catalan–Spanish bilinguals both in a linguistic switching task and in a non-linguistic switching task. In the linguistic task, participants named pictures in L1 and L2 (Experiment 1) or L3 (Experiment 2) depending on a cue presented with the picture (a flag). In the non-linguistic task, the same participants had to switch between two card sorting rule-sets (color and shape). Overall, participants showed symmetrical switch costs in the linguistic switching task, but not in the non-linguistic switching task. In a further analysis, we observed that in the linguistic switching task the asymmetry of the switch costs changed across blocks, while in the non-linguistic switching task an asymmetrical switch cost was observed throughout the task. The observation of different patterns of switch costs in the linguistic and the non-linguistic switching tasks suggest that the bLC system is not completely subsidiary to the domain-general EC system.

Language Control in Bilinguals: Monitoring and Response Selection

Language control refers to the cognitive mechanism that allows bilinguals to correctly speak in one language avoiding interference from the nontarget language. Bilinguals achieve this feat by engaging brain areas closely related to cognitive control. However, 2 questions still await resolution: whether this network is differently engaged when controlling nonlinguistic representations, and whether this network is differently engaged when control is exerted upon a restricted set of lexical representations that were previously used (i.e., local control) as opposed to control of the entire language system (i.e., global control). In the present event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging study, we investigated these 2 questions by employing linguistic and nonlinguistic blocked switching tasks in the same bilingual participants. We first report that the left prefrontal cortex is driven similarly for control of linguistic and nonlinguistic representations, suggesting its domain-general role in the implementation of response selection. Second, we propose that language control in bilinguals is hierarchically organized with the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex/presupplementary motor area acting as the supervisory attentional system, recruited for increased monitoring demands such as local control in the second language. On the other hand, prefrontal, inferior parietal areas and the caudate would act as the response selection system, tailored for language selection for both local and global control.

Age-related effects over bilingual language control and executive control ∗

The aim of the present study is two-fold. First, we investigate age-related changes to bilingual language control (bLC) mechanisms across lifespan. Second, we explore the relation between bLC mechanisms and those of the domain-general executive (EC) system by looking at age effects on these two systems. To do so, we compare the performances of the three age groups of bilinguals (young, middle-aged and elderly) in a language switching task to those of non-linguistic switching task. We found an age-related change in the non-linguistic switch cost but not in the language switch cost. Moreover, we did not find any correlation between the magnitudes of the switch costs. Taken together these results indicate that bLC is not affected by age as the EC system is, and interestingly, we add new evidence that the bLC mechanisms are not fully subsidiary to those of the domain-general EC system.

The after-effects of bilingual language production

We explored the temporal course of bilingual language control after-effects to shed light on the scope of language control (local vs. global) and on the way in which language control is implemented (L1 inhibition or L2 over-activation). High-proficient bilinguals named objects across three blocks, first in their L1, then in their L2, and then again in their L1 (and conversely) while event-related brain potentials (ERPs) were recorded. Behaviorally we found only the L1 as being hindered by previous naming in the L2. In the ERPs we did not observe inhibitory effects in the N2 component time-window. However, the P2 component showed more positive-going deflections when the previous language slowed down naming latencies of the successive language. The P2 mean amplitude predicted naming latencies whereas the N2 did not. We conclude that in high-proficient bilinguals the P2 component is the marker of language control mechanisms other than inhibition, which are applied globally.

On the overlap between bilingual language control and domain-general executive control

We explored the overlap between bilingual language control (bLC) and domain-general executive control (EC) by focusing on inhibitory control processes. We tested 62 bilinguals in linguistic and non-linguistic switching tasks for two types of costs, such as the n-1 shift cost and the n-2 repetition cost. In order to explore the involvement of inhibitory control in bLC and EC, we assessed the pattern of switch costs in the two tasks and then we correlated them between tasks. Results showed reduced n-2 repetition costs as compared to n-1 shift costs in the linguistic task only, suggesting that small amount of inhibition were deployed when switching between languages. Importantly, neither the n-1 shift costs nor the n-2 repetition costs were correlated between tasks. These results, supported by additional evidence from the ex-Gaussian analysis, suggest that inhibitory control is differently involved in bLC and in EC.

Semantic interference and its control: A functional neuroimaging and connectivity study

During picture naming, the ease with which humans generate words is dependent upon the context in which they are named. For instances, naming previously presented items results in facilitation. Instead, naming a picture semantically related to previous items displays persistent interference effects (i.e., cumulative semantic interference, CSI). The neural correlates of CSI are still unclear and it is a matter of debate whether semantic control, or cognitive control more in general, is necessary for the resolution of CSI. We carried out an event‐related fMRI experiment to assess the neural underpinnings of the CSI effect and the involvement and nature of semantic control. Both left inferior frontal gyrus (LIFG) and the left caudate nucleus (LCN) showed a linear increase of BOLD response positively associated with the consecutive number of presentations of semantically related pictures independently of task‐load. The generalized psychophysiological interaction analysis showed that LIFG demonstrated a quantitative neural connectivity difference with the left supramarginal and angular gyri for increases of task‐load and with the fusiform gyri for linear CSI increases. Furthermore, seed‐to‐voxel functional connectivity showed that LIFG activity coupled with different regions involved in cognitive control and lexicosemantic processing when semantic interference was elicited to a minimum or maximum degree. Our results are consistent with the lexical‐competitive nature of the CSI effect, and we provide novel evidence that semantic control lies upon a more general cognitive control network (i.e., LIFG and LCN) responsible for resolving interference between competing semantically related items through connectivity with different brain areas in order to guarantee the correct response. Hum Brain Mapp 37:4179–4196, 2016.

On the bilingualism effect in task switching

In one task-switching experiment, we compared bilinguals and monolinguals to explore the reliability of the bilingualism effect on the n-2 repetition cost. In a second task-switching experiment, we tested another group of bilinguals and monolinguals and measured both the n-1 shift cost and the n-2 repetition cost to test the hypothesis that bilingualism should confer a general greater efficiency of the executive control functioning. According to this hypothesis, we expected a reduced n-1 shift cost and an enhanced n-2 repetition cost for bilinguals compared to monolinguals. However, we did not observe such results. Our findings suggest that previous results cannot be replicated and that the n-2 repetition cost is another index that shows no reliable bilingualism effect. Finally, we observed a negative correlation between the two switch costs among bilinguals only. This finding may suggest that the two groups employ different strategies to cope with interference in task-switching paradigms.

Chapter 35 - Bilingualism: Switching

How does the bilingual brain distinguish and control which language to use? A large body of research has been dedicated to answering this question by mainly using the language switching paradigm that taps into different language control mechanisms. This research has been fruitful in revealing both the time course and the brain areas involved in bilingual language control. In this chapter, we review this research and derive two main conclusions. First, the cognitive and neural mechanisms involved in bilingual language control seem to be influenced by various sociolinguistic factors, including language proficiency. Second, “sustained” and “transient” components of control are differently involved in the control of the two languages because they recruit different brain networks. This observation may suggest that different qualitative processes are applied to dominant and nondominant languages to ensure successful speech production in bilinguals.

Prediction is Production: The missing link between language production and comprehension

Language comprehension often involves the generation of predictions. It has been hypothesized that such prediction-for-comprehension entails actual language production. Recent studies provided evidence that the production system is recruited during language comprehension, but the link between production and prediction during comprehension remains hypothetical. Here, we tested this hypothesis by comparing prediction during sentence comprehension (primary task) in participants having the production system either available or not (non-verbal versus verbal secondary task). In the primary task, sentences containing an expected or unexpected target noun-phrase were presented during electroencephalography recording. Prediction, measured as the magnitude of the N400 effect elicited by the article (expected versus unexpected), was hindered only when the production system was taxed during sentence context reading. The present study provides the first direct evidence that the availability of the speech production system is necessary for generating lexical prediction during sentence comprehension. Furthermore, these important results provide an explanation for the recruitment of language production during comprehension.

On the Reliability of Switching Costs Across Time and Domains

Bilingual speakers are suggested to use control processes to avoid linguistic interference from the unintended language. It is debated whether these bilingual language control (BLC) processes are an instantiation of the more domain-general executive control (EC) processes. Previous studies inconsistently report correlations between measures of linguistic and non-linguistic control in bilinguals. In the present study, we investigate the extent to which there is cross-talk between these two domains of control for two switch costs, namely the n-1 shift cost and the n-2 repetition cost. Also, we address an important problem, namely the reliability of the measures used to investigate cross-talk. If the reliability of a measure is low, then these measures are ill-suited to test cross-talk between domains through correlations. We asked participants to perform both a linguistic- and non-linguistic switching task at two sessions about a week apart. The results show a dissociation between the two types of switch costs. Regarding test–retest reliability, we found a stronger reliability for the n-1 shift cost compared to the n-2 repetition cost within both domains as measured by correlations across sessions. This suggests the n-1 shift cost is more suitable to explore cross-talk of BLC and EC. Next, we do find cross-talk for the n-1 shift cost as demonstrated by a significant cross-domain correlation. This suggests that there are at least some shared processes in the linguistic and non-linguistic task.