title: Bilingualism as a Model for Multitasking.
abstract: Because both languages of bilinguals are constantly active, bilinguals need to manage attention to the target language and avoid interference from the non-target language. This process is likely carried out by recruiting the executive function (EF) system, a system that is also the basis for multitasking. In previous research, bilinguals have been shown to outperform monolinguals on tasks requiring EF, suggesting that the practice using EF for language management benefits performance in other tasks as well. The present study examined 203 children, 8-11 years old, who were monolingual, partially bilingual, bilingual, or trilingual performing a flanker task. Two results support the interpretation that bilingualism is related to multitasking. First, bilingual children outperformed monolinguals on the conflict trials in the flanker task, confirming previous results for a bilingual advantage in EF. Second, the inclusion of partial bilinguals and trilinguals set limits on the role of experience: partial bilingual performed similarly to monolinguals and trilinguals performed similarly to bilinguals, suggesting that degrees of experience are not well-calibrated to improvements in EF. Our conclusion is that the involvement of EF in bilingual language processing makes bilingualism a form of linguistic multitasking.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, York University, Canada.
authors.forename: Gregory J
authors.initials: GJ
authors.lastname: Poarch
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, York University, Canada.
authors.forename: Ellen
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Bialystok
keywords: attention; bilingualism; dual-task performance; executive functions; inhibition; monitoring; multitasking; task switching
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2008 Nov;18(11):2706-16
references.pmid: 18424776
references.citation: J Cogn Psychol (Hove). 2013 Jan 1;25(5):605-621
references.pmid: 24073327
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Apr 21;106(16):6556-60
references.pmid: 19365071
references.citation: Cognition. 2011 Feb;118(2):245-57
references.pmid: 21159332
references.citation: Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2010 Oct;63(10):1873-94
references.pmid: 20401811
references.citation: J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2011 Jul;17(4):682-91
references.pmid: 22882810
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2006 Sep;32(5):1057-74
references.pmid: 16938046
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2003 Mar;7(3):134-140
references.pmid: 12639695
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2012 Mar;111(3):419-38
references.pmid: 22138311
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2010 Jul;136(4):601-26
references.pmid: 20565170
references.citation: Child Dev. 2010 Sep-Oct;81(5):1356-66
references.pmid: 20840226
references.citation: Lang Cogn Process. 2011 Nov 17;27(10):1479-1488
references.pmid: 24795491
references.citation: Science. 2007 May 25;316(5828):1159
references.pmid: 17525331
references.citation: Child Dev. 2012 Mar-Apr;83(2):413-22
references.pmid: 22313034
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 2008 Jan;115(1):101-30
references.pmid: 18211187
references.citation: Biling (Camb Engl). 2016 Jan;19(1):141-146
references.pmid: 26877705
references.citation: Cogn Psychol. 2000 Aug;41(1):49-100
references.pmid: 10945922
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2011 Mar;108(3):567-79
references.pmid: 21122877
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2012 Feb 15;59(4):3468-73
references.pmid: 22155033
references.citation: Cognition. 2008 Jan;106(1):59-86
references.pmid: 17275801
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2008 Jul;128(3):466-78
references.pmid: 18479667
references.citation: Nature. 2002 Feb 28;415(6875):1026-9
references.pmid: 11875570
references.citation: J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2011 Sep;17(5):759-65
references.pmid: 21729406
references.citation: Acta Psychol (Amst). 2008 Jul;128(3):416-30
references.pmid: 18358449
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Feb;17(1):1-14
references.pmid: 20081154
references.citation: Biling (Camb Engl). 2010 Apr;13(2):253-262
references.pmid: 36479004
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2003 Jul;86(1):70-82
references.pmid: 12821416
references.citation: Exp Psychol. 2014;61(3):234-51
references.pmid: 24217139
references.citation: Brain Lang. 2013 Jun;125(3):307-15
references.pmid: 22538086
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2008 Jul;18(7):1496-505
references.pmid: 17947346
references.citation: Psychol Bull. 2008 Jan;134(1):31-60
references.pmid: 18193994
references.citation: Neuroimage. 2010 Dec;53(4):1272-8
references.pmid: 20558314
references.citation: Cereb Cortex. 2012 Sep;22(9):2076-86
references.pmid: 22038906
references.citation: Dev Sci. 2008 Mar;11(2):282-98
references.pmid: 18333982
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2014 Mar;40(2):313-25
references.pmid: 24294916
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2010 Aug;17(4):479-85
references.pmid: 20702865
references.citation: Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012 Feb;21(1):8-14
references.pmid: 22773897
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Oct;29(5):919-36
references.pmid: 14585014
references.citation: Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2009 Dec;10(3):89-129
references.pmid: 26168404
references.citation: Psychol Aging. 2004 Jun;19(2):290-303
references.pmid: 15222822
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2011 Nov;110(3):461-8
references.pmid: 21683958
references.citation: J Exp Child Psychol. 2012 Dec;113(4):535-51
references.pmid: 22892367
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2008 Dec;19(12):1201-6
references.pmid: 19121123
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jul 24;104(30):12530-5
references.pmid: 17630288
references.citation: Nature. 2004 Oct 14;431(7010):757
references.pmid: 15483594
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2012 Sep 1;23(9):994-9
references.pmid: 22810164
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2013 Jan 9;33(2):387-96
references.pmid: 23303919