Matthew D. Hilchey

Are there bilingual advantages on nonlinguistic interference tasks? Implications for the plasticity of executive control processes

It has been proposed that the unique need for early bilinguals to manage multiple languages while their executive control mechanisms are developing might result in long-term cognitive advantages on inhibitory control processes that generalize beyond the language domain. We review the empirical data from the literature on nonlinguistic interference tasks to assess the validity of this proposed bilingual inhibitory control advantage. Our review of these findings reveals that the bilingual advantage on conflict resolution, which by hypothesis is mediated by inhibitory control, is sporadic at best, and in some cases conspicuously absent. A robust finding from this review is that bilinguals typically outperform monolinguals on both compatible and incompatible trials, often by similar magnitudes. Together, these findings suggest that bilinguals do enjoy a more widespread cognitive advantage (a bilingual executive processing advantage) that is likely observable on a variety of cognitive assessment tools but that, somewhat ironically, is most often not apparent on traditional assays of nonlinguistic inhibitory control processes.

On the time course of exogenous cueing effects in bilinguals: Higher proficiency in a second language is associated with more rapid endogenous disengagement

Previous investigations have demonstrated a bilingual advantage on various aspects of executive control. It remains unclear how the language proficiency of bilinguals might relate to the mechanisms involved in attentional disengagement. In the present investigation, we tested the hypothesis that high bilingual proficiency would lead to a more rapid endogenous disengagement of attention from task-irrelevant peripheral cues. We predicted that more rapid attentional disengagement would result in an earlier appearance of inhibition of return (IOR). In this study Hindi–English bilinguals who differed in their L2 (English) proficiency participated in a target detection task. Visual targets were preceded by uninformative peripheral cues at various stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) allowing for us to visualize the time course of cue-related facilitation and inhibition. High-proficient Hindi–English bilinguals showed an earlier appearance of IOR than did low-proficient bilinguals, suggesting increased efficiency in disengagement of attention from task-irrelevant inputs. Furthermore, consistent with the “global” advantage that characterizes bilinguals in many tasks, the high-proficient group outperformed low-proficient bilinguals in overall reaction time.

Oculomotor inhibition of return: How soon is it “recoded” into spatiotopic coordinates?

When, in relation to the execution of an eye movement, does the recoding of visual information from retinotopic to spatiotopic coordinates happen? Two laboratories seeking to answer this question using oculomotor inhibition of return (IOR) have generated different answers: Mathôt and Theeuwes (Psychological Science 21:1793–1798, 2010) found evidence for the initial coding of IOR to be retinotopic, while Pertzov, Zohary, and Avidan (Journal of Neuroscience 30:8882–8887, 2010) found evidence for spatiotopic IOR at even shorter postsaccadic intervals than were tested by Mathôt and Theeuwes (Psychological Science 21:1793–1798, 2010). To resolve this discrepancy, we conducted two experiments that combined the methods of the previous two studies while testing as early as possible. We found early spatiotopic IOR in both experiments, suggesting that visual events, including prior fixations, are typically coded into an abstract, allocentric representation of space either before or during eye movements. This type of coding enables IOR to encourage orienting toward novelty and, consequently, to perform the role of a foraging facilitator.

Examining the dissociation of retinotopic and spatiotopic inhibition of return with event-related potentials.

Inhibition of return (IOR) is thought to reflect a mechanism that biases orienting which, under some circumstances, reduces perceptual processing at previously processed locations. Studies using event-related potentials (ERPs) have generally revealed that IOR is accompanied by an amplitude reduction of early sensory ERP components (e.g., P1). While behavioral studies suggest that IOR may be represented in both spatiotopic and retinotopic coordinates, all previous ERP studies have used the prototypical spatial cueing paradigm and have thus confounded retinotopic and spatiotopic reference frames. Because of this confound it is unknown whether the P1 reduction that has been associated with IOR will be observed in retinotopic or spatiotopic coordinates when these are dissociated. The current experiment investigated whether the P1 component would be modulated by IOR when the retinotopic and spatiotopic reference frames were dissociated by an eye movement between cue and target onset. Strong spatiotopic IOR was found to be accompanied by a negative difference (Nd) in the 200-300 ms time window, while a P1 reduction was absent, suggesting that P1 reductions do not provide an accurate reflection of IOR.

The effects of ignored versus foveated cues upon inhibition of return: An event-related potential study

Taylor and Klein (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 26:1639–1656, 2000) discovered two mutually exclusive “flavors” of inhibition of return (IOR): When the oculomotor system is “actively suppressed,” IOR affects input processes (the perception/attention flavor), whereas when the oculomotor system is “engaged,” IOR affects output processes (the motor flavor). Studies of brain activity with ignored cues have typically reported that IOR reduces an early sensory event-related potential (ERP) component (i.e., the P1 component) of the brain’s response to the target. Since eye movements were discouraged in these experiments, the P1 reduction might be a reflection of the perception/attention flavor of IOR. If, instead of ignoring the cue, participants made a prosaccade to the cue (and then returned to fixation) before responding to the target, the motor flavor of IOR should then be generated. We compared these two conditions while monitoring eye position and recording ERPs to the targets. If the P1 modulation is related to the perceptual/attentional flavor of IOR, we hypothesized that it might be absent when the motoric flavor of IOR was generated by a prosaccade to the cue. Our results demonstrated that target-related P1 reductions and behavioral IOR were similar, and significant, in both conditions. However, P1 modulations were significantly correlated with behavioral IOR only when the oculomotor system was actively suppressed, suggesting that P1 modulations may only affect behaviorally exhibited IOR when the attentional/perceptual flavor of IOR is recruited.

On the role of eye movement monitoring and discouragement on inhibition of return in a go/no-go task.

Inhibition of return (IOR) most often describes the finding of increased response times to cued as compared to uncued targets in the standard covert orienting paradigm. A perennial question in the IOR literature centers on whether the effect of IOR is on motoric/decision-making processes (output-based IOR), attentional/perceptual processes (input-based IOR), or both. Recent data converge on the idea that IOR is an output-based effect when eye movements are required or permitted whereas IOR is an input-based effect when eye movements are monitored and actively discouraged. The notion that the effects of IOR may be fundamentally different depending on the activation state of the oculomotor system has been challenged by several studies demonstrating that IOR exists as an output-, or output- plus input-based effect in simple keypress tasks not requiring oculomotor responses. Problematically, experiments in which keypress responses are required to visual events rarely use eye movement monitoring let alone the active discouragement of eye movement errors. Here, we return to an experimental method implemented by Ivanoff and Klein (2001) whose results demonstrated that IOR affected output-based processes when, ostensibly, only keypress responses occurred. Unlike Ivanoff and Klein, however, we assiduously monitor and discourage eye movements. We demonstrate that actively discouraging eye movements in keypress tasks changes the form of IOR from output- to input-based and, as such, we strongly encourage superior experimental control over or consideration of the contribution of eye movement activity in simple keypress tasks exploring IOR.

Visualizing the temporal dynamics of spatial information processing responsible for the Simon effect and its amplification by inhibition of return

Research has shown that the Simon effect is larger for targets suffering from inhibition of return (IOR). We used speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT) methodology to explore the temporal dynamics underlying this interaction. In Experiment 1, a new method for sorting the data was used to reveal a monotonic decay in the impact of task-irrelevant location information that is responsible for the Simon effect. In Experiment 2, we show that IOR delays both task-relevant identity and task-irrelevant location codes; a relatively longer delay for location than identity codes accounts for the effect of IOR on the Simon effect. When location information was made task-relevant in Experiment 3, IOR delayed the accumulation of this information by about the same amount as when location was irrelevant. The results suggest that IOR, therefore, has a greater effect on location than identity information.

Averaging saccades are repelled by prior uninformative cues at both short and long intervals

When two spatially proximal stimuli are presented simultaneously, a first saccade is often directed to an intermediate location between the stimuli (averaging saccade). In an earlier study, Watanabe (2001) showed that, at a long cue–target onset asynchrony (CTOA; 600 ms), uninformative cues not only slowed saccadic response times (SRTs) to targets presented at the cued location in single target trials (inhibition of return, IOR), but also biased averaging saccades away from the cue in double target trials. The present study replicated Watanabes experimental task with a short CTOA (50 ms), as well as with mixed short (50 ms) and long (600 ms) CTOAs. In all conditions on double target trials, uninformative cues robustly biased averaging saccades away from cued locations. Although SRTs on single target trials were delayed at previously cued locations at both CTOAs when they were mixed, this delay was not observed in the blocked, short CTOA condition. We suggest that top-down factors, such as expectation and attentional control settings, may have asymmetric effects on the temporal and spatial dynamics of oculomotor processing.

Driving forces in free visual search : An ethology

Visual search typically involves sequences of eye movements under the constraints of a specific scene and specific goals. Visual search has been used as an experimental paradigm to study the interplay of scene salience and top-down goals, as well as various aspects of vision, attention, and memory, usually by introducing a secondary task or by controlling and manipulating the search environment. An ethology is a study of an animal in its natural environment, and here we examine the fixation patterns of the human animal searching a series of challenging illustrated scenes that are well-known in popular culture. The search was free of secondary tasks, probes, and other distractions. Our goal was to describe saccadic behavior, including patterns of fixation duration, saccade amplitude, and angular direction. In particular, we employed both new and established techniques for identifying top-down strategies, any influences of bottom-up image salience, and the midlevel attentional effects of saccadic momentum and inhibition of return. The visual search dynamics that we observed and quantified demonstrate that saccades are not independently generated and incorporate distinct influences from strategy, salience, and attention. Sequential dependencies consistent with inhibition of return also emerged from our analyses.

Inhibition of return is at the midpoint of simultaneous cues.

When multiple cues are presented simultaneously, Klein, Christie, and Morris (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 12:295–300, 2005) found a gradient of inhibition (of return, IOR), with the slowest simple manual detection responses occurring to targets in the direction of the center of gravity of the cues. Here, we explored the possibility of extending this finding to the saccade response modality, using methods of data analysis that allowed us to consider the relative contributions of the distance from the target to the center of gravity of the array of cues and the nearest element in the cue array. We discovered that the bulk of the IOR effect with multiple cues, in both the previous and present studies, can be explained by the distance between the target and the center of gravity of the cue array. The present results are consistent with the proposal advanced by Klein et al., (2005) suggesting that this IOR effect is due to population coding in the oculomotor pathways (e.g., the superior colliculus) driving the eye movement system toward the center of gravity of the cued array.