title: Multilingual Stroop performance: Effects of trilingualism and proficiency on inhibitory control.
abstract: Previous research suggests that multilinguals' languages are constantly co-activated and that experience managing this co-activation changes inhibitory control function. The present study examined language interaction and inhibitory control using a colour-word Stroop task. Multilingual participants were tested in their three most proficient languages. The classic Stroop effect was detected in all three languages, with participants performing more accurately on congruent than on incongruent trials. Multilinguals were faster and more accurate in the within-language-competition condition than in the between-language-competition condition, indicating that additional processing costs are required when stimulus and response languages differ. Language proficiency influenced speed, accuracy and error patterns in multilingual Stroop task performance. These findings augment our understanding of language processing and inhibitory control in multilingual populations and suggest that experience using multiple languages changes demands on cognitive function.
authors.affiliation: Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, 2240 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL, USA.
authors.forename: Viorica
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Marian
authors.forename: Henrike K
authors.initials: HK
authors.lastname: Blumenfeld
authors.forename: Elena
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Mizrahi
authors.forename: Ursula
authors.initials: U
authors.lastname: Kania
authors.forename: Anne-Kristin
authors.initials: AK
authors.lastname: Cordes
keywords: Stroop task; cognitive control; multilingualism; proficiency; within- and between-language interference
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2002 Dec;9(4):780-9
references.pmid: 12613683
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 1991 Mar;109(2):163-203
references.pmid: 2034749
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1981 Nov;9(6):609-17
references.pmid: 7329241
references.citation: Cognition. 2002 May;84(1):73-111
references.pmid: 12062148
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Oct 31;103(44):16608-13
references.pmid: 17047032
references.citation: Front Psychol. 2011 Dec 13;2:374
references.pmid: 22180749
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2007 Feb;60(2):179-85
references.pmid: 17455053
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Jul;34(4):859-73
references.pmid: 18605874
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2008 Mar;34(2):302-12
references.pmid: 18315407
references.citation: J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-98
references.pmid: 1202204
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Feb;118(2):245-57
references.pmid: 21159332
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 1983 Nov;11(6):565-74
references.pmid: 6669025
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2009 Dec;20(12):1507-15
references.pmid: 19906121
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2007 Jan;18(1):29-34
references.pmid: 17362374
references.citation: Lang Speech. 1965 Jul-Sep;8(3):148-58
references.pmid: 5832573
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2010 Jul;38(5):617-28
references.pmid: 20551341
references.citation: Brain Cogn. 2004 Apr;54(3):254-6
references.pmid: 15050787
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Jan;106(1):59-86
references.pmid: 17275801
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2008 Dec;36(8):1484-94
references.pmid: 19015507
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1990 Jul;97(3):332-61
references.pmid: 2200075
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2010 Mar;36(2):411-22
references.pmid: 20192539
references.citation: Can J Exp Psychol. 2006 Mar;60(1):68-79
references.pmid: 16615719
references.citation: Am J Psychiatry. 1983 Jun;140(6):734-9
references.pmid: 6846631
references.citation: Psychol Aging. 2004 Jun;19(2):290-303
references.pmid: 15222822
references.citation: Psychol Aging. 2008 Mar;23(1):70-8
references.pmid: 18361656
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Jun 7;102(23):8386-91
references.pmid: 15923257