4. Effect of Executive Control Training on Language Switching Task in Bilinguals

7/28/2019 4. Effect of Executive Control Training on Language Switching Task in Bilinguals

1/15

EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE CONTROL TRAINING ONLANGUAGE SWITCHING TASK IN BILINGUALS

Author

Shrilekha B

Intern BSc (Speech & Hearing),

JSS Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore.

ISHA membership number: [email protected]

Co-Authors

Akhila R N

II BSc (Speech & Hearing),


ISHA membership number:[email protected]

Meenakshi G

II BSc (Speech & Hearing),

JSS Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore.ISHA membership number:S12090367

[email protected]

Suma Raju,

Lecturer,


ISHA membership number: L-1299

[email protected]

Paper submitted for the 45th

ISHACON

Poster presentation (language)
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/15

EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE CONTROL TRAINING ON

LANGUAGE SWITCHING TASK IN BILINGUALS

Abstract

Introduct ion: Cognitive control, also called executive function (EF), refers to a

cluster of mental processes that permit the flexible adjustment of thoughts and

actions across domains, allowing individuals to adapt to new rules and guide the

selection of task-relevant over task-irrelevant information in an environment that

varies continuously (Miller andCohen,2001). Miyake et al., 2000 suggested the

existence of three major, separable executive functions: the inhibition of

unwanted responses, the shifting between tasks and mental sets (also called

flexibility), and the updating (and monitoring of) working memory (WM)representations.

The bilingual advantage in EFs is thought to stem from fact that managing

two languages requires executive resources in the form of selection of the

relevant language and inhibition of the language not in use at that moment

(Green, 1998). Since bilinguals have a lifelong experience in controlling their two

languages, they should have received more practice than monolinguals in

processes that engage EF. This idea is supported by previous studies suggesting

that earlier second language acquisition, higher levels of language proficiency in

both languages, and more balanced use of both languages may have positive

effects on executive performance in bilinguals (e.g., Bialystok et al., 2006;

Carlson and Meltzoff, 2008). Further, Costa et al. (2009) hypothesized that the

bilingual advantage in EF may be related to the degree to which the bilingual

uses both languages in conversations in everyday life. According to Green

(1998), bilinguals receive an early opportunity to practice inhibitory control so that

when they communicate in one language, the non target language is suppressed

by the same EF used generally to control attention and inhibition.

Need for the present stud y:Researchers have suggested that bilinguals mayhave advanced inhibitory control, which is directly linked, to their language

control system, suggesting similar or same cognitive mechanisms underlying.

Considering the variables, which may affect the executive control skills, the

present study has been tried to explore the effect of EF training on bilingual

language switching and tried to answer the question that, if the adults trained in

EFs perform better on inhibitory control measures and whether this facilitates


3/15

bilingual language switching? by comparing them with their performance on

language switching tasks before and after training. The findings may provide

information whether neural and cognitive mechanisms used for EF and language

switching would be same or different.

Method:

Participants: The study included 30subjects, in the age range of 18-22 years. All

the subjects were bilinguals speakers of Kannada (mother tongue) and English

(instructed in school since preschool). Subjects were selected based on the

criteria according to ISLPR (Wylie 2006) scale i.e. rating of Vocational

proficiency (score of 4) in their second language to be considered as a bilingual.

Procedure: The study was divided into three phases, first and last being testing

phase and the second one being training phase.

Phase1 and 3: Testing

These tasks aimed to assess bilingual language switching. Consisted of bilingual

picture naming task designed using DmDx software. The target pictures were

displayed on the computer screen, subject was asked to name the pictures as

fast as possible in 2 different conditions. The first task was to name the pictures

in English when the red circle appeared on the screen and to name in Kannada

whenever green circle appeared on the screen. In the second task, an auditory

cue was given, followed by the target picture. The subject was asked to listen

carefully to the auditory stimulus and then name the picture in English or inKannada depending the language used in the auditory cue. In this task, bilinguals

faced with a particular difficulty due to parallel activation of words from both

languages; bilinguals have to suppress non-target language words that may pop

up during the stages of lexical search and retrieval. Hence, it provides an

indication of the speakers ability to prevent interference. The number of correct

responses in each condition and reaction times of naming were obtained.

Phase 2:Training the EF

EF training was done using 3 tasks and these were designed using DmDxsoftware. Training was given for duration of ten days and each session lasted

approximately 45minutes.

Training task1:The Simon task

This task has been suggested to tap both reactive and active inhibition (Colzato

et al., 2008). In this task, a blue or a red square appeared on either the left or the


4/15

right side of the screen, the subject was instructed to press m when the redcolored square appears and press n when the blue colored square appears on

the screen.

Training task2:Attention Network Task-Flanker Task (ANT):

The task was designed using Dmdx software. The task consisted, combination

reaction time task with flankers. A row of 5 visually presented blue lines with

arrowheads was shown pointing to the left or to the right. Target was a leftward

or rightward pointing arrowhead at the center. Target was flanked on either side

by two congruent or incongruent arrows, or by neutral lines. The task of the

participant is to indicate the direction of the central target by pressing the m for

right or n for left as quickly as possible.

Training task3:The numberletter task

In this task, a numberletter combination (e.g., 3A) appeared in one of two

squares at the center of the screen. The task was to either determine if the

number was even or odd or if the letter was a vowel or a consonant, depending

on in which square the numberletter pair appeared.

Resul ts and Discussion :

The number of correct responses before and after training and reaction

times of naming in both the conditions were obtained. Statistical analysis was

done using paired sample t tests and compared the mean scores before andafter training within the group. The mean reaction time scores before training on

switching tasks were 121.20ms and 115.31ms and errors were 1.28 and 2.33

respectively. The mean reaction time scores after training was 105.94ms and

107.2ms and error was 0.64 and 1.66 respectively. The t test results revealed

that there was a statistically significant difference in the reaction time

(p=0.000.05). The results indicated that the number of

errors reduced and reaction time taken for switching tasks also reduced after

training.

Summary and Conclus ion:

Cognitive training may also provide novel approach to understand whether

EFs are critical for a multitude of language uses. Present findings lend support to

psycholinguistics models of bilingual language postulating a higher-order


5/15

mechanism that might regulate activation of different languages in a multilingual

context. Transfer might be expected only if the EFs (e.g., conflict resolution)

underlying certain language tasks are targeted through training so as to affect

shared processes that facilitate performance on particular language tasks (that is

working memory training tasks not involving conflict-resolution are not expected

to confer transfer. Future work might continue to identify these functional-

anatomical overlaps across different memory and language tasks.


6/15

EFFECT OF EXECUTIVE CONTROL TRAINING ON

LANGUAGE SWITCHING TASK IN BILINGUALS

Introduction:

Cognitive control, also called executive function (EF), refers to a cluster of mental

processes that permit the flexible adjustment of thoughts and actions across

domains, allowing individuals to adapt to new rules and guide the selection of

task-relevant over task-irrelevant information in an environment that varies

continuously (Miller andCohen,2001). Miyake et al., 2000 suggested the

existence of three major, separable executive functions: the inhibition of

unwanted responses, the shifting between tasks and mental sets (also called

flexibility), and the updating (and monitoring of) working memory (WM)

representations.Numerous experiments demonstrate that early bilinguals have

an advantage over monolinguals in several extra-linguistic domains. In particular,

bilingual children and young adults score higher on measures of creativity

(Jacobs & Pierce, 1966; Kessler & Quinn, 1987), divergent thinking and

imagination (Ricciardelli, 1992), problem solving (Seceda, 1991), and cognitive

control (Costa, Hernndez, &Sebastin-Galls, 2007; Bialystok & Martin, 2005;

Bialystok &Craik et al., 2005, 2004; Bialystok 1999). Bialystok, Craik, Klein, and

Viswanathan (2004) found that bilinguals are faster than monolinguals on the

Simon task, and exhibit less of a Simon effect, evidence of enhanced inhibitory

control.

Executive functions is the set of abilities that allows an individual to select anaction that is appropriate to a specific situation, inhibit inappropriate behavior and

focus or maintain attention in spite of distractions. Although its components are

not yet fully understood, executive function, also referred to as fluid intelligence,

is assumed to include basic components like attention, inhibition, monitoring,

switching, processing speed, response speed and working memory (Salthouse,

2005).

Executive functioning (EF) refers to the set of higher order cognitive processes

that underlie flexible goal-directed behavior (Hughes & Ensor, 2005). Best and

Miller (2010) discuss different theoretical frameworks for EF, one of which divides

EF into three interrelated but distinct components attentional flexibility,

inhibitory control and working memory. EF skills across these three domains are

necessary for expanding cognitive, social and psychological capacities in

children and adults. A growing body of research has shown that bilingual children

develop inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility, two of the three core executive

functions, more precociously than monolingual children (Bialystok, 2001; Carlson


7/15

&Meltzoff, 2008).When bilinguals perform even the simplest production task,

such as naming familiar object in one of their two languages, there is evidence

that both languages are active and influence performance (Costa, Miozzo,

&Caramazza, 1999; Kroll, Bobb, &Wodniecka, 2006).

The bilingual advantage in EFs is thought to stem from fact that managing two

languages requires executive resources in the form of selection of the relevant

language and inhibition of the language not in use at that moment (Green, 1998).

Since bilinguals have a lifelong experience in controlling their two languages,

they should have received more practice than monolinguals in processes that

engage EF. This idea is supported by previous studies suggesting that earlier

second language acquisition, higher levels of language proficiency in both

languages, and more balanced use of both languages may have positive effects

on executive performance in bilinguals (e.g., Bialystok et al., 2006; Carlson and

Meltzoff, 2008). Further, Costa et al. (2009) hypothesized that the bilingualadvantage in EF may be related to the degree to which the bilingual uses both

languages in conversations in everyday life. According to Green (1998),

bilinguals receive an early opportunity to practice inhibitory control so that when

they communicate in one language, the non target language is suppressed by

the same EF used generally to control attention and inhibition.

A striking aspect of bilingual speech is that proficient bilinguals do not make

random errors of language. At the same time, they are able to code switch with

ease with others who are similarly bilingual (Muysken, 2000; Myers-Scotton,

2002). This observation has led some to propose that bilinguals possess anexquisite mechanism of cognitive control that develops as they gain skill in the

second language (Green, 1998) and that has consequences more generally for

executive control processes (Bialystok, Craik, Klein, &Viswanathan, 2004) and

for their neural representation (Abutalebi& Green, 2007).

According to Bialystok (2001), language intrusions are prevented in

bilingual speakers by holding in mind the relevant language and inhibiting the

non relevant language, thus, implicating frontal lobe processes (De Groot & Kroll,

1997; Green, 1998). If this analysis is correct, then bilingual children would have

extensive, indeed daily practice with inhibitory control at least in a linguistic

context. Bialystok (1986) found that bilingual children performed significantly

better than monolingual speakers on a meta-linguistic task (Moving Word)

requiring children to ignore perceptual features of a stimulus (Bialystok, 1997;

Bialystok, Shenfield&Codd, 2000). Costa et al. (2009) suggested that the

bilingual advantage in inhibition tasks may be caused by the bilinguals having to


8/15

inhibit the language not in use at a given moment, while their more efficient

processing of a mix of different types of trials may stem from the fact that

bilinguals constantly need to keep track of both languages in order to select the

appropriate language for the situationAccording to Green (1998), bilinguals

receive an early opportunity to practice inhibitory control so that when they

communicate in one language, the non target language is suppressed by the

same executive functions used generally to control attention and inhibition.

Bialystok (2001) comprehensively reviewed the research on cognitive differences

between bilingual and monolingual children and concluded that the pattern of

evidence far supports enhancement for a set of specific intellectual abilities in

bilingual children. According to this analysis, one aspect of cognitive functioning,

namely, inhibitory control over attentional resources develops more rapidly in

children with extensive bilingual experience. Specifically, the proposal is that

bilingual children are advanced in the ability to control attention to conflictingperceptual or representational features of a problem. Inhibitory processes are

instrumental in such tasks because one must inhibit or suppress attention to

irrelevant or misleading aspects of a stimulus in the service of attending to the

appropriate ones and generating a successful response. Inhibitory control is, in

turn, a key component of executive functioning, which refers to the conscious

control of thought and action (Posner &Rothbart, 2000).

Additional components of executive function traditionally include resistance to

interference, set shifting, working memory (the ability to manipulate contents of

short-term memory), and planning ability, all of which also may implicateinhibitory processes (Diamond, 2002; Engle, 2002; Roberts & Pennington, 1996).

Executive function is robustly related to theory of mind (Carlson, Mandell&

Williams, 2004; Carlson & Moses, 2001; Hughes, 1998; Perner& Lang, 1999),

and interestingly, there is some evidence of advanced theory of mind in bilinguals

compared to monolingual preschoolers (Goetz, 2003).

The present investigation seeks to extend our understanding of the possible

effects of enhanced inhibitory control on language switching.

Need for the present study:Researchers have suggested that bilinguals may

have advanced inhibitory control, which is directly linked, to their language

control system, suggesting similar or same cognitive mechanisms underlying.

Considering the variables, which may affect the executive control skills, the

present study has been tried to explore the effect of EFtraining on bilingual

language switching and tried to answer the question that, if the adults trained in


9/15

EFs perform better on inhibitory control measures andwhether this facilitates

bilingual language switching? by comparing them with their performance on

language switching tasks before and after training. The findings may provide

information whether neural and cognitive mechanisms used for EF and language

switching would be same or different.

Method:

Participants: The study included 30subjects, in the age range of 18-22 years. All

the subjects were bilinguals speakers of Kannada (mother tongue) and English

(instructed in school since preschool). Subjects were selected based on the

criteria according to ISLPR (Wylie E., & Ingram , D.E 2006) scale i.e. rating of

Vocational proficiency (score of 4) in their second language to be considered as

a bilingual.

Procedure: The study was divided into three phases, first and last being testing

phase and the second one being training phase.

Phase1 and 3: Testing Phase

These tasks aimed to assess bilingual language switching. Consisted of bilingual

picture naming task designed using aDmDx software with two sets of twenty

highly familiar picturable multisyllabic words.The target pictures were displayed

on the computer screen, subject was asked to name the pictures as fast as

possible in 2 different conditions. The first task was to name the pictures in

English when the red circle appeared on the screen and to name in Kannadawhenever green circleappeared on the screen.In the second task, an auditory

cue was given, followed by the target picture. The subject was asked to listen

carefully to the auditory stimulus and then name the picture in English or in

Kannada depending the language used in the auditory cue. In this task, bilinguals

faced with a particular difficulty due to parallel activation of words from both

languages; bilinguals have to suppress non-target language words that may pop

up during the stages of lexical search and retrieval. Hence, it provides an

indication of the speakers ability to prevent interference. The number of correct

responses in each condition and reaction times of naming were obtained.

Phase 2:Training the EF

EF training was done using 3 tasks and these were designed using DmDx

software. Training was given for duration of ten days and each session lasted

approximately45minutes.

Training task1:The Simon task


10/15

This task has been suggested to tap both reactive and active inhibition (Colzato

et al., 2008). In this task, a blue or a red square appeared on either the left or the

right side of the screen, the subject was instructed to press m when the red

colored square appears and press n when the blue colored square appears on

the screen.

Training task2:Attention Network Task-Flanker Task (ANT):

The other inhibition training task that we used was the Flanker task (adapted

from Eriksen and Eriksen, 1974). A bilingual advantage has previously been

found on a modified version of this task (Costa et al., 2008, 2009). In the present

task version,The task was designed using Dmdx software. The task consisted,

combination reaction time task with flankers.The five blue arrows were presented

in a horizontal line at the center of the screen. The task was to decide in which

direction the arrow in the middle was pointing, irrespective of the direction of the

other arrows (the flankers). On congruent(>>>>>)trials, all the arrows pointed inthe same direction and on incongruent (>>>) trials,or by neutral (- - > - -) the

flankers pointed in a different direction than the arrow in the middle.The task of

the participant is to indicate the direction of the central target by pressing the m

for right or n for left as quickly as possible.

Training task3:The numberletter task

For switching ability, the Numberletter task (adapted from Rogers and

Monsell, 1995). In this task, a numberletter combination (e.g., 3A) appeared in

one of two squares at the center of the screen. The task was to either determineif the number was even or odd or if the letter was a vowel or a consonant,

depending on in which square the numberletter pair appeared. The squares

thus served as cues for which task to perform. Each time the numberletter

combination was in the upper box, the task was to determine the number

andeach time it appeared in the lower box, the task was to determine the letter

as soon as possible.

Results and Discussion:

The number of correct responses before and after training and reaction times ofnaming in both the conditions were obtained. Statistical analysis was done using

paired sample t tests and compared the mean scores before and after training

within the group.The mean reaction time and standard deviation values for

language switching tasks (testing phase) before and after executive function

training are given in table 1. The same results are depicted in graph 1. Similarly,

mean error scores obtained before and after training for the language switching
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150725/#B19http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17275801http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19729156http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150725/#B40http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150725/#B40http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19729156http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17275801http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150725/#B19


11/15

tasks are shown in table 2 and corresponding graph 2 is shown.

Table 1: Mean reaction time scores (ms) before and after EF training for

language switching tasks.

Graph 1: Mean reaction time scores (ms) before and after EF training for

language switching tasks.

The mean reaction time scores before training on language switching tasks were

121.20ms and 115.31ms and mean reaction time scores after training was

105.94ms and 107.2ms respectively. The same has been depicted in Graph1.

Table 2: Mean error scores before and after EF training for language switching

tasks.

Before EF Training After EF Training

Task1 Task2 Task1 Task2

Mean reaction time (ms) 121.20 115.31 105.94 107.2

SD 15.41 13.09 14.90 12.75

Before EF Training After EF Training

Errors Task1 Task2 Task1 Task2

Mean 1.28 2.33 0.64 1.66

SD 1.54 2.22 0.74 1.78


12/15

Graph 2: Mean error scores before and after EF training for language switching

tasks.

Mean error scores for language switching tasks before training were 1.28 and

2.33 and after training were 0.64 and 1.66 respectively. The same has been

depicted in the graph2.

The t test results revealed that there was a statistically significant differencein

the reaction time (p=0.000.05). The results indicated

that the number of errors was reduced and the reaction timetaken for switching

tasks also reduced after training.

Summary and Conclusion:

Cognitive training may also provide novel approach to understand whether EFs

are critical for a multitude of language uses. Present findings lend support to

psycholinguistics models of bilingual language postulating a higher-order

mechanism that might regulate activation of different languages in a multilingual

context. Transfer might be expected only if the EFs (e.g., conflict resolution)

underlying certain language tasks are targeted through training so as to affect

shared processes that facilitate performance on particular language tasks (that is

working memory training tasks not involving conflict-resolution are not expected

to confer transfer. Future work might continue to identify these functional-

anatomical overlaps across different memory and language tasks.


13/15

References:

Abutalebi, J., & Green, D.W. (2007). Bilingual language production: The

neurocognition of language representation and control. Journal of

Neurolinguistics, 20, 242275.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and

cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bialystok, E., Craik, F. I. M., Klein, R., &Viswanathan, M. (2004). Bilingualism,

aging, and cognitive control: Evidence from the Simon task. Psychology

and Aging, 19(2), 290-303.

Bialystok, E., & Martin, M.M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children:Evidence from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental

Science, 7(3), 325-339.

Bialystok, E., & Miller, B. (1999). The problem of age in secondlanguage

acquisition: Influences from language, structure, and task. Bilingualism:

Language and Cognition, 2(2), 127- 145.

Craik, F.C., & Bialystok, E. (2005). Intelligence and executive control: evidence

form aging and bilingualism. Cortex, 41, 001-003.

Casey, B.J., Tottenham, N., & Fossella, J. (2002).Clinical, imaging, lesion, and

genetic approaches toward a model of cognitive control. Developmental

Psychobiology, 40, 237254.

Carlson, S.M., &Meltzoff, A.N. (2008).Bilingual experience and executive

functioning in young children. Developmental Science, 11, 282-298.

Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from birth to young

adulthood: cognitive functions, anatomy, and biochemistry. In D. Stuss&

R. Knight (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 466503). NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Engle, R.W. (2002). Working memory capacity as executive attention. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 1923.

Goetz, P.J. (2003). The effects of bilingualism on theory of mind development.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 6, 115.


14/15

Green, D.W. (1998). Mental control of the bilingual lexico-semantic system.

Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 1, 6781.

Jacobs, J. F., & Pierce, M. L. (1966).Bilingulaism and Creativity. Journal Cit-

Elementary English, 43, 499-503.

Kroll, J.F., Bobb, S.C., &Wodniecka, Z. (2006). Language selectivity is the

exception, not the rule: Arguments against a fixed locus of language

selection in bilingual speech. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 9,

119135.

Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001).An integrative theory of prefrontal cortex

function.Annu. Rev. Neurosci., 24, 167202.

Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., &

Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and

their

contributions to complex frontal lobe tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive

Psychology, 41, 49 100.

Perner, J., & Lang, B. (1999).Development of theory of mind and executive

control. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 337 344.

Posner, M.I., &Rothbart, M.K. (2000).Developing mechanisms of self-regulation.

Development and Psychopathology, 12, 427441.

Ricciardelli, L. A. (1992). Bilingualism and Cognitive Development in Relation to

Threshold Theory. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 21(4), 301-316.

Stephanie M. Carlson and Andrew N. Meltzoff(2008). Bilingual experience and

executive functioning in young children. Developmental Science , 11,

282298.

Salthouse, T. A., (2005). Relations between cognitive abilities and measures of

executive functioning. Neuropsychology, 19(4,)532545.

Wylie E., & Ingram, D.E. International Second Language Proficiency Ratings

(ISLPR): General Proficiency Version for English. Griffith University. Centre for

applied Linguistics & Languages Published Nathan, Qld: Centre for Applied

Linguistics and Language, Mt Gravatt Campus Griffith University.


15/15

4. Effect of Executive Control Training on Language Switching Task in Bilinguals

Documents

Transcript of 4. Effect of Executive Control Training on Language Switching Task in Bilinguals