4.2 Article

A diffusion model approach to analysing the bilingual advantage for the Flanker task: The role of attentional control processes

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEUROLINGUISTICS
Volume 43, Issue -, Pages 28-38

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2016.08.002

Keywords

Bilingualism; Diffusion model; Attention; Flanker task; Cognitive advantage

Funding

  1. GRF [754412]
  2. Research Grants Council of Hong Kong and Seed Grants from the University of Hong Kong
  3. Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award [DE140100772]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Elderly bilingual speakers exhibit a response time (RT) advantage on tests of executive function such as the Flanker task. There is, however, a lack of consensus regarding the cognitive mechanisms underlying this bilingual advantage. We analysed Flanker task performance from elderly bilingual (N = 29, age range = 55-75) and monolingual (N = 27, age range = 53-75) speakers using Ratcliff's (1978) diffusion model, which conceptualizes decision-making as a stochastic evidence accumulation process governed by parameters with empirically validated psychological interpretations. These parameters were analysed to investigate differences in cognitive processing between bilingual and monolingual groups in flanker RT performance. A bilingual advantage on decision making onset (the non-decision time parameter) was observed. Non-decision time was shorter on incongruent flanker trials for bilingual speakers but other parameters relating to quality of evidence (drift rate) and decision criterion (boundary separation) did not differ between groups. We interpret this non-decision time cost as reflecting a process of attentional 'filtering out' of distracting information. We therefore contend that lifelong bilingual language experience generates enhanced attentional control for seniors. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available